Tags

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


Falling MasonryOver the last few posts, we have been concentrating on a phenomenon that has become very widespread in the current media environment. This phenomenon is  commonly referred to in academic circles as “corrupted information”. (see here)

We have taken one such example, a “questionable” Reuters/IPSOS poll and tried to demonstrate how this “corrupted information” is then used to create and propagate “alternative realities” (oxymoron – I know) (see here) and even “virtual realities” (see here).

Yet by its very definition, there can be only one “reality”. To be more precise, only one reality can be sustainable, and that is objective reality since it alone exists in God’s creation, i.e. nature. Therefore, the latter two, i.e. “alternative” and “virtual” realities exist exclusively in the friendly confines of the human mind, or to be more precise, the human imagination.

In Catholic theology, the concept of “corrupt information” is also widely known. It goes by the name of ERROR.

Over last two years, we have been observing an exponential increase in the frequency of the occurrence of ERROR introduced into the theological discourse of the Catholic Church by the neo-modernists. The frequency with which this ERROR has been witnessed, is for the most part caused by Francis himself through his “various speeches, conversations, musings at the Domus Saencte Maerta, and other off the cuff comment”. Or to put it other words, by the Francis magisterium as Francis defined it in the December 7, 2015 interview with the Argentine newspaper La Nacion. We have laid out this case in the post The Modernist’s Magic Words (see here).

Which brings us to the frequency issue. Why Francis and why now?

Since the success, to a large degree of the destruction of the Thomistic foundation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church brought about by the neo-modernists at the Second Vatican Council, there have been numerous citing of ERROR committed by high level Church prelates, mostly reported in the Catholic press. These instances were for the most part handled with a “denial” or a “bishop/cardinal X meant to say something else” or a “something got lost in translation”, or “it’s just pastoral” explanation. Or even a “you peasants are to stupid to know what the pope is teaching you” as was implied with respect to explaining the Assisi “getting to know you” affairs.

But with the ascension of Francis to the See of St. Peter and the appointment of his media volunteers people, the approach to explaining ERROR has changed. ERROR now is not treated as something to be ashamed of and denied, but rather as something to be proud of and exalted. And this must be happening for a reason.

By far the most simple explanation for the above, and one that no doubt would have appealed to William of Ockham (see here) is that the exponential growth and the treatment in the observable occurrences of ERROR under the reign of Francis is due to two things:

1. On one hand, the inability to further hide the complete fiasco, both financial and spiritual, but first and foremost financial, that is the post-conciliar church is forcing Francis and the brain-trust to double down on the failed strategy Lord’s pastoral call of the “spirit of Vatican II”.

2. On the other hand, this Lord’s pastoral call is underpinned by nothing more than “novelty”. And it is precisely this novelty, or rather the definition of novelty, that is behind the situation that we are observing with respect to the exponential growth in the frequency of observable ERROR.

Let’s focus on the second point. Here is the definition of “novelty” as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (see here):

the quality or state of being new, different, and interesting

something that is new or unusual : something novel

something unusual and entertaining that is popular for a short period of time

And it is this last part of the above definition, i.e. “something unusual and entertaining that is popular for a short period of timethat is causing the putrefaction of the post-conciliar NewChurch of the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II”.

Or to put it another way, when the post-conciliar NewChurch rid itself of its Thomistic philosophical foundation, it had to find some other “mooring” on which it could build the NewChurch. Neo-modernism is by definition a “negative theology” as laid out in our post titled The Negative Theology of Francis (see here). Here is the relevant passage written by John Lamont:

The key to the neomodernist capture of power is however also the reason for their failure to sustain a religious culture. Neomodernism is not like Protestantism, which contains ideas with a positive content as well as being a rejection of Catholicism. These ideas – justification by faith, and the like – are not correct, but they say something substantial, and have an appeal that can give rise to an important movement. Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. (emphasis added) As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world.

The above point cannot be stressed enough!

For the sake of emphasis, here is the key to understanding Francis:

Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. (emphasis added) As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world.

Since the above is the case, the post-conciliar NewChurch had to find an alternative foundation on which to support the neo-moderist negative theology. And that foundation is NOVELTY.

Just as a quick confirmation of the veracity of what is written above, please read the following Rorate Caeli post (see here) and please notice how important a role NOVELTY played from from the very inception of the NewChurch of the “spirit of the new springtime of Vatican II”. But I digress…

As we now know from the definition of novelty, novelty is by its very definition “something unusual and entertaining that is popular for a short period of time”. Therefore, once the novelty wears off, the reality takes over. Therefore, the situation Francis finds himself in is commonly referred to as a “positive feedback loop”. Or as the economist would term it: the law of diminishing marginal returns. The more novelty Francis introduces, the more is needed the next time around to keep the effect the same.

In closing, since novelty is defined as “something unusual and entertaining that is popular for a short period of time, this above assertion quite elegantly explains the exponential growth in the observable “frequency of ERROR” under the Francis reign.

Therefore, what Francis is in fact doing, it trying to delay the inevitable objective reality for which the NewChruch is destined, by doubling down exponentially on the NOVELTY hoping and praying that this Lord’s pastoral call will finally have an “attractivistic effect”, while on the other hand, trying to find the Modernist Magic Words that can arrest the NewChurch rot, thereby stopping the entire edifice from falling on his and his cohort’s neo-modernist heads.

And all one can say is: Watch out below!

Advertisements