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

SSPX Procession

In today’s post, we revert back to a topic relating to ecclesiastical matters.

As you dear reader know, over the last few posts I have been covering topics relating to the economic area of human endeavor, in a wide sense of that term. I have been doing this to identify and explain processes underlying events which are taking place currently, processes that are a part of the natural order, or what we call the et Invisibilium part of the LEX ARMATICUS on this blog.

The reason that I have been writing about economics is that it is one area where any divergence from the et Invisibilium can be detected in a relatively short period of time. This is no doubt due primarily to what is known as the “profit motive”. Please recall the 2nd principle of the LEX ARMATICUS,i.e. even neo-modernists need to eat. But I digress… And the situation with the vote by the citizenry of the UK in the BREXIT referendum has provided a most illustrative case study to analyze.

It is just this subject matter that I described in a recent article titled On Making Stupid Mistakes (see here). In that post, your humble blogger explained how a badly designed “bail-in reform” (contradiction of the et Invisibilium) that was supposed to protect the tax-payers of Italy from suffering further losses with respect to bank recapitalizations in that country, had the opposite effect and will end up costing those same Italian tax-payers €40,000,000,000 (~$44,000,000,000).

One other reason why I chose to illustrate examples of the et Invisibilium in the area of economics is that I have a formal education in this field. To be more precise, I do not make a living from writing on economics, as my regular reader must have noticed (a good editor would come in handy, yes?), but rather make a living out of analyzing information that appears on a real time basis. One can correctly assume that my professional career is comprised of a continuous analysis and assessment of ECONOMICALLY SENSITIVE STATEMENTS (DATA). And naturally, making correct decisions based on a correct understanding of the content and context of said sensitive economic statements (and information). On can also correctly assume that my professional career has been spent “on the peripheries”, or as we like to call them here, on the “margins”. And I have been successfully doing this for 30+ years. So those are my “street creds”.

Given the above, when I come across “sensitive language”, or rather changes in sensitive language from earlier statements, I have a tendency to “red line” the earlier part and superimpose the new information.  In the area of economics that is known as monetary policy, a good example of just this is in the photo below. This is a snapshot of a US Federal Reserve Board statement superimposed on the previous Fed statement.

Fed tracker

The analogous situation, in the ecclesiastical sphere of human endeavor I have written up in a post titled CDF – SSPX Dialogue: A BREAKTHROUGH? (see here). In this post, your humble blogger explained the “TECTONIC” movement in and  significance behind the statement by Archbishop Pozzo, the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and high ranking prelate in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who stated for the record the following:

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,”

And then Archbishop Pozzo followed up with this:

“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,”

And let us compare the above two passages to the a subsequent interview that was given by the prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Muller. Here is that text (see here)

But Cardinal Müller, whose insistence on the SSPX adhering to the Council’s teaching is clearly more pronounced than that of the Holy Father, told Herder Korrespondenz that one cannot discount the Council as “only pastoral chatter” just because it adopted no binding dogmas.

There appears to be some “dissonance” (lack of agreement; especially :  inconsistency between the beliefs one holds or between one’s actions and one’s beliefs) between the respective positions of  Archbishop Pozzo, Cardinal Muller and Francis, the bishop of Rome.

What we actually are a witness to, is the Vatican running afoul of the second  of the three basic laws of thought (logic). For a more detailed explanation, see here. But back to the story.  In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. For example, two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

So let’s take the second basic law of logic out for a spin, shall we? I will use the present situation between the SSPX and the post-conciliar church. What is in fact the case is that

Francis is offering the SSPX, i.e. the Lefebvrists “normalization”, something that they as CATHOLICS are entitled to (it is their RIGHT).

Yet at the same time, Francis is repressing the Franciscans of the Immaculate for their “Lefebvrist drift”.

As they say, “such a deal”?

To finish my point, the Law of Non-Contradiction, in essence is simply an expression of the concept of mutual exclusive/jointly exhaustive. And as Thomists, the SSPX understand this concept, and by extension the nature of the position they find themselves in quite well. So is it any wonder why they are making the decisions that they are making?

Which brings me to another observation about the now famous “le communiqué” that the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay issued yesterday. I have reposted under the title A True Shepherd (see here).

For most of the Catholic, “c”atholic and heretic/heterodox world, the important issue was the proper discernment of the message that the SSPX were trying to convey with “le communiqué“. What most observers overlooked was the scale and the timeline of who was reporting.

If one looked at who reported on the story within the first few hours, one would notice that among the usual suspects, (Crux, NCR, CF News, etc. ) there also appeared global news organizations. The global news organization that reported on “le communiqué” where Fox News (see here), ABC (see here) and the Associated Press (see here).

Which leads to the following question: why would major global news organizations such as Fox News, ABC News and the Associate Press even bother with reporting about “issues” that the Vatican, the oldest and largest religious institution in the world is having with a “tiny” group of Catholics that are comprised of 600+ priests and a million Faithful?

I will leave you off with this thought, but it is one worth pondering. Especially in context to the breakdown of the NEW WORLD ORDER and all their FAILED NEO-MODERNIST EXPERIMENTS that we are observing in different areas of human endeavor such as economic policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy (see here), health care policy (see here). And now, it appears that we need to add “ecclesiastical policy” to this mix, SINCE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT CATHOLIC TRADITION IS BEING OBSERVED.


But regardless of what is behind the sudden interest of the global media organizations regarding the SSPX, one thing is for certain, the SSPX are definitely…