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

Mass Offered in Ruined Church


Busy day, so quick post today. The picture below comes via the Fr. Blake blog (see here)

Francis lonely

The second photo come by way of the SSPX seminary website (see here).

Bishop Fellay at new seminary

And now to the subject at hand.

The old English idom states that “a picture is worth a thousand words”. To this end, I bring you two pictures. These two pictures are striking in their own right, however when taken together, the dynamism becomes exponential.

One can easily view the subject matter of this post and the accompanying photos as the perfect illustration of the term DICHOTOMY. And naturally, to capture the essence of this presentation, a definition is in order. So here goes: (see here)

A dichotomy is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts


jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other.

The two parts thus formed are complements. In logic, the partitions are opposites if there exists a proposition such that it holds over one and not the other.

What the above means, with respect to the two photos is that these photos capture the DICHOTOMY within the Catholic Church Anno Domini 2016. According to the definition of DICHOTOMY, the two subsets are OPPOSITES!

To be more specific, what we see in these two photos is the dichotomy within the Catholic Church where:

one subset, let’s call it the neo-modernist post conciliar church, as represented by Francis, the bishop of Rome (subset 1)


another subset, let’s call this one the Catholic (a.k.a Traditionalist) Indefectible Church as represented by Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (subset 2)

…make up the whole Universal Church (set). Yet these two subsets are at the same time mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. Therefore, from the point of view of a logician, these two subsets are, once again: OPPOSITES.

This DICHOTOMY explained above, in a nutshell can easily epitomize the DAMAGE that was done to the Catholic Church by the neo-modernists at Vatican II. It also clearly represents, through a completely OBJECTIVE medium, the break that Vatican II represents with the Tradition of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Yet, this DICHOTOMY also represents hope. What we see in the picture on the bottom is Bishop Fellay surveying the work being performed on the building site of the new SSPX seminary in Buckingham Co., Virginia. The symobolism of the Traditional Church rebuilding itself from the devastation which the neo-modernists have wrought on the Bride of Christ since the second Vatican Council is quite fitting.

Concluding, this representation can also act as an apt illustration for the concluding paragraph of the John Lamont essay on the Attacks on Thomism, (see here) where he writes:

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. 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.

OK, let that sink in for a minute.

And Mr. Lamont then goes on to write the following:

This is one thing that on the natural level permitted the survival of Thomism, despite the drastic measures taken to uproot it from the Church; unlike neomodernism, it has something positive and substantial to say. Moreover, what it has to say is actually true. This is in no way a guarantee of broad success, but it ensures the continued existence of Thomism in the small constituency of good scholars who are concerned with the truth and in a position to discover it. Whether it will expand much beyond this constituency in the future is unknown, but there is no doubt that its future shows more promise than that of neomodernism.

 Nothing more needs to be said.