Tags

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


So I’m beginning to “trigger” some of my regular readers.

Here’s what I mean. I got this in my comment box from an individual whose opinion I respect highly and will continue to do so… on an objective level that is. Here is the “offending” quote that was written in response to my HYPOTHESIS, as to the nature of the disintegration of the post-conciliar church that I outlined in my previous post here:

And the simplest explanation is not malfeasance on the part of the Modernists, for this is giving them too much credit. Their theological productions are widely panned as incompetent, and yet you’d have them be the most cunning of conspirators capable of bringing the entire Catholic Church down by changing one word? I’m sorry, but that is ridiculous.

I will not name the offended party.

As to the cunning and intelligence of the conspirators, cunning yes, intelligent no. Think about the current bishop of Rome, yes?

Now, my HYPOTHESIS may be correct or it may be not correct, but it is definitely not “ridiculous” (arousing or deserving ridicule :  extremely silly or unreasonable :  absurd, preposterous).

What’s more, the opinion that my reader proposed as his competing HYPOTHESIS as to the disintegration of the post-conciliar church, in no way excludes my HYPOTHESIS.

Here is the competing HYPOTHESIS as a matter of record:

The simplest explanation is incapacity. They (we) simply could not sustain the Catholic culture with their (our) dwindling mental capacity.

The above is correct, yet if this was the ROOT CAUSE, why did the neo-Modernists feel the need to call a church council in the first place? And a unique council at that. Actually, the most singularly unique council in Catholic history! (see here)

Below is a good recap:

How Does Vatican II Stack Up Against Other Ecumenical Councils?

Previous 20 Ecumenical Councils  Vatican II 
Called at a time of emergency in the Church. Called at a time of peace in the Church.
Purpose was to address a serious problem and to condemn errors that threatened the Church. Purpose was to make the Church which had been flourishing under Pope Pius XII even better.
Doctrinal. Pastoral.
Holy Ghost solemnly invoked to protect Council from error. Holy Ghost not solemnly invoked in the traditional way.
Errors of the time were condemned. No errors condemned. Atheistic Communism and Modernism ignored.
Teachings contained in Council documents were always built on past Tradition and are clear and unambiguous. Teachings in this Council’s documents are often ambiguous and sometimes contrary to past Tradition.
Council documents (teachings) are binding upon all Catholics under pain of excommunication. Council documents are not binding upon all Catholics due to their “pastoral” nature.
Council teaching is always infallible. Council teaching is not always infallible.
These Councils were followed by a great renewal and growth after their implementation. This Council was followed by a great disaster after its implementation. Nowhere do the fruits of Vatican II show real growth.

What’s more, the neo-Modernists felt the need to call a Church Council where doctrinal change was ruled out not only at its inception but also in the closing address and at numerous points along the way.  Here is the Council opening speech passage:

In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intends to assert once again the Church’s Magisterium [teaching authority], which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might he presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.15

So the council was presented as a “pastoral” council to “present” the Magisterium “in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.

Here is how Pope John XXIII saw the risks:

The greatest concern of the ecumenical council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.17

Notice the phrase “the ecumenical council”?

This reference is not necessarily an accidental  occurrence.  The intent of Pope John XXIII was to call an ecumenical council. Here is that passage (see here):

“Ecumenical council.”

These two words Pope John XXIII said to the College of Cardinals on Jan. 25, 1959, went on to shape the Catholic Church and affect the lives of Catholics and non-Catholics ever since they were spoken.

On an aside, what in essence I have done is reduce Pope John XXIII’s two words – “ecumenical council”, down to one – “subsist”.  But I digress…

At the back end, here is how Pope Paul VI explained the outward intent behind the calling of the Second Vatican Council: (see here)

The most explicit confirmation that Vatican II was not infallible was given by Pope Paul VI on Jan.12, 1966, when he stated that:

“Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” (A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).

And here is how Pope Paul VI ended the Ecumenical Council: (see here)

This is our hope at the conclusion of this Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and at the beginning of the human and religious renewal which the council proposed to study and promote; this is our hope for you, brothers and Fathers of the council; this is our hope for the whole of mankind which here we have learned to love more and to serve better.

So what we see is a Council that from its very inception was designed as an ecumenical council. Yet the people driving this “pastoral” council felt the need to change the central tenets of the Catholic Faith. And this fits very well with the HYPOTHESIS presented by yours truly in the post titled  If The Shoes Fit…

********

On a more general note, the mission statement of this blog has expanded since the original one set out as: chronicling the “Restoration of all thing in Christ”.

The reason for this modification is that I have realized that the situation that is playing itself out in the Institutional Church, is running parallel to that in Western society in general. When I chronicle the Restoration that is picking up speed in the Catholic Church (see here), I now realize that this is a much, much wider PROCESS (see here).

Now given the unchanging character of human nature, and the Laws of Nature that govern not only this behavior but the wider environment, it would be unwise to disregard the information that is being provided from the wider human experience. In essence, what we are dealing with is a wider process of which the Catholic Church is part and parcel.

What distinguishes the Catholic Church from any AND ALL of the other “players” however, is that the Catholic Church, or rather its true UNIVERSAL Magisterium, has all the answers that are being sought by the wider population.

When I listen to a call-in listener to Stefan Molyneux, like Amy here, I see a typical lost soul searching for answers to question that would be best answered by a Catholic priest. A Catholic priest like Father Z or one from the SSPX or one of its breakaway societies like those under the Ecclesial Dei Commission. If you don’t believe me, just listen here.

Anyways and moving on, what I am beginning to see is a wider phenomenon whereby an evangelization process is leading into a proselytization process, which then is leading the Restoration process.

In other words, there are a lot of lost souls who are either lapsed Catholics or have no contact with Catholicism what so ever, yet appear to be very receptive to Catholicism on a very basic level (see here). To be more precise, these people appear to be very receptive to that part of our Faith that comes from our senses as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made. (see here)

Now as we are all aware, Faith is a supernatural gift. The best that we can hope for is to lead a person who is searching to find God, to that point where reason ends and faith begins. And it would appear that in at least two of Stefan’s videos, that point was reached.

So when Stefan Molyneux says that he is “on a mission from God”, he in fact is telling the truth. And if we were smart, we would try to incorporate this message into our evangelization/proselytization efforts, since at this processes’ end, Catholicism rests.

Advertisements