Tags

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


archbishop-lefebvre-ii

Today is “Plant your flag and make a stand” Day at the Deus Ex Machina Blog.

Sort of.

The reason I say “sort of” is that this blog is written with the clear and stated intent of providing OBJECTIVE, or as OBJECTIVE as possible, analysis of the state of REALITY within the Catholic Church and its environs, i.e. Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium. What this humble blogger  tries to avoid is making SUBJECTIVE judgments.  I leave that to others, more qualified authors and bloggers than yours truly, which is why I link to their work and reference them heavily in my posts.

Now to today’s subject matter with a short prologue about methodology.

The subject matter of this post is in essence a response to a post that appeared at the Stumbling Block Blog written by Frank Walker. In the post titled WE TAKE THIS BRIEF MOMENT TO PAUSE FOR A POPE (see here), your humble blogger was mentioned and the following passage can be read:

I was surprised to see Mr. Armaticus, who seemed fairly enthusiastic about SSPX Bishop Fellay’s report on the personal FrancisPrelature he’d been offered, praise Ann Barnhardt’s recommendation today. 

Believe it or not, I was surprised by this outcome as well.

Yet since one of the main tenets of that which I write and post is “consistency”, derived through my analytical methodology, I could not get around “coming” to the conclusion to which I came.

So first, methodology.

When I look at the various DATA POINTS that I observe in the daily information flow coming out of the Catholic-o-sphere, I make an assessment as to the importance of the DATA POINT/S that I am observing. Naturally, I assign a larger weighting to DATA POINTS that affect “dogma” than I do to DATA POINT/S that effect pastoral “practice”, for example. I also place the largest weighting on those DATA POINT/S that effect the highest priority of the Church, i.e. the “salvation of souls” and I decrease the weighting from there on out.

Furthermore, I place a higher weighting on textual citations which are “formulaic” then I do on those that I consider banal chatter. To give an example of just this, in a Sandro Magister post titled A “Pontificate of Exception.” The Mystery of Pope Benedict (see herewe are informed that:

The formula, emphasized by Gänswein with the use of the German word, is not accidental. It contains a transparent reference to the “state of exception” theorized by one of the greatest and most talked-about political philosophers of the twentieth century, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985).

With respect to the above, I have assigned a very high weighting to this DATA POINT due to first, its “formulaic” nature and second, to the proximity of the SOURCE of this DATA POINT provider, to the party of our interest, i.e. Benedict XVI.

On the other end of this continuum are statements to which I would give minimal weighting. One of these is the following: (see here)

“Your goodness is a place in which I feel protected,” he said of his successor.

Reference citations of this sort definitely fall into what can honestly be termed the Verrecchian “pseudosacral homopoetic prose” or drivel, if spoken. (see here) DATA POINTS that fall into this category get the lowest weighting, obviously.

And finally, I also maintain fixed markers against which I confront the DATA POINT/S. Naturally, the DATA POINT/S that do not conform to my fixed markers are naturally subjected to Occam’s Razor, or are categorized as contrary to the Faith, i.e. heterodox/heretical for the purposes of the analysis.

So those are a few insights into the methodology (see here)

Now to the problem at hand.

The Known Knowns on which my CONCLUSION  for supporting the Ann Barnhardt position rests, pertain to “the question of who and where is Peter”.

I have already provided an extensive analysis of the issue of “who is Peter?” in the post titled  Ockham’s Razor Finds: Benedict Still Pope, Francis Is False Pope, Universal Church in State of Necessity since 24 April, 2005 (see here

The next question that needs to be addressed is: “what do we know about Peter? In the Holy Gospel according to Matthew (16:18-19) we are provided with the following OBJECITVE EVIDENCE:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Which brings us to the issue of “where is Peter?”.  According to a Father of the Church, St. Ambrose, the following is the case:

Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church

So now that we have established the PROPER organizational structure, the chain of command and competences, i.e. that Peter can “bind” and “loosen”, we need to establish what it is that Peter can “bind” and “loosen”.

Our next Known Known comes from Luke (10:16) in which Our Lord teaches:

 He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me…

What this passage establishes is the constraints (limitations) of what it is that Peter can teach, i.e. the papal teaching office.  In other words, a simple, OBJECTIVE reading of just this passage alone allows us to set the parameters (limits) of the papal teaching office.

Therefore, we can examine what it is that Our Lord taught and compare it with what Francis, the bishop of Rome is teaching. We do this to establish that that which Our Lord taught and that which the current successor of St. Peter is teaching are indeed one and the same. Let’s call this the TRUE starting PREMISE.

Starting from the TRUE PREMISE above, it is OBJECTIVELY CORRECT to state that what Our Lord taught and that which the current “successor” of St. Peter is teaching, are NOT one and the same.

The most recent PROOF comes via a post by Louie Verrecchio at the AKA Catholic Blog titled It’s time to either expose or depose Francis. (see here) In this post, Mr. V details at least three “differences” between what Our Lord taught and what Francis, the bishop of Rome is claiming to be Our Lord’s teaching. Therefore, Mr. V goes on to make the OBJECTIVELY CORRECT conclusion that:

And yet every last one of us knows damned well that a formal heretic cannot be pope. 

In terms of the St. Ambrose marker used in our analysis, the OBJECTIVELY TRUE conclusion is: where Francis, the bishop of Rome is, the Church isn’t.

But since we are living in an age of “two popes”, we have a second possibility to identify “who and where Peter is?”, namely the Pope “Emeritus”.

Which brings us to the second part of the St. Ambrose maker: “there is the Church”.

We know (Known Known) that the Catholic Church exists, and it exists VISIBLY. Here is the EVIDENCE and the SOURCE as to where the Church exist:

We’ve (SSPX) been told that at the last meeting of the Congregation of the Faith, where they all meet together, all the cardinals and bishops which are members, we call that a plenaria, this is the full meeting, there was only one cardinal who said, ‘no, no. no, the Society must absolutely accept the whole council’. And other voices who said ‘these people do only one thing, (that is) to repeat what the Church has always taught’. So you see, there is something on the move…                       

In the above citation, what we have is EVIDENCE that there are “other voices”, composed of cardinals and bishops, who simultaneously are members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and who consider the SSPX to repeat what the Church has always taught”. 

In other words: “where the Church is”.

By using this formulaic expression, what the members of the plenaria of the CDF, with the exception of one cardinal are in fact saying is the following:

He who hears you the SSPX hears me, and he who rejects you the SSPX rejects me…

PROOF of the OBJECTIVE CORRECTNESS of the above conclusion comes from the FACT that the CDF has dropped all previous requirements to conform to the Vatican II documents to which the SSPX objected.

So how could this above situation be explained?

There can only be one OBJECTIVELY CORRECT answer. That answer MUST rest on the mechanism that exists in NATURAL LAW that is a STATE OF NECESSITY. (see here and here and here)

Concluding, I would like to add my supporting reasons for why Ann Barnhardt’s  CONCLUSION is correct. They are as follows:

The SSPX have, since 1976 relied upon “extraordinary” supplied jurisdiction under a State of Necessity to administer Sacraments (Confession and Marriage) to the Faithful.

The SSPX are very familiar with this mechanism of NATURAL LAW that is the STATE OF NECESSITY and its successful application. PROOF is that they are now considered, by a large part of the CDF members to be the VISIBLE CATHOLIC CHURCH. (I will return to this issue in a follow-up post)

Having an in-depth understanding of the mechanism of NATURAL LAW that is STATE OF NECESSITY, the SSPX understand that it is not limited to just the Sacraments, but to the entire situation in which the Catholic Church finds itself in at present, including Church governance.

Having an in-depth understanding of what constitutes Our Lord’s teaching (as CONFIRMED by the CDF) and being cognizant of the actual teaching of Francis, the bishop of Rome (see here), the SSPX have an obligation to publicly state that: it is a moral certainty that what Francis teaches is not that which Our Lord taught. 

Furthermore, the SSPX have an added obligation and that is this: since the SSPX relied on the STATE OF NECESSITY to justify (CORRECTLY – CONFIRMED by the CDF) their extraordinary supplied jurisdiction, they must explain to the wider Church the situation in which the FAITHFUL find themselves.

To be more precised, the SSPX MUST explain to the FAITHFUL and to Modernist Rome how it is that the UNIVERSAL CHURCH finds itself in the following position:

Where The SSPX Is Therefore, There Is The Church.

 

And Ann Barnhardt’s recommendation facilitates exactly that.

Once again:

The SSPX should cease all negotiations with Bergoglio, publicly state that it is a moral certainty that Bergoglio is not the pope, and publicly declare allegiance to the one and only living Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger.

Post scriptum:

I do not think negotiations need to be ceased “with Bergoglio” since the parties to the negotiations are the CDF and the SSPX.

 

Advertisements