Tags

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


In today’s post we continue with the subject matter that we started yesterday, pertaining to the NORMALIZATIN PROCESS ™ in the ecclesiastical area of human endeavor. Although this might not seem at present apparent to most of you dear readers, especially if you watched the Fr. Karl Stehlin video (see here if you missed it) in the previous post, hopefully at the end of this post you will have started to change your mind.

Getting down to specifics, in yesterday’s post titled The Abdication And Benedict’s Known Knowns (see here) we attempted to define what Pope Benedict XVI knew and when he knew it. We used the Rumsfeldian term the “known knowns”. We also defined a chronology so that we can discern (judge) the basis for the actions that Pope Benedict took and to understand their ramifications, on that fateful day of the 11th of February, 2013.

The information set out in yesterday’s post, along with our understanding of what he have described up to now as the stand-alone ‘object’, with an immaterial form that exists in nature”: “NECESSITY”, will allow us to posit a HYPOTHESIS as to the proper understanding of the actions that Pope Benedict XVI took at the time of his abdication and their proper meaning. The proper understanding of this historic action and how it relates to Revelation and Reason, i.e. the two sources of our Faith, will allow us to understand the OBJECTIVE REALITY that the Holy Roman Catholic Church finds Herself in Anno Domini 2016.

So here goes…

State of NECESSITY

Naturally, our jump off point today is an even more thorough understanding of what is NECESSITY, more thorough than we have up to now.

If you recall dear reader, up to now we have limited our understanding of NECESSITY to that part of our faith that comes from Reason. In the post titled  State of Necessity and the Doritos Test, (see here) we identified two independent and unrelated instances of states of NECESSITY that exist in the legal profession and in the natural sciences (zoology).

NECESSITY in the Law

In the case of NECESSITY that exists in the legal profession, we can read the following:

State of necessity, now known as “necessity” and codified by Article 25 of the International Law Commission’s (ILC’s) Articles on State Responsibility (ASR), is a circumstance precluding the wrongfulness of an otherwise internationally wrongful act.

NECESSITY in the natural sciences (Zoology)

With respect to NECESSITY that is present in the natural sciences, we provided an example of a wolf caught in a trap, biting its paw off in order to save it’s life. Here is how we explained this instance:

On the other hand, if that bear trap was placed in the forest, and a wolf would happen to get snared in it, the wolf, a part of God’s CREATION, would act instinctively. In other words, the wolf would chew off his limb in order to same himself. Or to put it another way, the wolf would act in accordance with a STATE OF NECESSITY. i.e. the wolf preemptively sacrificing a part of its body to save its life.

To this understand of NECESSITY, we can now add the following:

NECESSITY in the behavioral sciences (Political Science)

With the appearance of the post titled A “Pontificate of Exception.” The Mystery of Pope Benedict on the blog of Sandro Magister (see here), we were able to observe an instance of NECESSITY, this time in the behavioral sciences (political science). Here is that pertinent citation:

According to this theory, a “state of exception” is the dramatic hour of history in which the ordinary rules are suspended and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own.

Commenting on the above, one observation that I would make is that NECESSITY is more than just a “theory”, since we see it appearing in various areas of human activities. But more on this later.

Up to now, your humble blogger has limited himself to identifying occurrences of NECESSITY strictly to the source of our Faith that is known through natural light of human reason from the things that are made, i.e. Reason.

Yet we know that the second source of our Faith derives from Divine Revelation. Therefore, the question then becomes: what evidence do we have that NECESSITY is in fact a part of God’s creation given to us by the other source of our Faith, i.e the Divine Law?

In the video that the SSPX produced under the title Is There a State of Necessity in the Church Today? – Episode 12 – SSPX FAQ Series (see here), evidence is provided that NECESSITY is cited in Scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments.

Old Testament

State of Necessity appears several times in Scripture. The Maccabees, compelled by need, the Maccabees decided to use their swords on the Sabbath day rather then allow themselves to be killed without fighting back.

New Testament

The Lord also invokes this principle against the princes of the priests seeking to catch Him in a fault. He even cites it as self evident. Quote “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him out, on the sabbath day?”

Given the above, a definition of what is a State of NECESSITY in the theological area of human activity is provided:

“Whenever there is an urgent and immediate danger to the Faith, it creates a State of Necessity”.

Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas also wrote about the “state of NECESSITY”. St. Thomas observed, citing the Traditional adage that:

“necessity has no law”.

St. Thomas also observed that in a “state of NECESSITY”,The Church may, for instance suspend the application of a positive law like some aspect of canon law.”

And

In extraordinary situations come extraordinary duties and therefore extraordinary means”.

Summarizing, what we see in a more thorough examination of what is “NECESSITY” is the following:

States of NECESSITY:

exists in Natural Law and Divine Law, i.e. is a part of God’s creation,

allows to preclude the wrongfulness of an otherwise internationally wrongful act, e.g. an errant “resignation that was’t”

allows for taking actions that would not be permissible in normal situations, e.g. pre-emptive military strikes,

covers an hour of history in which the ordinary rules are suspended and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own, e.g. “calling a conclave that wasn’t”

allows for the suspension of God given law, e.g. case of the Maccabees and Our Lords teaching cited above,

allows the Church for instance, to suspend the application of a positive law like some aspect of canon law.”, e.g. UDG 81

allows in extraordinary situations, using extraordinary duties and therefore extraordinary means”, i.e. ALL UNSPECIFIED means

and finally,

because, “necessity has no law”.

 Benedict’s Known Knowns on the 11th of February, 2013

In yesterday’s post, we established what Benedict most likely knew before and on the 11th of February, 2013. The following is a summary:

knew that there was a concerted effort to stop him, or his candidate from ascending to the Throne of St. Peter, (as per Davies quote in yesterday’s post)

knew that this concerted effort was an organized “network” working to stop him from ascending headed by the leadership of the German Bishops’ Conference, (see here)

knew that the pointman for this effort at the 2005 conclave was Cardinal Martini, (see here)

knew that the clerics from the German Bishops’ Conference were supporting an alternative candidate at the 2005 conclave, (as per above link)

knew that the goal of his opponents promoted a vision of the Church along the lines of Benedict’s former “mentor”, one Karl Rahner, (see here – please read this link to get an appreciation of the NUT JOB that is Rahner and his whacky theories)

knew what that “vision” of the Church would create a “rupture” with the Catholic Church as Our Lord founded it, (as per above link)

knew that powerful clerics in the Church were working to undermine him, and his power was limited, (as per Davies interview)

knew that there were calls for his resignation as early as 2009, (see here)

knew that if he passed away, there was a good chance that a Rahner adherent could ascend to the Throne of St. Peter. (as per Davies interview)

Given that he had failing health, brought about by the strains of running the day to day operations of the Vatican bureaucracy, a very strong case can be made that Pope Benedict XVI used this as a pretext to “resign”,

Or to be more precise, Pope Benedict XVI used the above to execute a “resignation that wasn’t”.

Benedict’s Course of Action

The below is the HYPOTHESIS as to Benedict’s course of action.

Given that Benedict understood what constitutes a “state of NECESSITY” in Divine Law and Natural Law and by extension in Catholic Canon Law, the following are the Known Knowns:

The evidence demonstrates that he was involved in negotiations with the SSPX over the span of his entire pontificate (29 August 2005 to ~10 February 2013). Therefore, Benedict must have known that the SSPX use extraordinary supplied jurisdiction under a State of NECESSITY to administer two Sacraments (Marriage and Confession).

Further evidence comes by way of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, who referenced one of the most talked-about political philosophers of the twentieth century, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). “State of exception” (NECESSITY) was knowledge that any German with an average education immediately associates with the figure and thought of Carl Schmitt (1888-1985).

Given the above and all that it entails, the following ASSUMPTIONS can be made:

Knowing that he was being undermined from outside and within the Church, undermined to the point where calls were being made for his “resignation” as early as (2009),

knowing that if he died or ABDICATED his office, a protégé of his former mentor, Karl Rahner could ascend to the throne of St. Peter and break with the continuity of the Church as Our Lord founded it,

knowing that if he “nominally resigned” while keep his title and teaching office, he could have some, if very limited influence on the future direction that the new pontiff takes,

knowing that the Church was effectively in a State of NECESSITY where:

1) “NECESSITY has no law”, 2) covers an hour of history in which the ordinary rules are suspended and the sovereign imposes new rules on his own, 3) allows for taking actions that would not be permissible in normal situations, i.e. pre-emptive military strikes, 4) allows to preclude the wrongfulness of an otherwise internationally wrongful act, 5) allows in extraordinary situations, using extraordinary duties and therefore extraordinary means” such as allows for the suspension of God given law, i.e. case of the Maccabees and Our Lords teaching cited above and allows the Church for instance, to suspend the application of a positive law like some aspect of canon law”, such as UDG 81,

and knowing that he was being pressured to resign, likewise by external interests (see here) whereby he would lose all control over the Catholic Church that is in a State of NECESSITY, …

Benedict XVI, using the doctrine of the State of NECESSITY and all that comes with it (used by the SSPX to obtain extraordinary supplied jurisdiction to administer the Sacraments of Confession and Marriage) COULD HAVE enacted the appearance of a “resignation that wasn’t” and a subsequent “conclave that wasn’t”.

Once again: “NECESSITY has no law”.

Furthermore, being fully aware that the Office of St. Peter was instituted by Our Lord himself and could not be “split” or “reduced” in any way (would not hold up in a proper future Catholic Council or a proper Catholic pope), shape or form, and given that by executing the “resignation that wasn’t”, Benedict effectively enacted (declared) the Catholic Church is in a State of NECESSITY. Going even further, he or a successor or future Council (the Council of Econe has a certain nice ring to it, no?), could effectively NEGATE anything that the next in line “pope(s)” or rather next in line False Popes (see here) would nominally enact or teach, thereby saving the Catholic Church from ERROR, which by definition it cannot make?

If the above is a correct HYPOTHESIS, that Benedict effected a “resignation that wasn’t”, leaving him in the Papal Office, and only relieving him of the daily burdensome administration duties while allowing him to maintain his teaching office and REAL AUTHORITY, and is in REALITY still the Roman Pontiff, what EVIDENCE exists that supports this HYPOTHESIS?

I ran long again, so I will provide some answers in the next post.

Will pick up this thread in tomorrow’s post.

 

Advertisements