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

Today we continue with the great WHO WON debate that is raging across the Catholic world and specifically across the Catholic blogosphere. Naturally, the WHO WON debate pertains to the final document of the Stealth Sex Synod™ of Bishops that just concluded.

From where I sit, there are two ways of looking at it. One way is what I would call the an “approach from a clerics perspective”. This approach could be summed up neatly by what Cardinal Burke said, when he took exception to the offending paragraphs 84-86 in the section titled “Discernment (Discernment Guide here) and Integration”. Here is what the Great Cardinal said: (see here)

The section, he says, is “of immediate concern, because of its lack of clarity in a fundamental matter of the faith: the indissolubility of the marriage bond which both reason and faith teach all men.”

Now we know from Cardinal Pell that this section was a “compromise” that if not reached, could have resulted in a much worse outcome. (see here)

Pell admits that the language is “different” and verbose. It is not a document that he would have written: “Some people will say it is terrible, but it is not terrible.” For him the final version is almost a miracle if compared with the draft: “The Synod itself is much, much better than the worst we have feared.”

In other words, the lesser evil.

And when taken into account that the bishop of Rome is the biggest promoter of this SHEER EVIL, the Catholic Synod Fathers thought they negotiated an “optimal” outcome.

Furthermore, at the end of the day, please keep in mind that this document MUST BE READ WITH A “ SENTIRE CUM ECCLESIA“ or it is not Catholic. And no amount of AMBIGUITY will make it so.

Which brings us to the key word of today’s post, namely AMBIGUITY. At the root of the GREAT INTERPRETATION DEBATE is the inherent AMBIGUITY that was introduced into this document. This AMBIGUITY is being used by the heretical clericalists to claim that with the introduction of the explicit AMBIGUITY, the doctrine is on the way to being changed. And this then allows them to do whatever they want, since that which they want to do is not explicitly prohibited by this document. Or so the argument goes. Here is one example (see here – h/t to Deacon Augustine)

The Archbishop of Westminster has defended the freedom of the divorced and remarried to reach a decision in conscience on the Eucharist after following the ‘pathway’ described in the final synod document.

Now, I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I have not seen a “pathway” described in the final synod document”. And I don’t think Cardinal Pell sees a “pathway” described in the final synod document”. Once again, here is what Cardinal Pell said:

“There is nothing there endorsing Communion for the divorced and remarried. There is nothing there endorsing a penitential process. There is nothing there that is saying homosexual activity is justified.”

So what we have is two cardinals, who are both English native speakers, both participated as Synod Fathers at the Stealth Sex Synod™ of 2015 and one saw a “pathway” described in the final synod document” while the other one did not.

A binary situation that can only be resolved by a “hermeneutic of ambiguity”?

But at the end of the day, what appears to be the underlying agenda of wanting to give the priest, bishop or cardinal this new fangled “hermeneutic of ambiguity”  for giving Communion to public adulterers, is it’s supposed “attracitivistic” potential.

On an aside, please keep in mind that this is not a theoretical exercise in the Modernist’s “theology of death”, but is supposedly a mechanism that will allow for “greater” pastoral optionality. Or as FrancisChurch terms it “attractiveness”. This Modernist’s need for “attractiveness” we extensively explained in our post titled Francis’ Fascination with Pentecostalism Explained (see here), which was supplemented by The Radical Catholic post titled Vital Immanence Revisited.

In other words, “attractiveness” as in attracting pew sitters into the pews, is the end goal.

And as it just so happens, we do have evidence of just this “hermeneutic of ambiguity” at work and implemented by none other than the diocese of Buenos Aires and by the then Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio. Here is how Sandro Magister described it:

On communion for the divorced and remarried, it is already known how the pope thinks. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those “penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop” projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out.

In other words, the then Cardinal Bergoglio and later as bishop of Rome, Francis already exercised  the “hermeneutic of ambiguity” with respect to giving Communion to serial adulterers, individuals living in sin, sexual deviants and on and on. The evidence suggests that the then archbishop of Buenos Aires implemented an extremely liberal “hermeneutic of ambiguity” in his active ministry.

And what were the “attractivistic” results of this “extremely liberal “hermeneutic of ambiguity” implemented by Archbishop Bergoglio?

All objective evidence suggests that the results were horrible.

One set of objective figures that attest to the success, or rather lack there of, of the “attractiveness” of the Bergoglian “hermeneutic of ambiguity” can be seen in the number of seminarians that Bergoglio was able to “attract” to his diocesan seminary. Here are the figures from our post titled Years of Plenty for the SSPX Continue (see here) based on information from Eponymous Flower blog, supplemented by Mr Richard Malcomb:

While at the same time, over at the diocesan seminary of Buenos Aires, the number of seminarians is less than 30. (Once again, see here) And for further context, here is a comment from a friend of this blog, Mr Richard Malcomb who writes:

“Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio in his last year as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires had in his seminary a grand total of 28 seminarians.”
…which was a two-thirds drop off from what he inherited in 1997.

So from the above evidence, we can see that the extremely liberal dose of the Bergoglian hermeneutic of ambiguity didn’t work out too well for Card Bergoglio.

Not drag this post out for to much longer, it is clear that a “hermeneutic of ambiguity” was introduced into the final Stealth Sex Synod™. On the one hand, this “hermeneutic of ambiguity” will create confusion, since creating confusion among the general “c”atholic population and by default the Faithful is the reason behind implementing this novel hermeneutic in the first place. The confusion is supposed to “attract” the lapsed “c”atholics back to the pews.

Yet, this novel “hermeneutic of ambiguity” does not exist in a vacuum. It was implemented primarily to provide “attractiveness” and by extention pew sitters and by extension contributions made pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law (see here) into the coffers of the post conciliar Novus Ordo sect that is presently occupying the Vatican. The problem with the “hermeneutic of ambiguity” however, is that is has no “attractiveness” capability what so ever. And the prime example of this lack of “attractiveness” can be inferred from the trends in the enrollment figures of the Buenos Aires seminary during the reign of Archbishop Bergoglio.

Which brings me to the good news of implementing this “hermeneutic of ambiguity” and that is this:

The “hermeneutic of ambiguity” is an abject failure since it has N.O. attractivistic capabilities what so ever.

Therefore, any ecclesiastical structures that implement the “hermeneutic of ambiguity” will wither away, just like the Buenos Aires seminary and eventually die off.

Which brings me to Fr. Blake’s most recent post (see here) which captures the essence of the larger battle between GOOD and evil that is being waged in the universal Church and it is this:

Benedict (Ed note: for appointing bad bishops) might well be as guilty as Voris suggests but one has to remember, Benedict’s fundamental idea, that truth always is eventually victorious,  he believed in the Tradition. As for his resignation history will tell whether it was good or bad. Voris as an American conservative sees it as bad. I as a European trad am open to wait and see. Conservatives see things in the short term, trads look at the Tradition, I think we tend to be more flexible and more radical. As I keep saying Vatican One’s idea of the Papacy is far from the inflated Ultramontanism we have today, or certainly distant from the teaching of Vatican I. Benedict’s resignation is a way, I hope, of rethinking the papacy, and returning it to its more traditional purpose.

The above is a post addressing exactly the same issue that is the subject matter of this post and I highly recommend you go into the link and read it.

Summa summorum. When looking at the Holy Roman Catholic Church, one needs to look at its entirety. During the Church 2000 year history, there were good popes, there were bad popes and there were false popes. But regardless of what kind of pope was on the throne of St. Peter, one limitation that he was always subject to was the limitation placed on him by OBJECTIVE REALITY.

The OBJCECTIVE REALITY constraining all popes is the fact that popes, including false popes and their subversive underlings need to eat.

And it is self evident that this OBJECTIVE REALITY is what forces the alignment of the trajectory of the actions of the popes with the natural law and the written Word.

Therefore, when we observe these type of exotic novelties being introduced by this false pope, we can judge them for the screams for help that these novelties in fact represent, and simultaneously rest assured that he will be defeated. If not by the cardinals and bishops, then by natural law itself.

Just as we can be sure that 2 + 2 will always have to equal 4.

Therefore, time, time, time… is on our side. Oh yes it is!

Oh, and for heaven’s sake, please don’t get all flustered about the AMBIGUITY. It’s the only weapon we have now.