Tags

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


Card. Muller

Today we continue a theme we started yesterday, namely making observations at “The Margins”. In fact, there is a term which is used when describing this type of examination and that term is… “Marginal Analysis”. The short definition of Marginal Analysis is: an examination of the additional benefits of an activity compared to the additional costs of that activity. The reason why I brought this to your attention dear reader, is that Marginal Analysis is a very powerful OBJECTIVE tool for not only making, but also when examining, a whole host of everyday decisions made by individuals. On a more general level, in the field of economics, Marginal Analysis is widely used when analyzing how a complex system is affected by marginal manipulation of its comprising variables.

Taking into account the above, our specific case from yesterday can be fitted into this methodology and inferences can be drawn. As an example, I will use the interaction between the Holy See and the SSPX as an example. Based on the facts as laid out in our post titled TeamFrancis Making Trade-offs At “The Margins” (see here), we made the following observation:

Benedicts XVI wanted to “regularize” the SSPX. Benedict engaged the SSPX (lifted excommunication) which was one of the ROOT CAUSES behind his abdication. This abdication was brought about by the influence of certain heads of dicasteries strongly opposed to this recognition, as well as specific diplomatic pressures.

Francis wants (claims to want) to “regularize” the SSPX. Francis engaged the SSPX (granted jurisdiction for hearing Confession) and there has been no reported sightings of the ROOT CAUSE which appeared in the Benedict case, to date, i.e. no pressure from the influence of certain heads of dicasteries strongly opposed to this recognition, as well as specific diplomatic pressures.

Therefore, we finished yesterday’s post asking the question: So what has changed in the last three short years?

I will leave this question dangling, since at this point I would normally start a SUBJECTIVE process of drawing inferences and testing them. However, I will end here for the purpose of this post since the above situation is of a less SIGNIFICANT nature than the one I want to address today.

The MOST SIGNIFICANT “event” described in yesterday’s post, and the one I want to address today is the statement by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and a Consultor to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). For those unfamiliar with Vatican governance structures, the Ecclesia Dei Commission since 2 July 2009 is closely linked with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Prefect of the CDF is ex officio President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.  In other words, the chain of command is Archbishop Pozzo, Cardinal Muller and Francis.

Now that the proper order has been established, the proper context can be discerned from the following quote made by Archbishop Pozzo: (see here)

In what concerns the Second Vatican Council, the course taken in the meetings of the last years has led to an important clarification: the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium,” Archbishop Pozzo specified

Let’s unpack the above, shall we? What is of utmost importance to understand is the following passage: “the course taken in the meetings (Ed note: between the Vatican and the SSPX) of the last years has led to an important clarification”.

Which leads the following question: what has been clarified and to whom?

The answer comes in the next sentence: “the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium”,

To understand the answer to the above posed question, one needs to understand the respective positions of both the Vatican and the SSPX. According to the Vatican’s position, the Second Vatican Council must be accepted in total and as is. According to the SSPX, the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium”.

Therefore, what was clarified was that the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium, and it was clarified to the Vatican.

Confirmation of the OBJECTIVELY TRUE nature of the above summation can be gained from the following Archbishop Pozzo passage:

“Vatican II documents (should) be welcomed according to the required degree of adherence.” The acceptance of the texts on relations with other religions [Nostra Aetate] does not constitute a prerequisite for juridical recognition of the Lefebvrist society and certain questions will be able to remain “objects of discussion and clarification,”

Therefore, Vatican II does not now need to be accepted in total, but onlyaccording to the required degree of adherence”. In other words, Vatican II is not the constant magisterium.

Which then begs the question, how was it that in the span of three short years, a senior representative of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has admitted that the requests made by the Vatican of the SSPX three short years earlier were “unnecessary”?

Once again, one can write tomes in order to explain this “event”. Yet what is important for this post is that IT HAPPENED.

Or to put it another way, the “affirmation” put into the public domain by Archbishop Pozzo that the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium” became an OBJECTIVE FACT.

Concluding, I would like to make one SUBJECTIVE observation which I think captures the essence of what is described above. In a post titled There Can Be No Confession For Public Sinner (see here) the blogger Mundabor also engages in a bit of Marginal Analysis when he makes one of his usually brilliant observations, namely:

Catholicism is logical. It is a coherent set of rules which fit into each other. They fit so, that if you try to manipulate one of the rules you soon discover this has a domino effect and other rules are affected, creating greater and greater damage.

And at the end of this above described destructive process, individuals caught up in this TRANSRATIONAL Vatican II system come to a rather Darwinistic realization that that they either have to “change or die”.  Or as we like to point out on this blog, the post conciliar neo-modernists realize that they have run afoul of the LEX ARMATICUS (see here).

And as we also like to point out in this blog, even neo-modernists need to eat!

Advertisements