Tags

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


pope-bling

I bet you could feed an entire Favela with the proceeds from the sale of that puppy.

In our last post (see here), we focused on a single word, namely “subsist” and how this word could be seen as the ROOT CAUSE of the demise and disintegration of the post-conciliar church.

Notice the causal relationship defined above?

So what proof was presented for this PROPOSITION?

The proof your humble blogger presented and will expound upon today, will be presented in the form of the quiz. So here goes…

Which of the following passages (Lumen gentium) is a correct?

(a) This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

(b) This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, is the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Answers:

1) (a) only

2) (b) only

3) both (a) and (b)

Naturally, the answer cannot be 3). The reason being that there  a difference between passage (a) and (b), namely the word “is”.

Which leaves us with answer 1) and 2).

Next, one cannot argue that 1) and 2) are the same or essentially the same. The reason being is that by using the word “subsist”, by definition one is introducing two different entities.

Once again: 

This Church (founded by Our Lord) constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church… 

Notice in the passage in question above, that we are speaking about two different and distinct entities, one being “This Church” which “subsists” in the “Catholic Church”.

Yes?

The above should answer any remaining open questions as to why I approached this subject using Set Theory rather than a classical definition approach.

But before we go to the definition part of this post, let’s provide the answer to the question.

We know that 2) is correct.

And since we know that 2) is correct, we also must eliminate 1). The reason being that we know from the principles of logical thought that the law of identity (for A: A =  A) hold in this case. In other words, if the VII council fathers wanted to use the word “is”, they would have used the word “is”. Remember, “is” is the correct answer which makes:

This Church (founded by Our Lord) =  the Catholic Church.

Which brings me to the “definitions’ part of this post.

In a comment that appeared in my comment box, from another long time friend of this blog, Cold Standing. In his comment, Cold Standing writes:

In Vol. 1 of The Teaching of the Catholic Church edited by Canon G. D. Smith on p. 112, there is a discussion of the necessary marks for personality to be recognised. Condition 1. states:

“In the first place, subsistence or substantiality; a person is first and foremost a substance, that is, something which exists in itself(!), something which {…wait for it…} subsists, as for instance an apple, and not something which merely inheres in something else, like the colour of an apple. ”

It appears you have employed “subsist” throughout your post with the idea that subsist = inheres, which, using the authoritative teaching I quoted, it does not.

What Cold Standing writes above is technically correct. But only when we use an OBJECTIVE MEANING OF CATHOLIC TERMS and their COMMON USAGE.

Yet we know that the neo-Modernists are linguistic relativists. Actually, they are linguistic nihilists.

Don’t believe me?

For those who do not believe me, I would direct you to what I would consider the seminal work in this area, the John Lamont essay that appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog on the 1st of January 2015. The original post titled Attacks on Thomism can be found here. I highly suggest to go to the link and read this work. Aside, I would suggest reading this works once per week until it is indelibly engraved in ones mind. But I digress…

Concluding, knowing what we know about the neo-Modernist mindset and their modus operandi, we must recognize that we are not dealing with an honest, intellectual debate.

And as I was thinking about this post, I just so happen to stumble upon the latest Mike Cernovich video. In this video, Mike provides a great explanation for how to counter any neo-Modernists strategy. His method is through “branding” and “optics”.

I think he is onto something.

Now here is the video and you must watch it:

In the ecclesiastical sub-set of human activity, here is an example of how the neo-Modernists, through propagandists like Fr. van Hove, did exactly what Mike explains in his video, to the Dominican Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. and by extension to the Thomists. Here is how John Lamont explains this process: (emphasis added)

The weakness of the substantive accusations against Thomism was however no hindrance to the anti-Thomist campaign, for which these accusations were largely window dressing. The focus of this campaign, and the key to its success, was a propaganda effort. This effort concentrated effectively on the key goals of propaganda; vilifying the opponents whose destruction is sought, creating fear of these opponents, and exalting the courage, goodness and wisdom of all those who join in the attack on them. The vilification took the form of the epithets noted above – ‘arid’, ‘rationalist’, ‘sterile’, etc. – together with the accusation that Thomists denounced loyal Catholics as heretics, and brought about their punishment by ecclesiastical authority, in order to impose their own, flawed personal views. The fear was of the alleged malice and tyranny of Thomists, and of the alienation from the modern world that would supposedly result if their obsolete ideas were imposed or officially sanctioned by the Church. These negative themes directly led to the glorification of anyone who agreed with them and denounced Thomists and Thomism; such denunciation protected the innocent victims of false denunciations, resisted tyranny, and promoted a glorious embrace between the Church and the modern world.

So in the above, what we see is perfect example of that which we Catholics have been dealing with over the last 50 years, and it is the following: we have been dealing with what are essentially issues of BRANDING and OPTICS. 

A good case in point can be found here.

And one more thing. Let’s not get caught up with the definitions.

Advertisements