FrancisChurch Cognizant Of The Fact That It Has Lost With The Truth…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So today your humble blogger will continue a sub-theme that was embedded in yesterday’s post titled The Battle For Western Civilization And The GOOGLAG!

Just to recap yesterday’s post, your humble blogger presented not one, not two, but three independent yet related OCCURRENCES, namely the firing of James Damore by Googlag Google, the suppression of the Diamond and Silk videos by the Google subsidiary YouTube and the banning and removing all content – including the private mailbox of the statistics professor Salil Mehta, an adjunct professor at Columbia and  Georgetown Universities by, you guessed it, Google.

One manner in which the above independent yet related actions of Google can be understood is through our understanding of what is known as the Overton Window. And just to remind you dear readers, the Overton Window is the term assigned to the concept of what constitutes “acceptable speech”. Here is how this term is defined (see here and here):

The Overton Window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept…. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy….

Devers refines the definition:

The Overton Window is a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.

So today we drill down into our understanding of what constitutes the range of acceptable ideas the public will accept, i.e. the Overton Window. To be more precise, we will look at how an Overton Window is defined.

In the humble opinion of your even more humble blogger, it would appear that there are currently two competing mechanism for establishing an Overton Window, namely:

the classical manner through the use of fact, evidence, logic and reason

and

the post-modernist manner through the use of narratives.

A great example of just this phenomenon, i.e. the competing mechanisms can be seen in the video that is embedded at the top of this page. In that video, we see Dr. Jordan Peterson reviewing the infamous document written and submitted to his upper management by James Damore, the former Google employee.

On an aside, the document was written on the behest of the Google upper management as part of an exercise to help enhance Google’s internal operations. The problem was that answers that Mr. Damore provided ran afoul of the prevailing post-modernist narrative. But I digress…

In the interview, the following part is relevant for our needs. It starts at the 13:30 minute mark. Here is that bit:

Jordan Peterson: “Well, I suspect… well I’m virtually certain that you have a majority view point. It’s just that the people who hold the alternative perspective, which are the radical social constructionist type, who insist that everything is a consequence of socialization, the’re a little bit more organized politically, but the’re clearly wrong scientifically, they are wrong factually, the’re wrong ethically for that matter, so… so you probably have more support than you think.

And it will be very interesting to see how that turns out.”   

Now speaking of “interesting” situations and turnouts, we venture over to FrancisChurch.

In another independent, yet related OCCURRENCE in a different sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, i.e. the ECCLESIASTICAL in this case, we get news of more problems arising from another one of Francis’ post-modernist social constructions.

Over on two of my favorite Catholic blogs, i.e. Rorate Caeli (see here) and OnePeterFive (see here), posts appeared relating to a recent interview given by our old friend and kissing aficionado Archbishop Victor “Tucho” Fernandez. The subject matter of these posts is his problematic ghostwritten treatise “The Joy of Sex”.

With respect to the Rorate Caeli post, it contains a translation by Andrew Guernsey. The money quote is from the prologue to the translation and reads as follows:

In an article that provides key insights into the mind of Pope Francis, Fernandez compares adultery to self-defense as having “exceptions”. Indeed, Pope Francis has spoken twice of alleged conflicts between the 5th and the 6th Commandments (Ed. note: you can’t make this stuff up!) with respect to justifying the use of condoms. Moreover, Fernandez argues that the magisterial “flip-flops” of the Church at Vatican II on religious freedom and salvation outside the Church set precedent for Pope Francis to contradict his predecessors in Amoris Laetitia.

So hold that thought.

Over on the OnePeterFive blog, we get an in-depth analysis by Steve Skojec of the interview and a dangling question as to why it reads as it reads. Here is the pertinent part:

Is it just me? Or is Fernández carefully stepping away from the danger zone on Francis’ behalf? His interpretations here are full of casuistry and would hardly be considered orthodox, but they appear to me to be moving away from the current position and in the direction of at least appearing to honor the Church’s moral norms. Or perhaps more aptly put, to at least to admit they exist.

I don’t know whether to be encouraged or concerned.

The answer to Mr. Skojec’s question can also most likely be explained by our understanding of the Overton Window and the methods used to establish it’s boundaries.

What appears to be the case is that TeamFrancis, just like the Google upper management, which has been using post-modernist constructionist narratives to define it’s FrancisTheology, just as Google has been using it to set its diversity policy, has run into a problem.

That problem can best be visualized as the post-modernist constructionist Barque of Francis running onto the sandbar of facts, logic and reason, i.e. OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Not to mention Natural Moral Law.

So this humble blogger’s take on the question posed by Mr. Skojec, would be to see the “Tucho” Frenandez interview as an attempt to muddy more the already muddy post-modernist, social constructionist, post Vatican II waters.

The reason behind the need to make the post VII water more muddy is to walk back a proposition that is untenable and falling outside of even the post VII Overton Window.

Specifically, what is most likely the case is that the last remaining vestiges of Catholicism, i.e. the rationalist Scholasticism, among the Catholic bishops has resurfaced to a point where the FrancisReading of “The Joy of Sex” is simply unacceptable.

Even though TeamFrancis is “more organized politically, but the’re clearly wrong scientifically (theologically), they are wrong factually, the’re wrong ethically for that matter, so… so you (dear Catholic) probably have more support (among the Bishops) than you think”.

Therefore, TeamFrancis has decided to double down on the post-VII strategy by trying to “make muddier” the already very muddied VII water to the point where “The Joy of Sex” can become at least tolerated.

And the reason for this above observation can be discerned from the following part of Dr. Peterson’s reply to James Damore (24:45 mark):

Dr. Peterson: You know, the other thing that you might consider is that it’s possible that this thing will turn out extraordinarily positive for you. You know, it’s going to be a rough ride, but to the degree that you are accurate in your observations then… you know, it’s not that easy to… it’s not that easy for the opponents of truth to have a battle with truth. It’s not easy to have a battle with reality. You know, you tend to lose.  

Concluding, the simple answer to why Msgr. Fernandez has come out with this “more muddying” initiative is that TeamFrancis has become cognizant of the fact that it has lost its battle with the Truth.

Or to use another example, “2+2=5” is FALSE ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE and to EVERYONE.

Just like Holy Communion for serial, unrepentant adulterers.

 

The Battle For Western Civilization And The GOOGLAG!

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’m back…

Hope all my readers had a pleasant August. I know I did.

And even with all that has been happening this past month, I have been very good about focusing on my vacation and the vacation of the young Armaticii, and have not posted for quite a while.

But now, it’s time to get back to the chronicling work.

I have been wondering what topic I should elevate as the lead off topic post vacation and I have decided to start with the ongoing war on Western Civilization.

And as it just so happens, a familiar name for my dear loyal readers has been in the news currently. His name is Salil Mehta and he is our Deus Ex Machina resident statistics expert and one who your humble blogger was referencing quite regularly before the November 2016 presidential election to help explain how the FAKE NEWS POLLS were being WEAPONIZED in order to create DESPONDENCY among the Trump voter base to keep them at home and give the election to Sick, Crooked, Unelectable Hillary.

What appears to be the case with Mr. Mehta, the notorious anti-civilization and leftist company Google, has “vaporized” Mr. Mehta’s presence on it’s servers, including his email account.

And what was Mr. Mehta’s transgression to merit this drastic, not to mention draconian actions on the part of Google?

Well, we don’t know.

For sure, that it.

But there is a pattern forming…

And as my long time readers know, independent yet related OCCURRENCES lead to PATTERNS, from which PROCESSES can be identified, and from which GENERAL PRINCIPLES can be extracted. But I digress…

On another Google owned platform, the internet channel You Tube has been suppressing Free Speech in its own right. The latest suppression has been directed against two young black ladies, Diamond and Silk.

It would appear that these ladies have also committed transgressions against the post-modernist “theology of Cultural Marxism”. Specifically, the context of the videos that these two ladies have been producing has run afoul of the Google sensors.

And to finish up with the introduction, these actions come on the back of the firing of a Google employee that has been the biggest news a couple of weeks ago. That former employee is Jim Damore and his transgression was to write a document that was requested during a internal company meeting, and to base that document on OBJECTIVE REALITY, not to mention the current and latest scientific research. Here and here and here and here are those facts.

These independent, yet related OCCURRENCES have earned the company the moniker: GOOGLAG.

 As in Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago.

So what we are seeing unfolding before our very eyes and all within one corporate structure, and a very important one at that, is the WAR ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION in full swing. 

And they ain’t hiding it either…

So to wrap this up, at the top of the post is another video with Stefan Molyneux and Jesse Lee Peterson. What is important to note, as apparent in this video, is that the current situation has created a dynamic among men of good will in which a purported “atheist” and a protestant “pastor” can have a conversation about the spiritual nature of evil, and both agree that that it is this spiritual battle that is the ROOT CAUSE of the current predicament.

Who would have thunk only a few short months ago…

And now, on to the Zero Hedge post (see original here) with a primer from Stefan Molyneux about another empire and predecessor of our current government and political order, namely the Roman Empire. (It’s a long one, so save it for a weekend viewing.)

Even thought this video is rather long, it should speak to  us…

One Statistics Professor Was Just Banned By Google: Here Is His Story

Statistics professor Salil Mehta, adjunct professor at Columbia and Georgetown who teaches probability and data science and whose work has appeared on this website on numerous prior occasions, was banned by Google on Friday.

What did Salil do to provoke Google? It is not entirely clear, however what is clear is that his repeated attempts at restoring his email, blog and other Google-linked accounts have so far been rejected with a blanket and uniform statement from the search giant.

Here is what happened, in Salil Mehta’s own words.

Dont do a googol of evil

Freedom is not free unless corporations who exert a large influence in our lives believe in our well-being.  I am a statistics professor and understand that there needs to be reasonable standards to control a large social network and make sure everyone is able to enjoy it freely.  Invariably people disagree (we all see this), but some principles, such as simply showing probability and statistics with the sole hope of educating others, should be acceptable and in the middle of the distribution.  I am for a higher standard, and a higher purpose.  There is great care that I have taken to make sure that people treat one other well, admit faults, and present math and probability education to a wide audience.

On Friday afternoon East Coast Time by surprise, I was completely shut down in all my Google accounts (all of my gmail accounts, blog, all of my university pages that were on google sites, etc.) for no reason and no warning.  A number of us were stunned and unsure, but clearly we know at this point it wasn’t an accident.  Here are some examples commented from best-selling author Nassim Taleb, and they have been retweeted by government officials, and the NYT and WSJ journalists. 

My ads-free blog itself is a probability theory site, with 27 million reads and has somewhere near 150k overall followers.  It’s been read by Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, Nobel Laureates, multiple governments, celebrity athletes around the world, deans of many universities (on the syllabi of same), and a number of TV news anchors.  So it’s been a great boon for Google to be noticed so kindly by essentially a charitable site promoting math education.  What great people from all corners of the world and at all levels who can enjoy Google, until it suddenly died Friday afternoon.

My background is clean, and without a political or social agenda.  I am not promoting any specific viewpoint.  I teach probability math and that’s it.  Have worked with both the Obama administration and advised on polling statistics for the Trump campaign, am an adjunct professor at three top universities, an editor of the peer-reviewed journal of the American Statistical Association, and wrote a best-selling statistics book (all the proceeds of which I gave to charity!) https://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Topics-Salil-Mehta/dp/1499273533

The NYT has a popular print article this weekend and they cited my Google blog, but alas it not links to an embarrassing malfunction, for many to see: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/19/business/the-stock-market-has-been-magical-it-cant-last.html

This doesn’t look good.  Now instead of mathematics, reporters have turned to this latest circus nightmare from Google as an example of how they are compounding bad decisions on good people anywhere and at any time. 

Can they not differentiate me from an evil person?  Can they not see the large and reputable people and institutions that have relied on my work?  Do they have better people who can coach them on how to make decisions with much better taste and finesse?  What’s next, all CEOs and professors and politicians are going to be shut down from social media whenever it is least expected?  Overnight hi-tech lynching squads are a thing of the past.  We can’t have kangaroo courts and hope to lead with moral authority.

There is a lot of energy being spent right now thinking about how this happens to your best customers, just like that.  Fear is running wild about who is next and on what other social media platforms.  Have used Google for 11 years with no issue.  Have driven enormous free traffic to your products and properties.  But now that’s been severely damaged as the trust/reputational value has been crushed, and I have to re-emerge quickly elsewhere and deal with this fall-out.  I have many students, family, coworkers, etc who typically send me e-mails each day and all of it is vanishing with a kicked-back “user doesn’t exist” error.  And that’s totally unacceptable.  Through my many companies have business accounts on different social media and have no issue getting a marketing line, but one needs to know who they are dealing with and not treat them this badly.  The wrongs here are not being done by me.

Again, a math site.  An academic site that you can see from the various header tabs of the archives (http://web.archive.org/web/20170518181653/http://statisticalideas.blogspot.com/2012/11/statistical-ideas-website.html).  These are applications of formulas and shouldn’t be subject of limitations of free speech.  A lot of great people like it.  Hopefully Google needs to take huge step back and reexamine what went wrong and how the product could be better for others going forward, so that they and all of us grow well.  People’s faith in democracy is on the line.  Faith that technology companies are looking out for our good first.

I have followed their common “appeal” form but no response for three days.  Also connected with one of the VPs over the weekend and it still takes time until receiving this today!  Just more of a reflection of how cold a company can treat someone very poorly: without any information, and lack of ability to move forward in their life (can I get real reasons if any, can I get advance notice, can I get my contact list back from gmail, and why are university properties unrelated to my blog shut down?) 

We are going to be looking back on this time in Google’s history and those of other social media and know that they have done some very immoral and confusing things, and it has hurt their public reputation with decent people who wanted to grow into the next future with them.

More Scales Falling…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Guest post: from the Cunctarum Haeresum Interemptrix blog.

FOR THE RECORD

The Slow Death of the Novus Ordo in the West

As the numbers of vocations continue to dwindle in the West, where priests are recruited from Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon, Poland, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and central America, the entire experiment of anthropocentric religion in Catholic guise is on the verge of collapse.

The new religion of man focused on this present world and getting along with everyone is failing in spectacular fashion. Looking at just the demographics of priests, the collapse will come absolutely unforced, by the mere power of math and statistics. The average age of a Catholic priest in the United States in 1970 was 35. These men would have begun their priestly formation well before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) when vocations were abundantly plentiful under Pastor Angelicus, Pope Pius XII. Today, the average age of a Catholic priest in the USA is 64. The demographics of Catholics themselves are also cascading downward in a breathtaking manner: birthrates in Europe, Canada, the US and even South America have fallen below the replacement rate.

CBS News Report: Catholic Church feels squeeze of priest shortage

Quite apart from any malicious strategy applied by the Church’s enemies from without, the collapse of the Western Church appears to be an inside job. The elevation by Pope John XXIII of theologians suppressed under Pope Pius XII is where the enemies of the true faith were able to come out in the light of day. Pope Angelo Roncalli not only rehabilitated the neoModernist theologians, he tied the hands of every orthodox prelate by announcing that Vatican II (and the orientation it introduced) would condemn no errors (the “medicine of mercy” hermeneutic). So at once we had a condemned theology and no mechanism whereby to oppose it.

Paul VI went further by reforming the Holy Office into the Confraternity of the Doctrine of the Faith, abrogating the Oath Against Modernism, and dissolving the Index of Forbidden Books. His most grievous damage of course was done by suppressing the Missal of St. Pius V and promulgating Fr. Annibale Bugnini’s man-made Forma Normativa as the Novus Ordo Missae. Pope John Paul II reformed the code of Canon Law in 1983 which included the abrogation of 141 canons dealing with the beatification and canonization process, dissolving the function of “devil’s advocate” in the office of the Promotor Fidei. This effectively denuded any attempts to investigate the worthiness of candidates for Sainthood, and in just 25 years John Paul II beatified one-third of all the Saints in Church history.

The practice of making it nearly impossible to condemn any errors or apply any canonical standards to contemporary teaching was made even more self-destructive for Catholics by urging the twin-headed spectacle of pan-christian ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. Stripped of all means of determining truth and error and sent blindly into endless ‘dialogue’ with the practitioners of all religions produced a predictable result. What once was the only way to obtain eternal salvation eroded into just one of many ways of praying, believing, of seeing man and the world.

According to Pope Benedict XVI however, the real cause of the crisis in the Catholic Church is the collapse of the sacred liturgy, and in particular, the Mass. The form of the Mass handed down from the earliest Christian centuries and attributed to the Apostles was universally suppressed in 1970, giving the faithful the idea that it was somehow now no longer needed, ineffective, or even worse, something evil that should be shunned and avoided. While indults were permitted for the Tridentine Mass between 1984 and 2006, few Bishops allowed it. By the time Pope Benedict XVI liberated it from the control of hostile prelates in 2007, it had been suppressed for 37 years, effectively wiping out all memory of centuries of liturgical Tradition. To add to the stigma, Pope Paul VI and John Paul II unjustly censored the most fruitful missionary bishop of the 20th century for the ‘crime’ of forming priests for the Traditional liturgy.

Now its all about the demographics. An aging priesthood offering only the man-made Mass of Paul VI on behalf of an aging population of Catholics who contracepted and aborted themselves into fewer and smaller families has amply demonstrated the folly and hubris of the Second Vatican Council’s reformers. The experiment of anthropocentric religion has failed, and the price of adopting its theories and reforming the Church thereby is the collapse of Catholicism in the West. Soon there will simply be almost no priests left to baptize, absolve, and confect the Eucharist.

All is not lost. Those who rebuilt the edifice of Catholic Tradition while covered under the shadow of stigma as “schismatics” and “excommunicates” are enjoying a profound resurgence of health and vitality. The seminaries that form priests for the Traditional Latin Mass are bursting at the seams with new vocations. Again, simply by the math, at some point in the not-too-distant future, they will overtake the aging, graying, and rapidly diminishing Vatican II priests and become the majority. If Christ does not return in the next two or three decades, the conciliar priests will simply die off, fade away into history, and be remembered as those who drove a healthy, vibrant Catholic Church into near-irreversible decline only to be rescued by the very priests they ostracized, marginalized, and oppressed. And with these young priests practicing Tradition come the young families with lots of Catholic babies.

There is a divine lesson to be learned here for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and can master elementary math.

The Slow Death of the Novus Ordo in the West

Summorum Pontificum End-Game – Much More Important Than You Think…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today we stay with the SSPX “recognition” talks and what can be called the Summorum Pontificum endgame. In fact, the Summorum Pontificum endgame is nothing more than the battle at one level, the liturgical level, of a wider fight for the Catholic Church and at the end Western Civilization itself.

To properly appreciate the significance of this liturgical war in the big scheme of things, one must understand the philosophical war that underpins the liturgical war, the Catholic theological war and the wider war for Western Civilization itself.

The philosophical war itself is being fought out between two camps: the phenomenologists and the Thomists. Now this battle is of a fundamental nature, since it has to do with how the Church and wider Western Civilization will not only understand, but how it will define what is TRUTH.

To be more precise, the above observation can be reduced to the following: will truth be a capital “T” truth, (Aristotle -> St. Thomas Aquinas -> Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange -> Pope Benedict XVI) or a small “t” truth (Plato -> Pontious Pilate -> Descarte -> Hegel -> young Ratzinger -> Kasper)?

And the defining issue within the capital vs. small “t” truth debate can be reduced to the following:

is truth as the Thomist’s claim, i.e. the process of “bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’)?  

Or

is truth what the Phenomenologist’s claim, i.e “bringing thought into line with life” (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’)?

Naturally, and in reality, since truth exists outside of the human mind, the former definition is correct. For a good and in-depth explanation, I bring you a long interview by Tara Mr Carthy and Rocking Mr. E on the corruption of truth. (see here – MUST WATCH)

Now, the small “t” truth is not truth at all, but rather an “ideological construct”. The reason “truth as ideological construct” is convenient for leftists, including “catholic” dissidents, is that small “t” truth is simply pure, distilled relativism. So anything goes.

As to how the above relates to the post-conciliar church, since one can correctly claim that the entire Vatican II experiment was designed around the ERROR of ecumenism, then using a proper definition of Truth would have been self refuting.

I.e. it is a non-starter.

Don’t believe me?

Simply: if there is only ONE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, then there can only be ONE RELIGION.

And one math, and one physics, etc…

So for practical considerations, a goal seeking, “end justifies the means” relativistic mindset imported the “truth as ideological construct” to make their ideology “work”.

Not too scientific… or rational for that matter?

So now to the liturgy.

If you are a VII innovator, or a super-innovator like Francis, and you’ve just had an “epiphany” that ecumenism is the way to go, and that “truth” now only SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church, you can’t then go and offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Especially since your new-found “co-religionists” have developed a negative “theology” for the last 450 years, that was based solely on the notion that the mass is just a communal meal and definitely NOT A SACRIFICE.

Yes?

Fast forward to today.

If you are a Francis, and you are angling to take the Bride of Christ into the ONE WORLD RELIGION, a Restorationist, rationalist, capital “T” Truth movement, sweeping through your institution, is the last thing that you want to see, or that you will tolerate.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi!

So is it any wonder why all this time and effort is being expended by Francis and TeamFrancis to somehow eliminate this threat?

I think not.

Concluding, I would like to draw your attention to two interesting developments to reinforce the above.

First, I would like to commend Steve Skojec for going out of our Catholic “ghetto” and linking to a Charles Hugh Smith post titled When We Can No Longer Tell the Truth… 

I consider this significant.

Here’s why.

As my regular readers know, I have been linking to individuals who one can term “functional Catholics”, or people who are writing about or giving seminars on issues that are Scholastic and/or Thomistic at their core.

What I find lacking in the Catholic blogosphere is that it focuses on Catholic issues, while missing the CONTEXT of the underlying wider PROCESS. If one limits his focus on one specific, narrow subject matter, what appear as random incidents can be in fact part and parcel of wider and related PHENOMENON.

Therefore, if one doesn’t understand György Lukács, then one can’t understand the Nouvelle Théologie school in its proper CONTEXT, and therefore one cannot understand the PHENOMENON that is Francis.

I will finish off with a GREAT EXAMPLE of just this that ties all the above into one nice package.

Over at Stefan Molyneux’s YouTube channel, (video at top of post) a video appeared with the Brazilian journalist/philosopher Olavo de Carvalho.

If you dear reader watch to the end, AND YOU MUST, you will see experience a conversation getting to the ROOT CAUSE of why the Catholic Church is under attack, with a concerned Stefan Molyneux fretting about the situation of the Catholic Church itself.

And he and Olavo mean the Catholic Church, not the post-conciliar church!

You must watch!

Folks, Stefan’s going there…

MUST WATCH!

One more thing.

Before I leave off, and since we touched on the subject of Thomists, a new blog has appeared, or rather re-emerged, under the title of RadTrad Thomist, written by Dr. Peter Chojnowski. I highly recommend that all my readers visit Dr. Chojnowski’s blog. For your convenience, I have linked to his blog in the right hand margin of this blog.

And one more thing, a great post appeared at the RadTrad Thomist blog titled Francis’s Plans for the Latin Mass: On the Agenda for a Long Time? 

How fitting, yes?

Here is the relevent passage that provides historical perspective to the Summorum Pontificum endgame:

This “new” plan does not surprise me. In 2001, I was told by an SSPX District Superior who had just met with Bishop Fellay — who himself had met with Cardinal Hoyos — that this was the plan.  According to the Superior, Cardinal Hoyos told Bishop Fellay that the plan was to have all traditional groups under Bishop Fellay himself. When the surprised Bishop Fellay asked the Cardinal, “What about the Fraternity of St. Peter?,” the Cardinal said, “They would be under you!” The condition, however, was that all of the four SSPX bishops needed to “come in” together. This was back in the time of John Paul II.

Breaking – Fog Completely Lifted, SSPX “Recognition” Riddle Solved…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ok folks.

The FOG HAS BEEN LIFTED!

Over at Life Site News, we get the below post with the following headline:

Vatican rumblings: Pope Francis aiming to end Latin Mass permission

This is the main story that your humble blogger has been following for quite a while now. The post below is a continuation of the following threads:

  1. Desperately Seeking Reconciliation

  2. Regularization And The SSPX: EYES WIDE OPEN!

  3. More Fog Lifting – FrancisPlan Becoming Clearer And Clearer…

Here’s the skinny. Francis has been trying to strangle the Restoration by abrogating the Summorum Pontificum. He tried to do this by first “recognizing” the SSPX, giving them a Personal Prelature. This would allow him to RESTRICT the offering of the Holy Sacrifice according to the 1962 MISSALE ROMANUM to the Society chapels while eliminating it in the Universal Church.

This plan was short circuited by the former Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith. This was why Card. Muller INSISTED that the SSPX accept in toto all the documents promulgated at Vatican II in May.

In other words, by sabotaging the “recognition” agreement, Card. Muller saved the SSPX and the Summorum Pontificum for now.

One more element that the Deus Ex Machina’s filters picked up that has not been picked up by the other bloggers or new sites is the reason for the replacement of Card. Muller with Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, a Spanish Jesuit.

And here is the last piece of the puzzle:

The reason Archbishop Ladaria was made the new Prefect of the CDF is for one reason and one reason only. That reason is this:

He was named a member of the Holy See’s team charged with the dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X that began on 26 October 2009.

What this means is that Francis seems to think that the good Archbishop has a good rapport with the SSPX and is in a position to get the deal done.

This is the only reason why Francis would give such a BIG prefecture to a relative nobody, and someone from inside the CDF. Further, Archbishop Ladaria being a fellow Jesuit, it is as close as Francis could get to a “sure thing”.

At this point, the question that needs to be asked is: What’s in the box?

As for Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, in no way can they now accept any offer from Francis.

Folks, we need to pray, and pray hard that the SSPX does the right thing…

Below is the Life Site News post… (see here)

Vatican rumblings: Pope Francis aiming to end Latin Mass permission

ROME, July 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Sources inside the Vatican suggest that Pope Francis aims to end Pope Benedict XVI’s universal permission for priests to say the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), also known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. While the course of action would be in tune with Pope Francis’ repeatedly expressed disdain for the TLM especially among young people, there has been no open discussion of it to date.

Sources in Rome told LifeSite last week that liberal prelates inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith were overheard discussing a plan ascribed to the Pope to do away with Pope Benedict’s famous document that gave priests freedom to offer the ancient rite of the Mass.

Catholic traditionalists have just celebrated the tenth anniversary of the document, Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict XVI issued it in 2007, giving all Latin Rite priests permission to offer the TLM without seeking permission of their bishops, undoing a restriction placed on priests after the Second Vatican Council.

The motu proprio outraged liberal bishops as it stripped them of the power to forbid the TLM, as many did. Previously priests needed their bishop’s permission to offer the TLM.

Additionally, Summorum Pontificum stated that wherever a group of the faithful request the TLM, the parish priests should willingly agree to their request.

The overheard plans are nearly identical to comments from an important Italian liturgist in an interview published by France’s La Croix earlier this month. Andrea Grillo a lay professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St Anselmo in Rome, billed by La Croix as “close to the Pope,” is intimately familiar Summorum Pontificum. Grillo in fact published a book against Summorum Pontificum before the papal document was even released.

Grillo told La Croix that Francis is considering abolishing Summorum Pontificum. According to Grillo, once the Vatican erects the Society of Saint Pius X as a Personal Prelature, the Roman Rite will be preserved only within this structure. “But [Francis] will not do this as long as Benedict XVI is alive.”

The plan, as related to LifeSite, involved making an agreement with the Society of St. Pius X and, with that agreement in place, sequestering those Catholics wanting the TLM to the SSPX. For most, that would strip them of access to the TLM since there would not be nearly enough SSPX priests to service Catholics wanting the TLM worldwide.

Moreover, LifeSite’s source suggested that the plan may explain a May 20, 2017 letter by the recently ousted Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Even though Cardinal Müller wanted the SSPX fully reconciled to help fight modernists in the Church, the May 20 letter seemed to scuttle an agreement between Pope Francis and the SSPX which would see them get a personal prelature. The letter includes provisions long known to be completely unacceptable to the SSPX, thus nullifying an understanding SSPX leader Bishop Bernard Fellay believed was imminent.

The LifeSite source suggested that the May 20 letter by Muller perhaps was written because he knows what Francis was up to and wanted to avoid the plan to bury Summorum Pontificum with Pope Benedict. “It’s directed not so much against Fellay but against the agreement,” said the source. “Pope Francis was very angry that document came out from Cardinal Muller and some say that’s why he made the decision to dismiss him.”

Restoration Round-up – More Great News! (w/Update)

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

I know, I’m supposed to be on vacation, but…

Anyways, more great news on the Restoration front is coming in every day.

Today however, before we get to the good news, we start on a tangent, i.e. HH Pope Benedict’s resignation. Over at Louie Verrecchio’s blog, and subsequently picked up on the ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCT blog, we get more fog lifting. It would appear that the facts point to a situation whereby HH Pope Benedict is being kept a “prisoner of Francis”. (see here) I have run this HYPOTHESIS through the Deus Ex Machina proprietary Peirce/Ockham Methodology and it appears to be an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT conclusion.

Besides, it’s not me, but the model.

Next tangential issue, over at the Eponymous Flower blog, more confirmation that the late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini S.J. did not want Bergoglio to be elevated to the See of St. Peter at the 2005 Conclave. The post is titled Tossati Correspondent: “Martini Did Not Want Bergoglio”, and comes via the Vaticanista Marco Tossati. (see here

And now to the Restoration news. Over at the Ars Celebrandi Facebook page, we find out that an EXTRAORDINARY number of clergy, from a VERY WIDE cross-section of religious communities will be taking part in this years Ars Celebrandi workshops in Lichen Poland.

Just a reminder, the Ars Celebrandi workshops are the largest gathering of Catholics focused on the restoration of the Mass of Gregory the Great (Missale Romanum 1962) in the world. What is also significant is that they take place in a country that has the largest percentage of its population that attends weekly Mass (41%).

A big Deo gratias!

NB: After a recent extended trip to Poland by His Eminence Cardinal Raymond Burke a couple of months ago, His Eminence Cardinal Robert Sarah is in Poland presently. So it appears that there is something afoot…

“Time is greater than space…” I reckon.

Next great news comes from the City of Brotherly Love, i.e. Philadelphia PA. Over at the Rorate Caeli blog, a post appeared under the title: Carmelites get FSSP chaplain in Philadelphia.

Dear Friends, I’m sharing some joyful news. Today, our Archdiocese welcomed six nuns from the Carmelite Monastery of Valparaiso, Nebraska, and four nuns from the Carmelite Monastery of Elysburg, Pennsylvania. They are transferring to the Carmelite Monastery of Saint Joseph and Saint Anne here in Philadelphia (The Discalced Carmelite Nuns of Philadelphia).As a result of these transfers, there is now a community of twelve nuns in the Philadelphia Carmel, which was founded in 1902. Since that time it has been home to generations of Discalced Carmelite nuns who have dedicated themselves to a cloistered life of contemplation and prayer for the good of us all. The Carmel is also welcoming a new chaplain, Father William Allen, FSSP.

What is significant about this development is first, it comes on the back of steady gains in vocations at the Philadelphia seminary. Now Archbishop Chaput is giving a formerly “NUChurch” religious order into the hands of the Ecclesia Dei’s Society of St. Peter, a break-off community of the SSPX and one that uses the Missale Romanum of 1962 exclusively. Furthermore, it would also appear as it Archbishop Chaput is organizing, or rather re-organizing (in essence) a NUChurch community into a Traditional branch of the Discalced Carmelite nuns in Philadelphia.

And just to provide CONTEXT as to why this “re-organization” is happening, it most likely is the result of the Francis decision that diocesan bishops must consult with the Vatican before establishing a diocesan religious order, Pope Francis ruled. In a decision with a publication date of May 20, 2016 (Decision on 4th of April), Francis, the bishop of Rome mandated the following:

 Diocesan bishops must consult with the Vatican before establishing a diocesan religious order, Pope Francis ruled. (see here)

The consultation “is to be understood as necessary for the validity of the erection of a diocesan institute of consecrated life,” said the rescript or ruling approved by Pope Francis April 4 and published by the Vatican May 20. (see here)

Reading deeper into this decision, we can see that Archbishop Chaput is “throwing caution” to the wind again, in terms of his “career prospects”. Under the FrancisDictatorship that is…

So what is he hearing through his “Vatican grapevine” that is emboldening him to take these very Catholic and Restorationist actions in what has become a series of Catholic and Restorationist actions? (see here and here)

Stay tuned sports fans, but in the mean time a big Deo gratias(!) is in order for the good Archbishop. 

One more thing is for certain from the above and that is: vagueness, confusion and chaos has its postive side.

And finally, a dispatch from the Eastern Front. It would appear that the heretical state church, operated by the German “Bishops'” Conference, that subsists in the German government budget lands has lost approximately 400,000 members in the past year.

Over at the Catholic Herald, we get this headline: 160,000 German Catholics left the Church last year. Furthermore, we get this “pleasant” text:

About 160,000 Catholics left the Church in Germany last year, new figures show.

The number represents an improvement on 2015, when 180,000 faithful left the Church – or opted out of paying a church tax compulsory for members. Nearly a third, or 23 million, people in Germany are Catholic.

Yea…

They’ve turned the corner…

The new springtime is finally here…

Or so it would appear until we read this FaceBook entry from Regina Magazine:

D’ohhhh…

And if we go into the Catholic Culture article, we find out that in the last 20 years, the Catholic membership paying the KIRCHENSTEUER (since that is what it’s all about) has dropped from 27,533,000 (in 1996) to 23,582,000 presently. And if we use the racist homophobic xenophobic transphobic discipline of mathematics, we get the following equation:

1996             27,533,000
2016             23,582,000
Gain (Loss)                3,951,000
Loss per annum                   197,550

So what the above is indicating is that we have a 400,000 church membership loss in 2016 (waiting for final figures in August) while on average, the German church has been bleeding at a rate of 197,550 member per annum over the last 20 years.

Hmmm….

Appears to be a case of dropping German KIRCHENSTEUER membership at an increasing rate…

Oh well, so much for the KIRCHENSpirit...

And just as a reminder where this trend ends see here.

PS As my loyal reader know, your humble blogger has been following the career of one Dr. Jordan Peterson. Over the last few weeks, Dr. Peterson has embarked on a series of lectures pertaining to the Bible. As to the popularity of this undertaking, we have this Tweet last evening:

The trend is your friend…

Update: 10:30 26th of July 2017.

Oh and speaking of Jordan Peterson:

Jordan Peterson goes after “post-modernist” cults,… by name.

The Restoration – It’s Breaking Through In The UK…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For your information…

NB: Please note the part about the new bishops coming up through the ranks…

All we are asking is: give us benign neglect…

Meanwhile in NOLand: (see here)

Müller: “All Elements of the Lived Faith Have Collapsed”

 Rome (idea) – Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller – until the beginning of July Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine and the Faith – has drawn a dramatic image of Christianity and the Catholic Church in Europe. “All the elements of the faith lived, the popular piety, have collapsed”, he said in an interview with the Italian daily “Il Foglio” (issue 21 July). All of Europe is in a “process of forced de-Christianization, which goes far beyond simple secularization.” Man is defined “strictly without God and without transcendence.” In the Catholic Church, participation in ecclesiastical life, the spread of faith and the new vocations of priests and religious, has greatly diminished. Müller warned the church not to waste its powers in internal struggles. According to him, “so-called progressives” seek victory, “persecuting all so-called conservatives”. The 69-year-old was Bishop of Regensburg from 2002 to 2012, and from 2012 to 2017 Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith.

And more on Pope Benedict’s abdication being invalid: (see here) Well worth the read.

And Ed Pentin also attends his first Roman Forum:

Notice the part about what the College of Cardinals are thinking…

Aside, when will Raymond Arroyo make his initial appearance?

And bringing up the rear, and on the back of the Sandro Magister post here, we get this: (see here)

Groundswell of Clergy Oppose Pope Francis!

I have to say I found this very heartening today! The pro-Francis spin-meisters are clearly in overdrive and have pumped out another “scathing” article in the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano attacking a “large part” of the community of bishops & priests who it accuses of being resistant or positively hostile to Pope Francis direction of travel. This all feels wearily familiar now.

The article, authored by Italian Father Giulio Cirignano, a native of Florence and a longtime Scripture scholar at the Theological Faculty of Central Italy, accuses clergy of being attached to outmoded traditions and suggests

 “The clergy is holding the people back, who should instead be accompanied in this extraordinary moment,”

This comes a little over a week after the publication of an essay by Italian Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro and Argentine Protestant Marcelo Figueroa, two close friends of Pope Francis, in the Jesuit-edited journal La Civilità Cattolica. In it, Spadaro and Figueroa described what they see was a “Manichean vision” underlying growing closeness in America between Evangelicals and “Catholic Integralists.” See my blog here. Their piece has been characterised as being a bit Dan Brown!

In contrast, Fr Cirignano’s piece didn’t focus on the United States, and appears to be more concerned with Italian realities, though he does not specify which country or region he is addressing. He writes:

“The main obstacle that stands in the way of the apostasy conversion that Pope Francis wants to bring to the Church is constituted, in some measure, by the attitude of a good part of the clergy, at levels high and low … an attitude, at times, of closure if not hostility,”

Thank God for that I say! I am greatly heartened to hear that Pope Francis isn’t getting it all his own way and that we have faithful clergy who are prepared to stand up for Christ and His Church!

I had heard whispers from Rome that no one is happy with Pope Francis pontificate and it was widely considered to be a disaster by all, regardless of their degree of fidelity to the Church of Christ. As predicted at the outset of this pontificate, Jorge Bergoglio has confounded liberals and conservatives alike and, following his own advice to the youth at World Youth Day in Brazil, he has made a big mess. Similarly as I reported here Bishop Forte said during a presentation on Amoris Laetitia back in May 2016, that Pope Francis told him at the Synod on the Family that he didn’t want to speak “plainly” about the question of admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion because doing so would make a “terrible mess.”

There is a certain irony in the fact that the Pope is discovering “obstacles” in a decentralised & now increasingly synodal Church. How shocking!

Clearly this is meant as a telling off, but I found it brought me great comfort. A great majority of clergy I know are in despair over this papacy and despite making this known publicly it has seemed at times there were only four cardinals prepared to stand up for the obvious truth in all this. Now it appears there is indeed a great groundswell of opposition, and a majority of clergy loyal to Christ and His Church, Deo gratias!

So it ain’t all that bad…

And Our Lord has it under control…

On The Nature Of Good And Evil – Putting It All Together…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Before I fly out for my long overdue rest, I am re-blogging the post that appeared at the Rorate Caeli website and written by His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan. (see original here)

But before we get to the post, I will try to frame this essay in a wider CONTEXT.

For CONTEXT purposes, I have embedded several videos produced by an individual who your humble blogger considers THE BEST SECULAR SOCIAL MEDIA PHILOSOPHER plying his trade currently. He goes by the name of Rocking Mr. E. His YouTube channel can be viewed here.

So what I would like you dear readers to do, until my next next posting that is, is the following:

First I would like you to watch the video at the top of the post.

This video provides an insight into how Catholicism is being subverted internally.

Next, I would like you to go and watch this video here:

This video provides an insight into the conscious and premeditated awareness on the part of those fighting Catholicism, as to what it is in fact that they are engaged in.

Next, I would like you to go and watch another video below:

This video provides an insight into the OBJECTIVE REALITY that EVERYONE falls somewhere on what can be called the CONTINUUM OF BELIEF SYSTEMS.

More over, this CONTINUUM has an inflection point.

Therefore, one is either on one side of the CONTINUUM or on the other side of that CONTINUUM.

And the two sides of this CONTINUUM can be objectively designated as: GOOD and EVIL.

Here is that video:

And finally, now that we have established the proper frame of reference, please go and read the Bishop Schneider essay, which I am re-posting below.

While reading the below, please be cognizant of the continuous, dare I say eternal struggle between GOOD AND EVIL that is playing itself out within those Vatican II documents themselves.

To restate the last sentence in terms of our above CONTINUUM, the authors of those documents made the conscious effort to incorporate both sides of the CONTINUUM into those documents.

Which now is the crux of the problem that Bishop Schneider is addressing in his essay.

Going one step further, this eternal struggle between “right and left”, which are in fact proxies for GOOD AND EVIL, is currently playing itself out through the medium of INTERPRETATION.

And it is the “chosen” INTERPRETATION, that gives the game away, i.e. as to the position on the CONTINUUM where the INTERPRETERS have positioned themselves.

Linear?: Yes

Rigid?: Yes

Objectively Correct?: Absolutely…

FOR THE RECORD

 

The interpretation of Vatican II and its connection with the current crisis of the Church

The current situation of the unprecedented crisis of the Church is comparable with the general crisis in the 4th century, when the Arianism had contaminated the overwhelming majority of the episcopacy, taking a dominant position in the life of the Church. We must seek to address this current situation on the one hand with realism and, on the other hand, with a supernatural spirit – with a profound love for the Church, our mother, who is suffering the Passion of Christ because of this tremendous and general doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral confusion.

We must renew our faith in believing that the Church is in the safe hands of Christ, and that He will always intervene to renew the Church in the moments in which the boat of the Church seems to capsize, as is the obvious case in our days. 

As to the attitude towards the Second Vatican Council, we must avoid two extremes: a complete rejection (as do the sedevacantists and a part of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or a “infallibilization” of everything the council spoke.

Vatican II was a legitimate assembly presided by the Popes and we must maintain towards this council a respectful attitude. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we are forbidden to express well-founded doubts or respectful improvement suggestions regarding some specific items, while doing so based on the entire tradition of the Church and on the constant Magisterium.

Traditional and constant doctrinal statements of the Magisterium during a centuries-old period have precedence and constitute a criterion of verification regarding the exactness of posterior magisterial statements. New statements of the Magisterium must, in principle, be more exact and clearer, but should never be ambiguous and apparently contrast with previous magisterial statements.

Those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous must be read and interpreted according to the statements of the entire Tradition and of the constant Magisterium of the Church.

In case of doubt the statements of the constant Magisterium (the previous councils and the documents of the Popes, whose content demonstrates being a sure and repeated tradition during centuries in the same sense) prevail over those objectively ambiguous or new statements of the Vatican II, which difficultly concord with specific statements of the constant and previous Magisterium (e.g. the duty of the state to venerate publicly Christ, the King of all human societies, the true sense of the episcopal collegiality in relation to the Petrine primacy and the universal government of the Church, the noxiousness of all non-Catholic religions and their dangerousness for the eternal salvation of the souls).

Vatican II must be seen and received as it is and as it was really: a primarily pastoral council. This council had not the intention to propose new doctrines or to propose them in a definitive form. In its statements the council confirmed largely the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church.

Some of the new statements of Vatican II (e.g. collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, the attitude towards the world) have not a definitive character, and being apparently or truly non-concordant with the traditional and constant statements of the Magisterium, they must be complemented by more exact explications and by more precise supplements of a doctrinal character. A blind application of the principle of the “hermeneutics of continuity” does not help either, since thereby are created forced interpretations, which are not convincing and which are not helpful to arrive at a clearer understanding of the immutable truths of the Catholic faith and of its concrete application.

There have been cases in the history, where non-definitive statements of certain ecumenical councils were later – thanks to a serene theological debate – refined or tacitly corrected (e.g. the statements of the Council of Florence regarding the matter of the sacrament of Orders, i.e. that the matter were the handing-over of the instruments, whereas the more sure and constant tradition said that the imposition of the hands of the bishop were sufficient, a truth, which was ultimately confirmed by Pius XII in 1947). If after the Council of Florence the theologians would have blindly applied the principle of the “hermeneutics of the continuity” to this concrete statement of the Council of Florence (an objectively erroneous statement), defending the thesis that the handing-over of the instruments as the matter of the sacrament of Orders would concord with the constant Magisterium, probably there would not have been achieved the general consensus of the theologians regarding the truth which says that only the imposition of the hands of the bishop is the real matter of the sacrament of Orders.

There must be created in the Church a serene climate of a doctrinal discussion regarding those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous or which have caused erroneous interpretations. In such a doctrinal discussion there is nothing scandalous, but on the contrary, it will be a contribution in order to maintain and explain in a more sure and integral manner the deposit of the immutable faith of the Church.

One must not highlight so much  a certain council, absolutizing it or equating it in fact with the oral (Sacred Tradition) or written (Sacred Scripture) Word of God. Vatican II itself said rightly (cf. Verbum Dei, 10), that the Magisterium (Pope, Councils, ordinary and universal Magisterium) is not above the Word of God, but beneath it, subject to it, and being only the servant of it (of the oral Word of God = Sacred Tradition and of the written Word of God = Sacred Scripture).

From an objective point of view, the statements of the Magisterium (Popes and councils) of definitive character, have more value and more weight compared with the statements of pastoral character, which have naturally a changeable and temporary quality depending on historical circumstances or responding to pastoral situations of a certain period of time, as it is the case with the major part of the statements of Vatican II.

The original and valuable contribution of the Vatican II consists in the universal call to holiness of all members of the Church (chap. 5 of Lumen gentium), in the doctrine about the central role of Our Lady in the life of the Church (chap. 8 of Lumen gentium), in the importance of the lay faithful in maintaining, defending and promoting the Catholic faith and in their duty to evangelize and sanctify the temporal realities according to the perennial sense of the Church (chap. 4 of Lumen gentium), in the primacy of the adoration of God in the life of the Church and in the celebration of the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 2; 5-10). The rest one can consider to a certain extent secondary, temporary and, in the future, probably forgettable, as it was the case with some non-definitive, pastoral and disciplinary statements of various ecumenical councils in the past.

The following issues – Our Lady, sanctification of the personal life of the faithful with the sanctification of the world according to the perennial sense of the Church and the primacy of the adoration of God – are the most urgent aspects which have to be lived in our days. Therein Vatican II has a prophetical role which, unfortunately, is not yet realized in a satisfactory manner.

Instead of living these four aspects, a considerable part of the theological and administrative “nomenclature” in the life of the Church promoted for the past 50 years and still promotes ambiguous doctrinal, pastoral and liturgical issues, distorting thereby the original intention of the Council or abusing its less clear or ambiguous doctrinal statements in order to create another church – a church of a relativistic or Protestant type.

In our days, we are experiencing the culmination of this development.

The problem of the current crisis of the Church consists partly in the fact that some statements of Vatican II – which are objectively ambiguous or those few statements, which are difficultly concordant with the constant magisterial tradition of the Church – have been infallibilisized. In this way, a healthy debate with a necessarily implicit or tacit correction was blocked.

At the same time there was given the incentive in creating theological affirmations in contrast with the perennial tradition (e.g. regarding the new theory of an ordinary double supreme subject of the government of the Church, i.e. the Pope alone and the entire episcopal college together with the Pope, the doctrine of the neutrality of the state towards the public worship, which it must pay to the true God, who is Jesus Christ, the King also of each human and political society, the relativizing of the truth that the Catholic Church is the unique way of salvation, wanted and commanded by God).

We must free ourselves from the chains of the absolutization and of the total infallibilization of Vatican II. We must ask for a climate of a serene and respectful debate out of a sincere love for the Church and for the immutable faith of the Church.

We can see a positive indication in the fact that on August 2, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a preface to the volume regarding Vatican II in the edition of his Opera omnia. In this preface, Benedict XVI expresses his reservations regarding specific content in the documents Gaudium et spes and Nostra aetate. From the tenor of these words of Benedict XVI one can see that concrete defects in certain sections of the documents are not improvable by the “hermeneutics of the continuity.”

An SSPX, canonically and fully integrated in the life of the Church, could also give a valuable contribution in this debate – as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre desired. The fully canonical presence of the SSPX in the life of the Church of our days could also help to create a general climate of  constructive debate, in order that that, which was believed always, everywhere and by all Catholics for 2,000 years, would be believed in a more clear and in a more sure manner in our days as well, realizing thereby the true pastoral intention of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

The authentic pastoral intention aims towards the eternal salvation of the souls — a salvation which will be achieved only through the proclamation of the entire will of God (cf. Act 20: 7). The ambiguity in the doctrine of the faith and in its concrete application (in the liturgy and in the pastoral life) would menace the eternal salvation of the souls and would be consequently anti-pastoral, since the proclamation of the clarity and of the integrity of the Catholic faith and of its faithful concrete application is the explicit will of God.

Only the perfect obedience to the will of God — Who revealed us through Christ the Incarnate Word and through the Apostles the true faith, the faith interpreted and practiced constantly in the same sense by the Magisterium of the Church – will bring the salvation of souls.

Second Front Against Bergoglio Opens, And Why…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is significant!

Over the life of this blog, your humble blogger has been picking up on the “tension” between Francis, the bishop of Rome and Cardinal Muller.

If there is one incident that can be seen as the straw that broke the camel’s back, it would be the attempt by the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to gain control over Francis’ “magisterium”. Card. Muller named this “theological structuring” and we documented this EVENT for posterity in a post titled Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring!

Fast forward to the beginning of July, a post appeared at the OnePeterFive blog about the circumstance around the unprecedented firing of Card. Muller by Francis. (see here) What was of interest in this post, outside of the detailed information that it contained, is that… wait for it… detailed information of this sort was released into the public domain.

Your humble blogger, or rather the news filters, picked up on what appeared to be a second front opening up against this Francis bishopric. The first is the Dubia Fathers initiative, an initiative that Cardinal Muller has been at pains to not be seen as being a part of. I would even go as far as to say “artificially”.

I even posted a Tweet about just this:

On the back of this above EVENT, we found out that Pope Benedict XVI has not been happy about the Card. Muller firing. (see here)

Today, we find out that a “personality cult” has been formed around the current bishop of Rome. I have republished the Eponymous Flower post below. (see original here)

Cardinal Müller Questions Cult of Personality Around Pope Francis

[Katholisches] “Every Catholic, especially every bishop and every cardinal, has a positive and constructive relationship with the Pope. But this is anything but courtly manners and the groveling of subordinates, against which Pope Francis always spoke.”

“That means that not everything he does and says is, from the outset, already perfect and unquestionable.”

“There should be no personal cult and a pope-touching tourism.”

Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Congregation of the Doctrine and the Faith, no longer in office, on Pope Franziskus, report of the German Press Agency (DPA), quoted from Der Spiegel v. July 19, 2017.

So today, we see more EVIDENCE that two “distinct” groups have formed to resist Francis.

Now, regardless of whether this “bifurcation” is artificial or not, one thing is certain, two fronts opened against Francis is better than one.

I would also like to throw in one other EVENT which appears to be related. The recent report of Cardinal Sarah’s attempt to “resurrect” the reform of the reform. What I suspect is behind this move, a move which took much of the Catholic world by surprise, is an attempt by Card. Sarah to “move to the center ground”.

What I think is happening is that Cardinal Sarah, and his advisors realize that it is the “center ground” within the Church, i.e. the JPII folks, that is the largest constituency. I also think that for most of the bishops and especially the cardinals, they most likely have a good opinion of those JPII years. If for no other reason than those same bishops and cardinals were young, and everyone has positive memories of their youth.

Aside, one anecdote that could be helpful to understand the above observation. I grew up in Chicago and am the son of Polish immigrants. Growing up in Chicago, when discussing what was happening in the Old Country, we always explained away an OBJECTIVE REALITY, i.e. how it was that Poles could be Communist collaborators and be doing what they were doing to their fellow countrymen.

When the subject came up, one useful rationalization was: these people must be transplanted Russians. (Which in fact a lot of them were. But I digress…)

But when I started traveling to Poland post transformation, I was shocked to find out how many people had a “warm and fuzzy” memory of the Communist era. Talk about TRANSRATIONAL?

One explanation that I heard, and it makes sense and is this: these people were young during those times, so when they remember the bad 1970’s and 1980’s, their memories are skewed by the fact that they were young during this time. Therefore, their memory is experiencing something called “duration neglect”. Here is that definition:

Duration neglect (Peak-End rule): The way we remember events is not necessarily made up of a total of every individual moment. Instead, we tend to remember and overemphasize the peak (best or worst) moment and the last moment, and neglect the duration of an experience. This explains why normally the bad ending ruins the whole experience. For example, when you remember your summer vacation to Canada, there is just too much information to evaluate whether it was an enjoyable trip. So, you apply the peak-end rule and you more heavily weight the best moment and the most recent moment.

Concluding, what could be happening is that a conclave is slowly approaching. The rule of thumb is that after the end of any conclave, the job of the cardinals is to start looking for the next pontiff. Therefore, they start identifying the papabile.

So what we are seeing now, is the beginning of the papabile beauty pageant. We see a DavosPontiff (Card. Parolin- “I know how to get the money in”), we see a DissidentPontiff (Card. Tagle – who is trying to sheld the GermanPuppetPope impression and is also trying to make himself acceptable to the center) and we see a CatholicPontiff (Card. Sarah – “reasonable” Catholicism), positioning themselves on the papal battleground.

And with respect to Cardinal Sarah, if in fact it is a “peak-end rule” strategy, I think a strategy based on “reasonable” Catholicism combined with a harking for the good old days of JPII “the great” could be as good a strategy as any.

A black pope?

Downright “transformational”!

No?

And it does provide an explanation…

And now, back to vacation…

TeamFrancis Directs Catholics To Read Francis Through Derrida…

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lot happening folks, and I am getting ready to go on an extended vacation. Extended in my case means more than a long weekend. But I digress… The reason I am mentioning this is that I will be posting sporadically, at least until the 20th of August.

However, before I take off, I have posted some links in the right hand margin that can be viewed during my absence. These links should provide you dear reader, with a daily “fix” of reason, logic and objective reality, if the need arises.

Today’s post therefore, will be my last post before I leave. And I will leave off with what I think is the most important OCCURRENCE to have taken place since the beginning of the Francis bishopric of Rome.

Is this hyperbole?

Maybe.

But you dear reader will have to make up your mind for yourselves.

So here goes…

A few days ago, an article appeared written by our friend “Fr.” Antonio “2+2=5” Spadaro and a co-conspirator, a Presbyterian named Marcelo Figueroa, titled Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A surprising ecumenism. The article can be read here.

Moreover, a most excellent (or as a post-modernist can say: “excellentest”) response came from another favorite of this blog, in a positive sense this time, Maureen Mullarkey, titled In God They Don’t Trust: Anti-American Syllabus in Vatican journal. This article can be read here.

And finally, to understand why the two above mentioned articles constitute an OCCURRENCE being the most important since the start of the Francis bishopric of Rome, two concepts need to be understood.

The first of these concepts is one that your humble blogger explained in the post titled NUChurch Shocked… Shocked That Francis Lies…, namely the Overton Window. Here is that passage:

The Overton Window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept…. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy….

Devers refines the definition:

The Overton Window is a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.

The second concept that needs to be understood here is that of the post- Modernist NARRATIVE. In a post titled The Soap Bubble Papacy™ : The Battle Is In Your Mind – Francis’ Gaslighting we explained that:

FAKE NEWS ≠ FALSE NEWS

An example from the POLITICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium can be seen here:

Guess which one the FAKE NEWS MEDIA is focusing on?

Back to the subject at hand.

“Fake news” is in essence any news that contradicts or questions an “official” NARRATIVE. And the reason that real news is lethal to the post-Modernist is that it “corrupts” their FAKE NARRATIVE(S), i.e. it “corrupts” their corrupt information. Here is how the process works:

Just to sum up what we have defined above, what we are dealing with is information that is injected into the public domain that is CORRUPTED (FAKE NEWS / FrancisCoprophagia). The CORRUPTION is intended to create a FAKE NARRATIVE (Gas-lighting). The most likely explanation for why this FAKE NARRATIVE is created is to allow individuals/entities to act on this FAKE NARRATIVE. In other words, this FAKE NARRATIVE allows these individuals to act when they otherwise would not be able to act. I.e. it provides them with justification.

By understanding the above, we can now deconstruct the Spadaro/Figueroa article and the Mullarkey response. So here are some observations:

First, notice the emotional tone of the Spadaro/Figueroa article. The emotions, negative in this case, were no doubt brought about first by their observation that a “great deal” of the discussions in... let’s call it the affairs of the Catholic Church, (specifically in the blogo-sphere) are taking place outside of the FrancisChurch Overton Window.

In other words, the discussion i corrupting their NARRATIVE.

How to we know this?

In the last paragraph, the authors tell us outright that this is the case. Here is that passage:

This is why Francis is carrying forward a systematic counter-narration with respect to the narrative of fear. There is a need to fight against the manipulation of this season of anxiety and insecurity.

What the above tells us, the initiated, is that TeamFrancis think in terms of NARRATIVES and counter-NARRATIVES. Therefore Francis, through his proxies is admitting that he is in fact a post-Modernist. 

This is HISTORIC!

By extension, the significance of the above is that now Francis’ proxies have provided us with confirmation of the PROPER and CORRECT framework through which we can read Francis.

And it’s not Benedict, but rather Derrida.

But I digress…

And as my long time readers know, what defines a post-Modernist is a person who sees the world in terms of fractioned special interest (identity) groups, who in turn produce their foundational NARRATIVES, which then battle it out in a Hobbesian battlefield of identity groups. These identity groups do not dialogue, because the post-Modernists don’t believe in dialogue. Therefore, it is just one big struggle for POWER and the winning identity group, with their winning NARRATIVE, takes it all.

As for the rest of the unlucky identity groups and their NARRATIVES, they are subjugated. Hmmm…. where have I read that before? Why yes, here.

But just in case you dear readers need a refresher, here is Dr. Jordan Peterson to explain the post-Modernist mindset:

Now for the Mullarkey response. What is of critical significance in the Mullarkey response is that she names post-Modernism and by extension the Francis post-Modernists for what they are, and she names them in the third paragraph. Here is that passage:

On exhibit in this chosen opener is the post-modern denial of the existence of objective reality. The past’s own utterances are not steadfast. The truth of them, like that of any text, is unfixed, determined by current ideological needs.

Yes?

What we see therefore is that Mullarkey understands the foundational “philosophy” read ideology upon which the Francis proxies Spadaro/Figueroa constructed their document and criticises that document in its proper CONTEXT.

On a more general note, the significance of this OCCURRENCE is that the Mullarkey response is an example (the first that I have come across) where individual Catholic authors are beginning to use the proper philosophical/ideological “template” through which Francis must be read and understood.

If the above is more than just an isolate incident of a Catholic writer using the post-Modernist “template” to understand and explain the “product” produced by TeamFrancis, and other writers begin to reference the post-Modernist underlying ideology of this pseudo-intellectual gibberish, we will obtain a powerful weapon to counteract this rubbish and re-orient the collective Catholic thought process onto a footing based in OBJECTIVE REALITY.

And this in turn will be lethal not only for TeamFrancis and FrancisCurch in general, but also lethal to the post-concicliar sect that has taken over the Bride of Christ during this “new springtime of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II”.

Leaving off before my vacation, I will end with another Jordan Peterson video on post-Modernism.

Enjoy!