Tags

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


St. Peter's Square

We continue today with our “fog lifting” exercise which we began in our last post titled Prologue-The Fight For The Institutional Church (see here). It is in this context which we will be analyzing the Padre Pio Pace essay which appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog recently (see here).

To be more precise, the subject at hand is the “hybrid war” which is raging within the Sacred Vatican Walls. One of our last posts on this subject was titled Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting (see here). In this post, according to a Julius Muller-Meiningen article, it would appear as if  TEAM FRANCIS had even resorted to threatening the Curia staff with physical violence, in order to get their way. (see here)

Today we will start at where we left off yesterday and apply our Pierce/Ockham pramatic methodology (see here) to examine the information (DATA POINTS) which the Pio Pace essay provides to the Rorate Caeli readers.

A two sentence passage from the Rorate Caeli blog, written by Padre Pio Pace is our jump off point. The two sentences are in regards to the Fr. Georg Gerwshwain statement pertaining to the “not two popes but an expanded papacy” comment and are as follows:

Theologically,  this makes no sense whatsoever! One is forced, therefore, to find a “political” meaning.

Unpacking the above passage, the understanding of two elements is of critical importance, i.e. 1) the idea of “an expanded papacy” makes no theological sense and 2) only in a “political” framework can any meaning be derived.

First from the theological side. The following is the case:

The proposed division of duties is so utterly incompatible with the nature of the Office of Peter as established by Christ, that those with even the most modest degree of sensus Catholicus just know in their gut that it is entirely impossible.

IF one assumes that Benedict XVI possesses “even the most modest degree of sensus Catholicus and one has to, THEN it follows that Benedict was not creating a new “theological novelty” with this quite extraordinary concept of an expanded papacy.

Taking Padre Pio’s suggestion and examining the passage from the “political” side however, the statement does makes perfect sense.

The circumstantial and anecdotal evidence for the above inference is actually quite large. Among the best examples of the catalogue of evidence is the Sandro Magister post titled The Real Francis Revolution Marches to the Beat of Appointments (see here) In this post, we find the following passage:

If there were in fact two national episcopates, each more than two hundred men strong, that were putting the guidelines of Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger into practice, these were precisely the American and the Italian.

With respect to the Italian Bishop’s Conference, we have observed how Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco has been completely marginalized by the FrancisBishop Galatino (see here and here). With respect to the US, subsequent to this post from the 14 of November of 2015, a new nuncio to the US which was appointed. Here is how the Eponymous Flower describes the new appointment (see here):

Edit: another Olde Liberal appointment, as we reported earlier, Archbishop Christopher Pierre will surely bring more awful appointments to the American scene. NCR correctly recalls Jadot, who did so much to undermine the Catholic Church in the U.S. after the tragic Council.

It is in this context outlined above, that one can understand the “message” which Benedict XVI was sending to the Universal Church through his interlocutor Abp. Georg Gänswein.

So here are the DATA POINTS and their inferred meaning:

Most likely cause (ROOT CAUSE) of the Benedict message:

We are only beginning to measure the extension of the earthquake caused by Amoris Laetitia, which in fact relativizes the entire Moral Magisterium, an essential part  — why not say, the only remaining part — of the papal Magisterium after Vatican II. From now on, any unequivocal moral stance will be impossible (as well as, obviously, any condemnation).

Most likely aim (GOAL) of the Benedict message:

(…) Georg Gänswein, who receives everyday the cries and lamentations of the Ratzingerians, builds up, with the aid of Regali, the statue of his Pope as an accusing statue of against the Commander, as a “contemplative Pope”. And, by the very fact of doing so, he weakens even more the legitimacy of the “active Pope”, in the spirit of his nostalgic friends.

Not only to the “nostalgic friends” but likewise to the Universal Church.

Most likely secondary consideration (MINOR PREMISE) was the “marginalization” of the Curia and the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, specifically:

In reality, the three Cardinals (Ed. note: Burke, Muller and Sarah), three musketeers who are sworn enemies of the “dictatorship of relativism” are four: the fourth is Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna, one of the greatest experts on the moral work of Pius XII.

With respect to the observation that:

The opposition, despite its attempts of resistance during the two last assemblies of the Synod of Bishops, does not truly manage to find its standing, to find an appropriate response. It is in this morose atmosphere that it listened to the strange speech of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Pontifical Household, and private secretary of the Pope Emeritus.

… is confirmation of the soundness of the HYPOTHESIS. They are opposing Francis through “political” means.

It follows then that the “opposition” has conciously chosen to respond in a “political” manner to Francis’ political maneuvering. One can also infer that the reason why they are staying quiet is as follows:

It could be this: in a Rome where each one may say, today, almost anything one wants to say — considering, in any event, that there is no ambition willing to face the Bergoglian establishment head on…

Reading the above, one can say that when dealing with a “political revolutionary” (see here and here and here) like Francis, one needs to “play smart”. It is no secret that Francis’ game is to wrest control over the INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH away from the Wojtylians and the Ratzingerians, AKA “c”atholics. In a situation as unprecedented as the one presently inside the Catholic Church, every “normal” Catholic prelate in a position of authority is worth his weight in gold. And every Catholic cardinal at the next conclave is even more valuable.

Concluding observation is as follows: focusing on the “theological” aspects and the “spiritual junk food” that Francis serves up to His sheep on a regular basis is missing the point as to the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the situation on the ground in Rome.

Furthermore, it would appear that the “opposition” has taken a page out of the “when in Rome, do as the Romans” book. It is obviously keeping its collective head outside of Francis’ field of fire, while trying to play the “long game”. And just as a reminder, the long game is what is known as Romanitas. Here is a fitting explanation (see here):

Romanitas has another contemporary application, and that is in the life of the Catholic Church, at least in its Western half. For centuries a supranational allegiance has been the glue that has held together Catholics from all parts of the globe. This has been done through something as basic as a shared “look”: Catholic churches, fittings, iconography, vestments and dress, from Manila to Mombassa to Managua, have drawn from the same recognisably connected tradition. (“Togas everywhere”, as one witness of Roman Britain, whom Mary Beard quotes, says; with us it is chasubles everywhere.) Moreover, there has been a connection, until recently, through the Latin language and an enduring one through the Roman liturgy. The romanitas of the Church has been an important and providential gift to us all.

Given that which is written above and from the inferences which flow from our Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology, it would appear that this is the simplist explanation for what is transpiring in modernist Rome. And…

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate

Furthermore, the Pio Pace essay in turn can be seen as confirmation of the Civil War that is taking place behind the Sacred Vatican Walls, a Civil War that makes itself known from time to time. Reading the essay in this light, the information contained in the essay should be viewed not so much as the personal musings of an individual cleric, but an overview of the psychological disposition and morale of the “opposition” forces engaged in this epic struggle for control over the INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH.

I will end off here for today and pick up with this same theme tomorrow, implicating the good (positive) news that is contained in the cited essay.

And there is good news.

Advertisements