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

The Fly

Today I would like to draw your attention to a post that appeared on the Remnant website written by Michael Matt titled Benedict & Francis: Two Peas in a Papal Pod? (see here) The reason that I am drawing your attention to this post is that it is the first one of the Remnant’s posts with whose conclusion I do not agree.

According to your humble blogger, this post succinctly identifies what could be termed as the “operational elements” of the PRIMARY CAUSE underlying the disintegration of the post-conciliar church. The PRIMARY CAUSE can easily be identified as a loss of the TRUE FAITH by a large part of the Church hierarchy. This loss of the TRUE FAITH allowed for the subversion of the catechesis. Think Dutch Catechism of 1966! (see here) The “down-stream” effects were a badly formed, if formed at all, Catholic clerical class and laity.

The reason why the catechesis was easily corrupted is exactly as Fr. Rodriduez explains:

The unassailable and impregnable wall of the Traditional Latin Mass is protecting us from heresy, from perverting the Catholic faith with the dirty waters of this world which infect and pollute wherever they go through, leaving a trail of sensuality and sin, a world that is given to carnal and sexual instincts.”

So naturally, the “unassailable and impregnable wall of the Traditional Latin Mass“ had to be dismantled. And this is where one Annibale Bugnini comes into the picture. With respect to Bugnini, I will stop here. However, please note that I have an entire page at the top of this blog titled Anatomy of the Destruction of the Sacred Liturgy (see here) dedicated to just this subject matter.

With respect to Mr. Matt’s observation that:

“At the end of the day and despite “the dossier”, the butler, vatileaks and everything else, it’s my opinion that Benedict incurred the wrath of hell itself when he restored the Traditional Latin Mass to the mainstream of the Catholic Church (even via a motu proprio which is deeply flawed), and that this ultimately led to his abdication.”

It really was all about the Mass.

… this is where I would disagree.

I would suggest to Mr. Matt that the Mass was in and of itself nothing more than an impediment. Please keep in mind that the Novus Ordo was introduced in 1969/1970 while the Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963. Hey, what took them so long?

When looking at the motivations of the parties behind what one can call the “Spirit of Vatican II” sect, one sees that the TLM is used as a convenient straw man for them to knock down. The reason that the TLM needs to continuously be knocked down is that this knocking down processes serves their hidden agenda. Besides, if all else fails, the neo-modernists can always shout anti-semitism. (see here) But I digress…

As to the true agenda, yes the sectarians had and have their fair share of IDEOLOGUES and yes, they were and are afraid of the TLM because it does force “compliance” of the ONE TRUE FAITH onto the Faithful. And it is this “forced compliance”, as opposed to the TLM itself, that is lethal to the Novus Ordo Missae and the post-conciliar sect.

If we really want to drill down to the IDEOLOGICAL ROOT CAUSE behind the destruction of the Institutional Church, this post by Joseph Shaw is a good place to start. (see here) But as we like to point out on this blog, destroying the institutions is all fine and well, but at the end of the day even neo-modernists need to eat. Therefore, the IDEOLOGUES are a small part of the story.

But getting back to the subject matter at hand, what this “compliance” to the ONE TRUE FAITH also does is that it forces compliance not only onto the laity, but more importantly onto the clerical class. And it is this aspect of the TLM, or rather the ONE TRUE FAITH that the TLM safeguards as per Fr. Rodriquez, that is the crux of the problem for a wide segment of the clerical class. And we come across anecdotal evidence of just this fact, i.e. that it is the clerical class that is the most obstinate with respect to “re-introducing” the TLM into the parishes. And we ask ourselves: why are they doing this. Don’t they know that more pew sitters equal a larger take in the collection plate?

So the reasonable analyst looks somewhere else for the most likely explanation to the above conundrum.

Therefore, the “ground zero” of the ROOT CAUSE behind Benedict’s resignation lies somewhere else. My nose and the Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here) leads to another action by Benedict that is even more radical than the promulgation of the Summorum Pontificum. Here is a good explanation of the REAL ROOT CAUSE of Benedict’s resignation: (see here)

Who is concerned with the revolution of Benedict XVI who forbade the ordination of homosexual priests?” The Polish priest is convinced that on this matter the Pope has a great battle to wage: “The problem of the gay lobby in the Vatican is important, but marginal,” he explains. “The true challenge of the Pontiff is the heresy of homosexuality, what I call the ‘homoheresy, that is, the rejection of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, whose defenders are in favor of priesthood for gays. The Holy Father must combat this heresy that has spread throughout the Church.”. And the root of the problem, Fr. Oko confirms, is to be found in the places of formation: “Who, in Italy, is interested in the current situation of the seminaries?”, the theologian asks. “And there is where the future of the Church is decided! The only way forward is to continue the revolution of Ratzinger, who wished to ‘free’ the seminaries from gay educators and homosexual seminarians.”

And who is terrified of losing control over the seminaries?

Here is one player. (see here)

In comments to Roman clergy yesterday Pope Francis referred to cases that “happen often” where bishops have accepted “traditionalist” seminarians who were rejected by other dioceses.  Because “they presented themselves very well, very devout,” said the pope, the bishops failed to find out information about them, and they were later found to have “psychological and moral problems.” Ordaining such seminarians, said the pontiff, is like placing a “mortgage on the Church.”

Here is another player. (see here)

He said the archbishop’s concern about the “young curate” was a familiar one as many were concerned that the few young priests there are in the Irish Church [Get that?] appear to embrace a very traditionalist view of Church.

They are “so locked into a past model of priesthood” he commented and said this manifested itself in “the way that they dress up, the way they celebrate Mass, and in their views.” [A “past” model of priesthood.  Imagine what he means by that.]

They didn’t, I notice, find a priest on the other side of the issue, a conservative or traditional priest, to react.   Conservatives get an additional pounding, but the progressives?  They get a pass.

Meanwhile, Ireland’s seminaries are empty.

And here is a third player, a player with “BIG DOSH” behind him. (see here)

Concluding, if we want to look at what was really behind the Benedict resignation, we see that it is not so much the TLM in and of itself that is the ROOT CAUSE, but rather what the TLM forces onto the FAITHFUL. On the Anatomy page that I linked to earlier (one more time since this is important – see here), your humble blogger made the following observation:

In this video, Fr. Hesse provides a much more detailed translation of the “oldest liturgical law in the Catholic Church”, i.e. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi as: “the law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed”. And it is this “causal determinism” that the modernists needed to break, since what they proposed at the Second Vatican Council was nothing short of a new religion.

So it is not the Summorum Pontificum or the TLM in and of itself that is a threat to the Homo Lobby. If anything, it is the derived “causal determinism” that the Summorum Pontificum unleashed through the “legitimization” of the TLM, and the “down-stream” effects on the Faithful, but especially on the clerical class. But the most immediate threat to the hidden agenda of the neo-modernists was not the Summorum Pontificum, but rather the 2005 instructions by the Congregation for Catholic Education (see here) that can be rightfully identified as the REAL ROOT CAUSE behind the resignation of Benedict XVI.

Or to put it another way, an unrepentant homosexual would be happy offering the TLM, just like he is happy offering the Novus Ordo, if the TLM did not contain “intrinsic elements” (read Truth with capital “T”), that produce side effects that are lethal to his personal “intrinsic disorder”. But he might be able to deal with that.

But what he could not deal with is the fact he isn’t a priest in the first place?

And with the absence of “intrinsically disordered” clergy in the pipeline, think of the effect that this new situation would have on the entire support network, not to mention the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II”.