Wacko Supremacists

This is the companion article for Lumen Gentium Is Wrong, which extensively examines basically the same problem.  It will show Lumen Gentium’s (LG) “supremacy” assertion is “quasi-heretical”.  It follows, rather trivially, that the corresponding “infallibility” statement in LG 25 is the identical problem.  The relevant section is from Lumen Gentium  22.  The full text of the problematic portion being:


“The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.  This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.”


For clarity, the central logic needs to be distilled.  The body/head relationship will be treated separately.  The phrase “is also the subject of” requires a little analysis.  “Also” denotes something prior was the “subject of,” namely, the Supreme Pontiff, who is the other “subject.”  The predicate is supreme power.

In other words, “is also the subject of” is used to predicate the supreme power to the order of bishops.  This predication can be expressed more simply via “also has.”  Finally, “order of bishops” will be replaced with “college of bishops.”  This eliminates the concept of ordained ministers, which is critical to LG’s larger scope but extraneous here.  With these simplifications, the text becomes:


The college of bishops also has supreme and full power over the universal Church, but can only exercise that power with the Pope’s consent.


This, of course, is false on its face.  In treating the Unity of God (Summa Q11), Saint Thomas said if there were two infinite beings, either 1) the perfections in both are different which implies neither are perfect and thus neither are infinite; or 2) the perfections are identical in which the infinite beings are actually the same being.  Therefore, there is exactly one God.

The logic is similar for supreme power.  Two entities cannot both be supreme.  To belabor, if two supreme entities existed, they must have separate wills.  But if both are supreme, the wills must be identical; hence, there can be only a supreme entity.

But LG indicates there are two supreme entities: the Pope and the college of bishops.  Though LG is even more ridiculous.  It asserts “supreme power” and then immediately makes it conditional.  This is “subordinate power” by definition.  To equate “subordinate” with “supreme” is an amazing error, though a humor scene is a more apt description.  However, it is not quite that simple.

The preceding only highlights the intrinsic problem.  The body/head relationship still must be examined.  This in turn will flush out an important refinement needed for “also has” reduction from above, though the actual problem is still a layer deeper.  Yet, at a naïve level, LG’s problem is already established.

While overkill, and limited to the intrinsic problem stated thus far, a set theoretic proof will be outlined for its instructive value.  Specifically, consider all possible sets (combinations) of every living person.  The exact number of combinations is 2 raised to Nth power where N is about 7.6 billion people.  The result is a huge number with 2,287,827,968 digits.

Now, let’s examine each and every set, which actually is trivial.  The simple formula is a set will contain supreme power exactly when it contains the Pope; otherwise not.  In other words, supremacy in this context has NOTHING to do with the college of bishops and EVERYTHING to do with the Pope. 

This extremely simple relationship stems from the primacy of Peter: primacy is nothing other than a different name for supremacy.  Supreme power must reside with the primacy as otherwise the primacy wouldn’t be the primacy, and vice versa.  It can’t get much simpler.  The logical error in LG is fundamentally a form of self-inclusion, which deals with the body/head relationship yet to be treated.

So, does the list of all lists include the list of all lists?  In fear of leaving various readers in infinite loops, recursive humor and further exposition will be eschewed for the moment.  Rather, a more pedestrian explanation will be given to make the error crystal clear for the average reader.

This can probably be best explained by…  Oh!  Something is happening: the screen – is shaking violently!  Earthquake!!!  No, only the screen: a disturbance in the Force!!!  No: it’s a bird, its a plane, it’s …



Well, it’s gone, whatever it was.  This is quite unprecedented.  But the above text box has mysteriously appeared.  It can’t be deleted or modified: apparently it is immutable and indestructible.  Though it is hard to decipher exactly what all of this means.  However, let us not get distracted.  Life has many mysteries, whether this was a time worm-hole, a massive computer malfunction, or something else, will need to be investigated at another time.

So, remaining calm, let us return to explaining the LG error in a simpler fashion.  It can be likened to Congress giving themselves a raise.  We are dealing with a bunch of subordinates, with a snake in the grass telling them they can be like superiors.  The subordinates then stand around their superior, and sing:


I’m Supreme.
You’re Supreme.
Wouldn’t you like to be Supreme too?
Be Supreme.
Be Supreme.


Yes, in one of the high points of Vatican II, the twenty-first Ecumenical Council, directly within the apostolic constitution Lumen Gentium, the highest level of decree, the Council Fathers though principally Pope Paul VI, solemnly declared as “doctrine” of the Holy Roman Catholic Church: Dr Pepper Supremacy.

There are endless examples of superior/inferior relationships that could be phrased in terms of Dr Pepper Supremacy.  For example, the lower courts have full and supreme power to decide all cases, but only can exercise that power in union with the Supreme Court.  Or how about this: a slave has absolute autonomy to act freely but can only exercise that autonomy with permission from its master.

Question: could the college of bishops be overruled by itself?  The rational answer is one doesn’t overrule oneself.  However, the “can only exercise with consent” clause effectively asserts the college can overrule itself, but expressed in the positive of not being overridden.  Got that? 

Well, so far, so funny.  But it should be increasingly clear the issue resides within the body/head relationship.  Also, the above Dr Pepper examples were not direct analogs to Lumen Gentium.  A more exact rendition would be: boy master marries slave girl with couple having complete autonomy but only with permission of husband.  Welcome to LG.  One might suspect this illustrious couple had a colorful courtship.  Indeed, such was the case.


Misc. Shell Game

The underlying doctrinal question was nothing new: where is the supreme power?  Also, it is not surprising that determining which of the three cups that covered the pea took center stage at Vatican II.  Furthermore, with the magician minority majority authority running the show, all of the subsequent sleight of hand could safely be predicted though not necessarily detected.

“The most important and dramatic battle”1 in the Council regarded collegiality.  There were three views on where supreme power resided: I) head, II) body/head with head representing body, III) head and also body/head in union with head.  Translating this into pea soup: I) Pope is the sole pea, II) College is the sole pea with the Pope the master cook, III) Pope is pea one with College pea two wherein pea two has identical color and taste of pea one.

Paul VI had a solid understanding of the issue, even before becoming Pope, and stayed abreast of the topic.  At the Council, he sided with view III: the two peas.  But with deafening deafness, he remained deaf to Archbishop Stafifa’s repeated warnings that the proposed schema defining these relationships was contrary to the common teaching of the Popes, Church Fathers/Doctors, all the way down the line.

Stafifa also showed the new schema was essentially identical to one, from 140 years prior, by Father Giovanni Bolgeni, which had long ago been unanimously rejected by theologians and canonists as incompatible with “the sound tradition of the Church.”2

Therefore, Archbishop Stafifa, with more than 70 supporters (the required number), requested to speak before the vote took place, but was denied this right.  After the vote, the collegiality subcommision worked to address the 572 qualified affirmative votes, but Stafifa learned that their qualifications were being ignored.  He thus wrote a lengthy letter to Paul VI, who ordered an investigation into the charge that the schema contained “an extreme form of collegiality”3 and if Stafifa was illegally refused permission to speak.

Meanwhile, 35 Cardinals and 5 Superior Generals of large religious orders had written the Pope stating the schema didn’t express view III but rather was ambiguous, and could later be given an extreme liberal interpretation.  But Paul VI didn’t believe this and attacked their arguments, so the representing Cardinal personally explained the grounds for their suspicions.  The result: no action as in still no action.

This Cardinal then suggested a debate to be held in the Pope’s presence.  Paul VI rejected the idea though the Pope asked who his theologians were.  After naming three, “the Pope at once became visibly disturbed, since they were well known and he esteemed them highly.”4  But alas, he took no action citing i) the large majority vote and ii) the Council Fathers’ deep study and prayer.  The Cardinal disagreed, but Paul VI “still took no action because of his great faith in the Theological Commission.”5

Then providentially, one of the extreme liberals wrote down how some of the ambiguous passages would be interpreted after the Council.  This fell into the hands of the 35 Cardinals and 5 Superior Generals and subsequently was brought to the Pope.  “Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.”6


Oval Circles Shaped Like Squares

The LG text was considered to be without actual false statements, rather only containing ambiguous terms.  The solution was thus to clarify the ambiguities in the text itself, and also to add a preamble called “the Preliminary Explanatory Note” to the schema.  This introduction, of course, was placed at the end of the document.

One significant clarification was the “This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff”7 clause, which Paul VI expressively desired.  But all of Paul’s amendments had already been requested by those voting with a qualified yes, though these had previously been overruled by the Theological Commission: not for theological reasons but because they were contrary to the majority.  However now, some were placed into schema.  Additionally, the Theological Commission composed the draft of the “Postliminary” Note, which Paul VI then revised.

The qualifications, the replies and the Preliminary Explanatory Note were distributed to Council, who thought the Note originated from the Theological Commission because it began: “The Commission decrees that…”8  (shock: no “in union with the Pope” clause)

Two days later, it was announced that i) there was no violation of procedural rules (regarding Stafifa’s right to speak before the vote) and the doctrinal doubts were duly examined, ii) the chapter on collegiality was not to be understood as infallible, and iii) the chapter was to be understood “according to meaning and tenor”9 of the Note, though this time it was the Pope who called attention to the Note, and explicitly extended its interpretation to entire chapter, not just for the amendments.

With the ambiguities thus safely removed, and the Note enforcing full precision to the III position (head and also body/head in union with head), the vote on the chapter regarding collegiality could commence.  It was a massive landslide: only 10 voted against with 2,134 voting in favor.  And so the Council Fathers, mounting their unicorns, took their last swig of Dr Pepper, and rode off into the sunset.


Two Peas in a Pod

Although the Explanatory Note is precise, it ultimately is circular because of self-inclusion.  The III position is clearly delineated: it is “a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops.”10  But the Roman Pontiff is a bishop that cannot be taken “together with the bishops” because he is already and always within “the bishops.”

To precisely analyze the body/head quagmire, let us first determine how supreme power resides in the first pea.  The Supreme Pontiff is the individual who is invested with the primacy.  He exercises power in the same way as everyone else.  In fine, the intellect forms ideas, then the will choses.  But the Holy Father possesses the primacy.  Thus, his acts are supreme within the proper realm.

Specifically, the Pope’s decisions cannot be overridden by anyone within the limited context of governance of the Church, which is broadly understood and includes doctrine.  There is one obvious caveat: the Pope is not above “the law,” hence Divine revelation and infallible dogmas cannot be contradicted.  The law also includes reason.  Therefore, any irrational papal statement remains exactly that: irrational, null and void, wacko, erroneous, etc.

Let us now examine how supreme power resides in the second pea: the College of Bishops.  First observe the nature is very different.  Supreme power doesn’t reside in a person and hence it doesn’t reside with the intellect/will per se.  One potential view is the collective decision made by the College as a whole bears the supreme power.

This of itself is a possibility.  But what constitutes a valid decision must be defined (e.g. a majority vote).  Furthermore, rules would be required for managing the group: adding/removing members, and more interestingly, how the initial group came into being.  Yet, distributed supreme power is logically sound as a concept.

But this is excluded here since the Supreme Pontiff has the primacy.  All Explanatory Note revisions dealt with expressing the Pope has supreme power and “is always free to exercise this power.”11  At this point, “having” requires more precision.  For explicitness, two terms will be employed as technical terms when displayed in italics.

The first term, inclusion, simply denotes set membership.  Clearly, supreme power is included within the College because the Pope is a member of the College.  Regarding lower levels, supreme power is not contained (not included) in any member of the College body (all Bishops except the Pope) nor in any combination including the entire body.  Supreme power is only contained (included) in the head (the Roman Pontiff).

While overkill, the below Venn diagram illustrates the almost trivial relationship of supremacy within the College.  This flows from the simple fact that the Supreme Pontiff has the primacy, taken together with the definition of primacy.  This diagram is an accurate depiction for inclusion.  But is it correct for the second technical term: resides?

For simplicity, resides will be defined chiefly for the context of supreme power.  To that end, recall that the primacy of Peter is not immediate.  The direct primacy belongs to Jesus Christ because He alone is the actual Head of the Church. 

The Vicar of Christ has primacy in the Church in terms of its “visible” governance.  Supreme power residing is thus defined as power decreed by Christ, a “sharing” in His primacy, as it pertains to the “visible” governance of the Church.  It is clear that supreme power resides in the head.  It is also easy to see that supreme power doesn’t reside in the body independent of the head.

But does supreme power reside in the College?  For this to be true, the College must have been invested with supreme power as a whole.  But the primacy, as LG notes, cannot be suppressed so the Pope always retains supreme power.  Thus, supreme power cannot reside in the College because it is impossible to meaningfully define two supreme powers.  This would render the schema invalid on logical grounds.  But did LG actually define two supreme powers?

In order to firmly grasp the topology, and as a preliminary for demonstrating the actual problem, let us attempt to define collegiate supremacy anyhow.  Starting with the Pope’s supreme power is the best route leading to comprehension.  From there, try extending this power across the College without contradicting the primacy.  Power is the ability/authority to act.  Any mechanism of collegiate action, whether a majority vote or the best of three unicorn heats, is ultimately subject to the Supreme Pontiff.  This exercise will quickly squash any notion of a second supremacy.

But a good way to chase your tail is to first ascribe supreme power as residing in the College.  Non-supreme power residing in the College lends to this illusion.  As one pesky member always gobbles up all power, it’s best not to think about that.  But the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.  There is one Church.  Surely, this unity is reflected in the hierarchy wherein thus resides supreme power.  If forced to admit supreme power folds into one member, must be time to change the subject, or obfuscate by saying it is the “also the subject of…”  Hmm, for a new subject, how about the unity of the Trinity?


Consenting Supremes

Yet, is it possible for supreme power to reside in the College?  The Church is a supernatural organism.  Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts in such a fashion that the inferior body with superior head is actually a distinct superior whole?

To flush out the root problem, let us start with a definition of the College in terms of its moving parts.  First, each Bishop has the power to deliberate on matters regarding the universal Church.  But this power, officially, can only be exercised collegially (Pope exempted), most prominently in Ecumenical Councils.

A Council consists of the proceedings by the Council Fathers.  The deliberations produce decrees.  The deliberations are made by the body and head.  Decrees approved by College are subject to the head for his final action, stylized as “consent” in LG.  Within this functional framework, how is supreme power exercised by the College?  The trigger point is the head’s final action, which the Note explains as thus:


“the term ‘consent’ suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head”12


The safe bet is “consent” actually means “approval,” but let’s play the consenting adults game.  Two pieces on the board: i) College exercising supreme power and ii) Supreme Pontiff giving consent.

First case, the Supreme Pontiff’s consent is not an act of supreme power.  Here, collegiate supreme power is (absolutely) conditional to a non-supreme power.  Second case, the Supreme Pontiff’s consent is an act of supreme power.  This renders collegiate supreme power as (absolutely) conditional to a supreme power.

Tabling the question whether denial of consent is of supreme power or not, there is the timing issue of when the College accepts the consent in order to exercise collegiate supreme power.  Acceptance cannot come before, though it could happen simultaneously; or must it happen within 30 days, or would it actually make any difference?

Lumen Gentium doesn’t speak in these terms.  Collegiate activity has a two thousand year history including variations within Councils.  Broad language is necessary to cover all cases succinctly.  But more importantly, LG always treats the College as a unity, as a “hierarchical communion”13.

However, LG’s suggestive language of “consent,” self-inclusive logical construct and its usage of “exercise” easily lend to the impression that two supremes are involved.  That is not the case, but it is important to crystalize this, which here is given the form:


DZ 2334 Status: infallibility pending

If anyone denieth that, the Supreme Pontiff, in exercising supreme power, even when engaged in consensual collegiate activity, as the sole exerciee of the sole supreme power entrusted solely to the sole Supreme Pontiff, is the sole exerciser of supreme power, but saith otherwise, let him be anathema.

If anyone saith that, the sole exercise of supreme power is not solely exercised by the sole Supreme Pontiff, but is conditioned, dependent upon, augmented thereof, or essentially participated in by anyone or anything, let him be anathema.

If anyone saith that, so-called consenting supremes is anything more than a logical construct, with Supreme Pontiff’s exercise of supreme power attributed to a collegiate supreme as anything more than superficial containment, asserting collegiate supreme is truly exercising a supreme power, outside or inside or anyside of said Supreme Pontiff’s exercise thereof, regardless if consensual supremacy allegedly takes place in the Sistine Chapel, Highway 61, or even the Noosphere, let him be anathema


DZ 2334 has been duly submitted to [email protected] with status to be updated upon approval.  (Interested parties: see website for details and payment options for $49.95 filing fee.)


The above is essentially the definition of supreme power under the primacy of Peter.  As such, it is incontestable.  Lumen Gentium implies the same thing, though the two definitions of “exercise” makes it less apparent.  “Exercise” in DZ 2334 denotes the direct “enactment” of the proposition: what makes it official.  In LG, “exercise” has a dual meaning of “determination” of the proposition(s) together with the enactment.

Specifically, LG treats everything the College does as collegiate.  The Bishops’ role is thus with the determination of the decrees while the Supreme Pontiff enacts them while potentially contributing with the determination.  As enactment is an exercise of supreme power by a College member (the Pope), and hence a collegiate act, the whole process of collegiality is thus an exercise of supreme power.

That perspective cannot be disputed, but it is not innocuous.  Consider when the Supreme Pontiff acts alone, and then define “alone.”  Lumen Gentium defines this as non-collegiate from the perspective the College is a permanent Church structure.  While the Pope often acts “alone” enough to say that, he also works in groups quite frequently.  With this, finally, we come to the crux of the problem.

The Curia is the governing body that runs the Church on a daily basis.  While not intrinsic to the Church’s constitution, the Curia is permanent structure for all practical purposes: a sizable organization simply requires delegation.  While the Curia is largely autonomous although subordinate, some decrees such as certain items from the CDF are signed by the Pope.  These become exercises of supreme power.

Additional examples are the behind the scenes workings.  It is rumored Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange was a ghost writer for Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis.  Regardless of Garrigou-Lagrange’s involvement, it remains true that Popes (particularly recent) often collaborate with a trusted group when producing complex magisterial documents.  Multiple drafts, comments from others, incorporating as revisions, is the norm.

Further consider the Dynamic Dual of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.  It has been indicated, they had many a heated discussion.  In a sense, this is papal involvement intimate beyond that of collegiality.  So, does that make the Dynamic Dual also the subject of supreme power? 

The inaugurating example was the Odd Couple Consortium (Pope Francis and President Trump).  Per LG, why wouldn’t this Consortium also be the subject of supreme power, and indeed, be infallible?  Or more realistically, consider the Pope collaborating with a group who wants to eradicate religion, particularly the Catholic Church.  Surely, the Communistic China Cartel is the subject of supreme power in its domain of selecting Bishops; though perversely, this might be a step-up from McCarrick.

However, Dr Pepper Supremacy was recently made official via Episcopalis Communio.  Decrees by the Synod of Bishops are now magisterial provided the Pope approves, which are published in the joint name of the Pope and the Synod.  How does this work in practice?  Start by injecting propositions without any discussion.  Distribute the text exclusively in Italian to the Bishops, a language many of them don’t know. Then hold a vote.  Result: it tastes just like fried.


Sola Peaola

Fundamentally, this is a modeling question: which model best describes supreme power as exercised in the Church?  Lumen Gentium’s model (the III position) is not technically wrong as it accurately represents Church doctrine.  While not without merit, it is a shoehorn fit; moreover it suffers from Dr Pepper Supremacy.  Alternatively, delineating the determination/enactment components of “exercise” yields a simpler and problem free model.

With respects to enactment, supreme power resides only in the head (DZ 2334).  In fine, the Supreme Pontiff is the sole entity with supreme power, is always exercised by himself solely, even when collaborating within a group.  Regarding determination, anyone can contribute.  But the College is constituted by divine law to uniquely participate in this process when the Supreme Pontiff chooses to work collegiately.  Collegiate acts are supreme, but only because the Pope enacted the decree(s).

Structurally, it is that simple.  So why not say so?  At this point, infallibility will be brought into the mix to bring the issue out into full high relief.

Axiomatically, primacy and infallibility cannot be divided between two separate entities since infallibility is a specialized form of primacy: dividing would introduce two supremes.  Infallibility denotes a non-over ridable decision with the impossibility of it being wrong.  Infallibility is inseparable from primacy with infallibility being the greater.  Thus, infallibility is a property restricted to supremacy with an infallible act necessarily being an act of supreme power.

Infallibility deals with defining an eternal truth that has been divinely revealed.  Per Vatican I, papal infallibility is limited to matters of faith or morals.  Such truths are quite often obvious from Sacred Scripture, though others, because of their implicit nature (e.g. the Assumption) are not as salient.

Lumen Gentium states the College is infallible, but how?  The determination of dogmatic formulas by an Ecumenical Council will in all likelihood be correct (see Appendix A).  But close doesn’t count.  To affirm the determination is infallible before receiving “consent” is to deny the possibility the Supreme Pontiff could, aided by the Holy Ghost, discover a problem at the last moment.  Hence, the guarantee comes exclusively from the only one with the charisma of infallibility.  With this, LG apparently concurs, in a round-about fashion.


Schema Sorcery

Supreme power resides in the Supreme Pontiff who is contained in the College is further belabored in Appendix B, but let us solidify that LG actually teaches Dr Pepper Supremacy, the jingle more accurately being: “We’re Supreme.  We’re Supreme.  Wouldn’t you like to be Supreme too?”

Lumen Gentium’s predicating “the subject of” to the College is, strictly speaking, definitional.  And the College is indeed unique, the only permanent group as Tradition testifies.  This could be construed to bar ephemeral groups from being “the subject of,” which significantly do not act in their own name.

On the other hand, there is nothing in LG that technically excludes groups like the Odd Couple Consortium from also being “the subject of.”  Nor could it in terms of LG’s notion of “exercise” because “the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will”14 and thus work as such.  Further, there is no material difference between the two.

While the Holy Ghost will particularly guide Sacred Councils, docility is a factor as well.  But infallibility is never diffused into an ethereal supreme awaiting consent.  However, it is equally true that the Holy Ghost will also appropriately guide those when the Pope works “alone”.  Infallibility is not Shake ‘N’ Bake.  Nor is exercising supreme power per enactment.

The Preliminary Explanatory Note is the authoritative key for interpreting LG’s collegiality chapter.  It effectively defines “the subject of” as denoting supreme power as meaning either resides in OR contained within, but this logic is necessarily combinatorial explosive.


“The College, which does not exist without the head, is said ‘to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.’ This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question.”15


Truly, a rational person would rather say all non-head members are subordinates: this must be admitted of necessity so the primacy of the head is not called into question.  But Master Merelogist Montini signed his name to the concoction of supreme superficiality.

The logical consequence is it “must be admitted of necessity” that the head together with all Coloradan pot heads must have supreme power so as not to call into question the Pope’s headship.  The Note’s intrinsic logic simply explodes into full blown Dr Pepper Supremacy.

The theoretical number of “supremes” is the two billion digit value given earlier, though including only qualified groups would reduce it to a mere astronomic quantity.  However in practice, the number is quite small as magisterial documents are few.  And for infallible ones, almost zero.  The recent list is i) male only priesthood and, well, the list is about that short.

Yet, while contrived, Team Francis-Trump has the charisma of infallibility in exactly the same way as the College does: namely it doesn’t.  It is nothing more than superficial containment, which Lumen Gentium has been passed off as doctrine for over fifty years.

While Apostolica Sollicitudo established the Synod of Bishops at the end of Vatican II, Episcopalis Communio officially turned it into a new “subject of” supreme power.  Also, while a Council can be counted as one (all Bishops are requested to attend), each Synod is a selected subset of Bishops: fundamentally a unique invite list.  Is there a huge number of potential, realistic Synods?  Conservative counting easily racks up a value more than a hundred digits long: more supremes than you can shake a can of Dr Pepper at…

Such is the problem.  LG implies and denies a second primacy via a supreme College.  But the primacy of Peter is dogmatically defined.  Vatican II’s formulation obscures the primacy, rendering it quasi-heretical via its nonsensical declaration of two supremes.  Or more exactly, it defines the same supreme twice.  Logic cannot be overruled for it is the basis of reason.  Curiously though…  Oh no!  It is happening again!  The screen, the screen, it’s shifting, it is, it is…



Over.  It wasn’t so bad the second time.  But again, text has inexplicably materialized.  But this one seems suspiciously familiar, and yup, it hyper-links to an article on Mediatrix Media.  This author (who currently is learning how to ride a unicorn in third person) wrote the core article a while back.  The central idea there deals with self-inclusion.  But let’s not get distracted.

To conclude, the problem is the word “supreme.”  Christ built His Church upon the Apostles: the College of Bishops definitely have the power to govern the Church.  The issue is that of properly expressing the primacy.


The Schemers

The insertion of the heretical schema into LG was no accident.  It may well have been attempted with the complicity of the Theological Commission via a few guilty members.  In any case, the extreme liberals temporarily triumphed with a vast majority vote.  While the endeavor to separate the Bishops’ power from the Supreme Pontiff failed, Paul VI’s papering over of the errors left Dr Pepper Supremacy intact.  All things considered, serves him right…

Determining the collegiality boundaries is important.  However, there is a concerted effort to destroy the papacy.  One prong of this fork can be traced back to 1955 when Cardinal Avery Dulles said:

As a logical structure – yes, theologically – no, in theory – no.

Significantly, ideas related to dividing the primacy became a hot topic in the 1960’s and 1970’s, particularly among German theologians.  The thrust was how and in what form the Roman primacy could exercise its authority.  While the merits are debatable and the boundary outskirts radical, such discussions are valid per se.  However, Karl Rahner was one of several who claimed papal primacy could be shared among several individuals.  This is blatant heresy as Vatican I, Session IV makes abundantly clear (see Chapters 2 and 3 in particular).

But Rahner had stiff competition with Cardinal Dulles.  Beyond his “committee pope”, Dulles said in 1977 that “it can be defended that the Council implicitly taught that the united church of the future” will not be the “absorption into Roman Catholicism” of the Protestant denominations but rather “a joint creation” with the Catholic Church not “dissolved in any way” but “would modify herself by entering this embracing unity.”

This is laughable.  The primacy of Peter is in complete contradiction with Dulles’ “una sancta” (the one and holy) church if union has the slightest meaning in the least non-superficial sense. 

However, let’s examine the logic behind Dulles’ premise, derived from paragraph 4 of Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), that Protestants “should not think about abandoning anything that the grace of the Holy Spirit has worked in their midst.”  The fallacy is the implication they have something that Catholics don’t.  From this comes the need for a “joint creation.”  Unsurprisingly, Dulles’ idea of unity contradicts the very document he “interprets” as UR (2) manifestly states the unity willed by God is that “in which everyone is – surprise, surprise! – Catholic” where this is the Catholic meaning of Catholic: not Dulles anti-Catholic meaning.

For a contemporary example, Pope Francis might be attempting something similar in this arena.  It won’t be expounded here [see The Pope’s Ouija Board; Appendix B for an outline], but it concerns granting “episcopal conferences” with “genuine doctrinal authority.”  The problem is not with these words necessarily, but there is the danger the intent is to steal from Peter to pay Paul 1, Paul 2, Paul 3, etc…



It has been said the crisis in the Church is nothing new: things have been just as bad before.  However, while times were terrible in the past, what is currently underway is unprecedented.

Doctrinal disputes are not new.  Such divisions, which generally affect the Bishops, is quite often the reason for Ecumenical Councils. The problem today is multifold stemming from Communist infiltration as well as Masonic, of unknown depths.  But the focus here regards another type of heretic, those within the Church, apostates whose ideas have already been condemned but who refuse to leave.  They instead lie in wait to inject heresy at every opportunity.

These are the Krazy Korrupt Katholics, primarily Modernists, who want to replace Catholicism with a Khurch divorced from what Jesus Christ instituted.  While already scheming for a century, it was Vatican II when they flexed their power, albeit beforehand many had obtained key positions in the clergy, universities and seminaries.

Their existence was no secret as Monsignor Luigi Borromeo noted at the onset of Vatican II:

But their strength was greatly underestimated, and their subsequent infiltration and infection massive.  The moral corruption of the clergy, as manifested by homosexuality, directly maps to the denial of the Divine Law that underlies Modernism.

So, what was the “determination” quality level from the Council that declared itself supreme?  The KKK was caught with the bad schema.  Funny thing though, Montini acted as if clueless regarding the Shadow Council.  The bad schema wasn’t so much openly heretical as it was readily interpretable as such.  This is Vatican II in a nutshell.

The Shadow Council successfully corrupted the documents by watering down the faith with ambiguous language and omissions.  The Kouncil Fathers connived outside the official proceedings, forging language to get past Council Fathers, which was seized upon afterwards with results only painfully too well known.

These “supreme” documents contained a slew of strategically placed, open ended constructs, without proper safeguards, which the hoodwinked Council agreed to.  The Liturgy is a prime example where the expressed will was cast to the wind afterwards.  Concealing intentions to implant poison, by its true name, is lying, the gravity here rendering it objective mortal sin.

The Church needs to separate the wheat from the chaff: to resolve the ambiguities with magisterial clarity and explicitly condemn the abuses.  Further, the KKK must be purged, regardless of its entrenchment going straight to the top.  The Bishops cannot stand by silently as Cardinal Müller has said.  They must proclaim the truth and denounce its perversion.

These heresies must be eradicated with those propagating them excommunicated if necessary.  The corrupt Bishops must be named by name, starting with the Kouncil Fathers: proper disciplinary action is necessary.  For those deceased (burning in Hell?), the Church needs to acknowledge their deeds by Posthumous Excommunications.

For those still living and their kronies, excommunication is too LENIENT for the unrepentant.  These people are LYING through their teeth, secretly destroying the FAITH of others by inducing them and thus putting their soul in jeopardy, without countless souls already LOST for all ETERNITY!!!

This is the most HEINOUS of crimes.  It clearly calls for CAPITAL punishment: by electrocution, by lethal injection, whatever it takes.  This would be best done by the civil authorities, in UNION with the CHURCH.  In terms of civil law, religious liberty MUST be maintained.  Those such slated for death row did not simply burn down a church, they are GUILTY of depriving their countrymen of the faith handed down to them from those, many of whom which gave their LIVES in defending their country’s freedom.  DEATH is too good for them.  Citizenship, their property, EVERYTHING must be taken from them…

[Author’s note: the editorial staff has just stated “things are getting a little out of hand” with highlighted text the author’s paraphrase.  Just as well, Native Tap Dancer got loose again.  As the unicorn leash laws are pretty strict around here, a roundup break was necessary.]

Continuing with editorial compliance, the Church, indeed all humanity, is in a very precarious state with the fierce battle rapidly coming to its apex.  Therefore…  Oh.  The screen is shaking again.  But strangely, one can get used to about anything if exposed to it enough.  Just sit tight and more text will probably materialize in short order.



There it is, basically the same as before.  Everybody move along, nothing to see.  Now, the KKK believes they will succeed.  While efforts to thwart this is important, there is no easy solution.  All major Marian apparitions indicate direct divine intervention will be required to purify the Church and the world.  God knows well when and how He will deal with this.  Indeed, the Virgin Mary revealed some detail on May 31st of 1955:


“Satan is not yet expelled.  The Lady of All Nations may now come in order to expel Satan.  She comes to announce the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit will then come over this earth.  You, however, shall pray my prayer which I gave to the world.”


The devil is acting very aggressively now.  In fine, this is Genesis 3:15.  But the Lady of All Nations will not only expel Satan: the demonic venom now ensnaring humanity will be entirely purged.  The victory has been announced though how the INFILTRATORS will be flushed out has not been disclosed.  However, the fate of KHRISTIANS who refuse to CONVERT, klinging to the KKK in spite of the great LIGHT to be given, is sufficiently indicated.

But error must combated.  Anyone touting the “Spirit of Vatican II” must be CLOSELY examined and JUDGED guilty if they refuse to TALK.  That INCLUDES all KRABBY-FACED KROoks [editor’s note: capital letters limit reached] who smile for the kameras while living double lives.  for this is the end.  it is the supreme end.  it is the supreme and ultimate end.  for most surely, absolutely, categorically, unconditionally, undeniably  and definitely, for this verily is the end of the essay.


Links referenced in this essay


Revision history


Click HERE to play exciting face pie RACING!!!
(Sorry, per editorial demand, this game only serves up The Supremes...)
Saint Louis de Montfort's consecration is the supreme Marian consecration.  Mediatrix Media's song, For You, supremely sings that.  All proceeds go to charity.  Click here for details. ../images/songs/ForYou/ForYou_ImageMedium.jpg