Tags
Bio-History, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Jozef Pilsudski, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Miracle on the Vistula, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Polish Bolshevik War 1920, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, r/K Selection Theory, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "c"atholicZombie, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Boris Johnson, s BREXIT, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, Zombie, ZombieBishop, ZombieChurch
Seeing as a lot has been happening lately on the Restoration front, I will write this post about PROCESS.
As my readers know, the Restoration of “all things in Christ” at the end of the day, is a process. This process is transpiring within a larger process. That larger process can be described as a return to LOGIC, REASON and an Aristotelian definition of TRUTH.
The reason we, as a Civilization find ourselves in this mess, is that elements within our Civilization have suppressed REASON, LOGIC and OBJECTIVE TRUTH as the basis for our understanding of reality. This process can be traced from the “Enlightenment” to the Modernist movement of the first half of the 20th Century and the subsequent post-Modernist “car crash” that resulted.
A great explanation of just this post-Modernist “car crash” in the ecclesiastical sub-set of the et Invisibilium is the following passage from John Lamont’s seminal essay titled Attacks on Thomism:
The nature of this rejection of Thomism has had grave consequences. It is not just the rejection of those characteristic theses that are advanced by Thomism but denied by other schools of Catholic thought. It is a global rejection of the content of Thomism as a whole. This content is largely shared with the other traditional Catholic schools – and indeed with traditional Western philosophy as a whole, since Thomism incorporates many of the basic Platonic and Aristotelian ideas that are central to this philosophy. Of course, rejecting these basic ideas means rejecting Western philosophy and the whole Catholic tradition of thought of which they are an essential part. But if we accept – as we should – that Western philosophy has some worth, it also means rejecting essential philosophical truths. Throwing out the basic framework of traditional Western philosophy means throwing out the fundamental philosophical insights that it contains. This abandonment has consequences for theology that were not lost on the Thomists who defended their tradition.
Replace “Thomism” with Aristotelian “TRUTH” and we can use the above passage to explain the decomposition that has taken place in Western Civilization over the last 50 years.
Yet, like all processes that reach their pinnacle, or in this case their “dead end”, a new process comes along that attempts to correct it. We call this the NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ on this blog.
What your humble blogger has been doing on this blog is chronicling the NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ within the ecclesiastical sub-set of human activity. However, since this process is much wider, your humble blogger has also been trying to,… let’s call it, chronicle the wider CONTEXT of this ecclesiastical NORMALIZATION PROCESS™.
So in today’s post, we chronicle…
As to the ecclesiastical NORMALIZATION PROCESS™, by far the biggest news to emerge over the past 72 hours has been the news about the SSPX’s purported PURCHASE of a Rome headquarters. According to rumors, this purchase is being expedited with the help of the bishop of Rome.
With respect to my take on this occurrence (DATA POINT), I share the views of other preeminent Catholic bloggers, such as Vox Cantoris and Mundabor, who have written about this event.
Just for the record, I think that there is no harm in accepting an offer from Rome whereby the bishop of Rome guarantees that the SSPX 1) can stay as it is, 2) that the SSPX has its own bishops which they chose from within their ranks and 3) that they keep complete control over their assets.
Needless to say, point 3) is critical since we are dealing with a post-conciliar Church in Liquidation. And it is through examining the “money issues” that allows for a consistent analysis of the current situation and actions by the bishop of Rome. Whether examining the situation with the Franciscans of the Immaculate (neo-Modernists thought that the FFI had ownership over their assets – which they didn’t – do’hhh), the “Sovereign” Military Order of Malta ($1b in liquid assets that WERE NOT being held at Msgr. Ricca’s Vatican Bank – they will be now) or the help with the purchase of the neo-Gothic church and complex in the center of Rome, Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino (notice that Rome did not “give” the SSPX the tangible assets but instead “helped” them negotiate a “good price” – the neo-Modernist must really be desperate for cash).
But back to the PROCESS issue and the wider CONTEXT. Another NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ that is starting to take hold, which we are witnessing is the one taking place at a few of the major research universities in the United States. In one of our last posts, we wrote about a professor from the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. Today we have a letter from the Provost of Stanford University. I have republished his letter, via the Zero Hedge website, below. (see here)
When reading John Etchemendy’s letter, notice how easily this argumentation could apply to the post-conciliar church. Also notice that it is the “grants”, i.e. funding issue that might just explain for why Mr. Etchemedy wrote this letter now.
In other words, “drainig the swamp!”
And finally, the reason that I am re-posting this letter is to show you dear reader that you are not alone.
UPDATE: Dr. Jordan Peterson appears to have won his standoff with the forces of evil and confirms… (see here)
*****
Intellectual Intolerance – Stunning Speech From Stanford University Provost Exposes “The Threat From Within”
In a remarkable – for its honesty and frankness – statement on the intellectual rot within America’s Ivory Towers, Stanford University Provost John Etchemendy lay bare the challenges that higher education face in the coming, increasingly divisive, years.
The Threat From Within
Universities are a fundamental force of good in the world. At their best, they mine knowledge and understanding, wisdom and insight, and then freely distribute these treasures to society at large. Theirs is not a monopoly on this undertaking, but in the concentration of effort and single-mindedness of purpose, they are truly unique institutions. If Aristotle is right that what defines a human is rationality, then they are the most distinctive, perhaps the pinnacle, of human endeavors.
I share this thought to remind us all why we do what we do – why we care so much about Stanford and what it represents. But I also say it to voice a concern. Universities are under attack, both from outside and from within.
The threat from outside is apparent. Potential cuts in federal funding would diminish our research enterprise and our ability to fund graduate education. Taxing endowments would limit the support we can give to faculty and the services we can provide our students. Indiscriminate travel restrictions would impede the free exchange of ideas and scholars. All of these threats have intensified in recent years – and recent months have given them a reality that is hard to ignore.
But I’m actually more worried about the threat from within. Over the years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this country – not intolerance along racial or ethnic or gender lines – there, we have made laudable progress. Rather, a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we’ve built around ourselves.
This results in a kind of intellectual blindness that will, in the long run, be more damaging to universities than cuts in federal funding or ill-conceived constraints on immigration. It will be more damaging because we won’t even see it: We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve.
It will not be easy to resist this current. As an institution, we are continually pressed by faculty and students to take political stands, and any failure to do so is perceived as a lack of courage. But at universities today, the easiest thing to do is to succumb to that pressure. What requires real courage is to resist it. Yet when those making the demands can only imagine ignorance and stupidity on the other side, any resistance will be similarly impugned.
The university is not a megaphone to amplify this or that political view, and when it does it violates a core mission. Universities must remain open forums for contentious debate, and they cannot do so while officially espousing one side of that debate.
But we must do more. We need to encourage real diversity of thought in the professoriate, and that will be even harder to achieve. It is hard for anyone to acknowledge high-quality work when that work is at odds, perhaps opposed, to one’s own deeply held beliefs. But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth. It is absolutely essential to the quality of our enterprise.
I fear that the next few years will be difficult to navigate. We need to resist the external threats to our mission, but in this, we have many friends outside the university willing and able to help. But to stem or dial back our academic parochialism, we are pretty much on our own. The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not. It is only when we start with this assumption that rational discourse can begin, and that the winds of freedom can blow.
We wish John well in his future endeavors as we are sure there will be a groundswell of hurt feelings demanding his resignation for dropping another truth bomb on their safe space.
Halina said:
Dear Petrus Romanus, hope you won’t mind my 2 cents…….Since you are amongst those that you trust…..,you are almost out of breath….. be in peace, for you are were you want to be.
WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM THE SSPX, AND THE FAITHFUL? Didn’t you do enough verbal damage, far and wide, scandalizing the faithful, mocking our good Bishop, without the fear of God??? Go to the sedevacantists, because this who you have become, no matter how the Resistance is trying to deny it.
On Thursday, I will be leaving for the Holy Land, with the Regina Pilgrimages…..I will pray very hard for us Catholics.
The division, confusion, anger amongst us Catholics is nothing less then ‘diabolical’…..to the joy of the enemy of every stripe….Miserere!
SNAP OUT OF IT!
Resistance is NOT an island. God will NOT be divided! Amen!
God Will Not Be Mocked!
Sincerely in Christ our King, and Mary our Queen,
Halina
LikeLiked by 1 person
Halina said:
It is a ‘high time’, for the lukewarm, the ignorant, and the lethargic, to come back to their Catholic Roots……the Catholic Church is NOT underground, but high above standing on the ‘seven hills’ of Rome. The world is hungry for ‘penance’, for His Truth……without knowing it. Brick by brick, the Holy Faith will be visible again on every level. It is a ‘high time’ to come out from the ‘catacombs’, ARISE You Soldiers of Christ, take out your ‘shield’ and your ‘sword’, put on a ‘hair shirt’…..and in fearless faith preach the Good News, Sin, and the ‘last four things,’ in ‘Joy’ from the Rooftops , not from the basement hidden, grumbling, almost in despair (God forbid!), pointing finger at your ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’……FOR WE ARE OUR BROTHERS KEEPERS!!!
Bishop Fellay, a VERY good shepherd is not a ‘wimp’, nor, a ‘weakling’, nor ‘a coward’, who is confused and beaten……HECK, NO!
HE IS GENTLE AS A LAMB, BUT COURAGEOUS AS A LION, WHO DOES NOT FEAR ‘MEN’, BUT ONLY GOD!!! HE, AND HIS PRIESTS ARE READY TO FACE THE ENEMY IN THE FACE (not behind their back, like fools!)…..ACCORDINGLY, TO THE DESIGN OF THE PROVIDENCE, “THE ROYAL WAY OF THE CROSS’……SAVING SOULS! IS THAT NOT WHAT THE CHURCH’S MISSION ALWAYS WAS?
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us Catholics especially, for we are truly living in the ‘diabolical disorientation!’
MAY GOD BLESS ALL SOLDIERS OF CHRIST, THAT ARE ‘AWAKE’, NOT IN ‘DESPAIR!’
LONG LIVE CHRIST THE KING!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Halina said:
………It could be a trap. It most likely is a trap. But sometime it just might be that the hunters get ensnared in their own traps……Ave Maria……!
God works in mysterious ways……May His Will Be Done!
Jesu Maria Joseph I love Thee, Save Souls!
Thank you Armaticus.
Vivat Christus Rex!
LikeLike
Halina said:
QUO VADIS…..RESISTANCE?
LikeLike
Halina said:
If one reads the rumblings of the Resistance….the Society is already corrupted.
If one listens to the rumblings of Sedevacantists, you will hear; they have no valid priesthood……Jesus is not in the Tabernacle in their Chapels. Miserere!
“Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle? And He said to them: ‘An enemy hath done this.’ And the servants said: ‘Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?’ And He said: ‘No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest, I will say to the reapers: ‘Gather up first the cockle and bind it into the bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.” (St. Matthew 13-27,30).
A very good advice for all faithful Catholics, from none other then, Dom Guigo I, Prior of the Charterhouse, 1106 A.D:
“Prepare yourself to live in the company of evil people, with your mind unsullied; to do this is to live like an angel. Yet what glory is there in doing this among saints?”
“Each person should flee from his own vices: those of other will do him no harm.”
Vivat Christus Rex!
LikeLike
Cold Standing said:
And they are in the actual and legally defined City of Rome rather than the spiritual prison that is the Vatican City State. If you have any connections, please suggest to them that they insist on all activities with new church involvement take place in Rome proper. It will make a huge difference. If they want to do big events use St John Lateran. I am given to believe this would really stick in the craw of the vicar general of Rome.
If they would like an intelligence gathering and target identifying network could be quickly formed with many able and willing volunteers.
Recognition is licence to play to the hilt their charism. Anything less than howls of outrage will be a wasted opportunity.
LikeLike
Michael E. Dowd said:
Cold Standing: “Recognition is license to play to the hilt their char-ism” I don’t see them doing this but if they did I wonder how long it would be tolerated by others Bishops and Pope Francis. To me this would be a fragile alliance. .
LikeLike
Cold Standing said:
Our thoughts in these days must be to the eternal glory of God. Why worry about the opinions of heretics? This time the fight must be to win or be driven out trying.
… and to ready for the howls of (((them)))
LikeLike
AMDG said:
1) can stay as it is, 2) that the SSPX has its own bishops which they chose from within their ranks and 3) that they keep complete control over their assets.
As for the second point, this as well will be contested. The proposal is murky as we are not sure all these conditions will be met all at once : chose – own bishops – within their ranks.
Otherwise, this could be positive for curbing some insular elements of the powers of Tradition and the FSSPX would have to become more proselytizing than ever and constantly on guard against corruption.
But as we’ve seen among so called neo’knights’ of Malta , the law is not an for modernists and it is not a replacement for a solid spine, the Brotherhood have to be ready to start throwing punches at any time.
LikeLike
Michael E. Dowd said:
To AMDG. Given all the risk why should SSPX become regularized? Seems to me prudence would suggest delay.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
This is a hard one to call.
What also needs to be kept in mind is that the act of regularization is an act of justice. If Francis gives the SSPX everything they want on paper, he puts them in a situation where they cannot say no.
And then your observation becomes key, that is not to allow the post-conciliar church to corrupt the Society.
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
Not a matter of justice. You’ve bought the lie S. Armaticus! https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/no-justice-no-peace/ https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/akaconfused/
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
Dear Petrus:
Thanks for the link.
I would agree with you if the post-conciliar church was today as it was in 1974. However, things have changed. I don’t think the SSPX will be pacified like the breakaway communities. They are too strong and too independent. And they are global!
Francis will be dealing with a different animal.
Now Francis can, and will try to crush them. Yet right now there are too many witnesses and too many secret supporters inside the Sacred Vatican’s Walls.
Having said the above, I honestly believe that it is the Holy Spirit that has arranged the Restoration chess board. He is playing the SSPX at present. He still has the SSPX Resistance and the SV’s to play.
So all in all, I think its best for us spectators to stay on sidelines and watch the moves.
And pray for all the players.
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
Thank you for responding, S. Armaticus. A thoughtful response is hard to come by these days. All I ever hear is “Just trust Bishop Fellay.” No doubt the world is not the same as the 1970s. But you overestimate the strength of the Society. Death by 1,000 paper cuts is what is happening. I also don’t see any references to the Archbishop in anyone’s arguments (Mundabor, Vox, etc.). The FSSP, Le Barroux, Campos, Good Shepherd, etc. all thought the Holy Spirit was with them as well. Some of them had promises to not be muzzled. Alas, it seems God removes his hand from those who put themselves into the hands of the Conciliar Church. An intentional occasion of sin? A kiss of death? Yes, more bishops who are friendly to Tradition may be in the Conciliar Church, but none who have made the jump to the Archbishop, the saint of our times. Schneider, Burke, etc. may talk a good game, but they need to come over to the Archbishop. I see this deal as the elect being deceived, deceived by an anti-Christ figure whose ecumenism drives him. +Fellay used to see right through this, and called it being put into a zoo. No longer. I will follow the Fellay and the Society of old. I cannot suspend the law of non-contradiction, which supporting a SSPX-Rome deal necessarily requires. Please take some time to comment on my blog, as I am curious of your thoughts.
LikeLike
Michael E. Dowd said:
I agree with Petrus Romanus. As Machiavelli would say: Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. Pope Francis and the Vatican II Church cannot be trusted.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Here is a post that appeared on the SSPX US District website. In the embedded video, we have a Catholic bishop taking teh side of the SSPX against the bishop of Rome.
How many such prelate existed in 1974?
As to the real danger, in my humble opinion, it is that only 30 cardinals are willing to stand up to Francis when he “opines” material heresy.
Yet, it is 30 more cardinals than there were in 1974, so one can say that progress is being made.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
One excerpt:
Bishop Schneider:
It would be on them [the priests] to resist and to preserve their identity….[I]t is a hypothetical case: we cannot preview the future…, [but] in this very extreme situation when in some future or years after the erection of the Prelature, the Holy See would ask to change something against their identity. They [would] have to resist [and say:] ‘This is unjust, it goes against our intention when we accept the Prelature, it would destroy our charism.’…Then they [would] have to say…with all respect to the Holy See, ‘You can take away the Prelature, we do not need it; the most important is to preserve our identity for the benefit of the Church, not of us but of the Church.’ This is a hypothetical case they have to renounce the Prelature and continue as they are. Therefore they have nothing to lose. It is upon them to preserve their identity.”
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
Seems like putting oneself into an intentional occasion of sin. Bp Schneider is not someone I look to for advice on this. If he was a friend of the Society, he would join the Society. Please, read the Archbishop himself http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
+Lefebre: This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. “It’s a pity we are divided”, they say, “why not meet up with them? Let’s go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them”—that’s a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.
+Lefebvre: Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, “Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?” Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Couple of observations.
First, there is an identified phenomenon that goes by the term of “presentism”. Its definition is as follows:
“In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.”
The mirror image of presentism is taking previous perspectives and bringing them into the present.
I detect just this in your text that reads as follows: “It’s a pity we are divided”, they say, “why not meet up with them? Let’s go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them”—that’s a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.”
Now this might have been the case in the 1970’s but I can assure you it is not the case today. I don’t know anyone who attends an SSPX chapel, including the one I attend, that thinks that way.
And finally, and with all due respect, don’t you think that maybe… continuously referring to Archbishop Lefebvre might be seen as an “appeal to authority”?
What I mean by this is that nobody REALLY knows what the Great Archbishop would do in these circumstances.
One thing is a definite though and that is that the Archbishop did not entertain the notion that he is separating from Rome. So the thought that stick in my mind is the following: Say JPII came to the Archbishop and said: “I will give you what you want and put it on paper.”, what would the Archbishop do?
It could be a trap. It most likely is a trap. But sometime it just might be that the hunters get ensnared in their own traps.
Just a thought…
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
It’s almost like you’re actively trying to find reasons to ignore the Archbishop. While it is true some things he says in his interviews no longer apply, he does speak in terms of principles. In the one interview he equated the Society’s fight to the same of the anti-liberals of the 19th century. There are other remarks that do in fact . Moreover, what better “authority” to appeal to? The saint of the 20th century raised up to save Christ’s Church? Would you say to an Israelite roaming the desert with Moses: “Hey Ezra, why do you keep quoting Moses all the time? You’re just appearing to authority? It’s been 40 yrs buddy. Times are different now. Moses’ words no longer apply!” The simple fact is, S. Armaticus, no matter how you want to slice the issue with your talk about “presentism,” is that even Bp Fellay is contradicting his former self, as is Schmidberger, who is repeating the same errors of Fr. Aulagnier https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/history-repeats-itself/ The Archbishop was firm following 1988 in saying no contact with these Romans who represent the Conciliar Church, the modernist religion. Quite simply, there cannot be two religions for one Church.Fellay used to see that. He used to say “no, we are not going to be put into a zoo.” Now, he thinks that is fine. There are principles here we need to rely on. If you think Lefebvre is old hat and outdated, then you are repeating the thinking that went into Vatican II: “oh those crusty old popes and traditionalists of the past don’t know anything about wha the world offers us now! the world looks at us with favor. All we want is liberty! all we want is to come to terms with the world.” Nonsense. It seems that Mary removes her protection to all those groups that go with this Conciliar Church. To intentionally put oneself into an occasion of sin is in fact a sin. And to think the SSPX will be left free or will somehow be saved if things go awry is to tempt God. It is like Satan saying “throw yourself down if you are the true Sons of God your foot will not be dashed.” Ah, but the SSPX- unlike Christ – is going to take the jump and tempt God. They’ve taken the bargain and say to Satan: “You are right. We are Traditional! We will survive this jump!”
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
And yes, Lefebvre did say he was separating off from Rome. Here is his words in 1990: ““It is a strict duty for every [any] priest who wills to remain Catholic to separate off from the conciliar church, as long as she does not recover the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!”
Here is a letter Schmidberger, et. al. signed in 1988: “we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit.. Society faithful have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church”http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-07-06.htm
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
Sorry if any of that is difficult to understand. It was written somewhat hastily, as time is in short supply at the moment. This is a good discussion and thought-provoking though. Thank you for responding good sir
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
You are lucky to have stumbled onto this blog. Most of Faithful who comment are very insightful, which motivates me to respond, 🙂
LikeLike
Paul Dale said:
With all due respect sir, I would suggest that the justice is a specious argument. The elephant in the room with the justice argument is the lack of justice in the doctrine argument which has been quite elegantly swept under the carpet. The good archbishop understood this perfectly. Because when the spotlight is on the newly regularised society will they stand up for the faith? Truly? We have seen the HQ become as supine and in awe of the red hats in Rome, and why? If there is a desire to be regularised (and yes there should be) but not on matters of doctrine then this house will be built on sand, just as with Campos whom +Fellay rightly criticised. The injustice was on the Romans side, not the Society. God has blessed them with a flourishing order and a charism from the Holy Ghost through their founder. Why has his Lordship gone coquettishly skipping to Rome seeking the approval of the most disgusting example of filth to ever sit on the Chair of Peter? When the Society is not in the wrong, was never in the wrong, hence they have nothing to be worried about. They have the faith. They have disregarded the sage advice of their founder to wait until Rome comes back to the faith. And for what? For Wales? (For the Esquiline?) Or is their the promise of a red hat for being a good boyBut, some say, the Church needs them inside the structures. No from their inception the Church has needed them where they are shining a light on apostate Rome. In time Athanasius, who was outside the structures of the Church but had the faith, was proved right; Holy Mother came back to the faith, and Athanasius became a Doctor of the Church. I hope to God that my fears are misplaced, but I do think that +Williamson is correct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
You are correct about one thing (and probably a whole many others, but let’s just stick with the one thing) and that is that the current occupant sitting on the Throne of St. Peter is a rather eccentric sort of chap. But it would appear as if he allowed his subordinate (Abp. Pozzo) to make a rather OBJECTIVELY CORRECT statement, i.e. that the “Satanic” Council (my term) must be interpreted in light of Holy Tradition. If you watched the Bp. Schneider video, he more or less stated likewise, although in more diplomatic tones.
So if the rumors are correct, we are at a moment in time where the bishop of Rome (I don’t know why people call him the pope since he wanted to be known as the bofR, and Benedict still maintains all visible vestiges that he is the Holy Father – but I’ll save that for a different day) is ready to put pen to paper and sign onto this rather radical- by the post-conciliar church standard, proposition. Radical in this case means Catholic.
B/t/w this is a much, much more radical proposition than the one Pope Benedict was not allowed to sign. I know, I know, he’s the pope and was the man that could sign on the dotted line back then…
So what is the Faithful Catholic to do?
One thing this Faithful Catholic is doing is watching and listening.
If this recognition comes about, it will not be because of anything that I can control. And if this recognition comes about, which I am still skeptical that it will, I will continue to listen and watch. And if I detect that something has changed, then I will no doubt reassess my position and state as much.
But in the mean time, I watch….
In the mean time, I pray for all concerned, and that includes +Williamson and the SV’s that broke away from the SSPX in the US.
And that is because only He knows who is right in this entire mess….
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
But here is the problem with the claim that Pozzo, Francis, etc. are “objectively” recognizing what is True in the Society. They are not actually recognizing what is true for truth sake. I’ve made the following analogy on my blog : https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/akaconfused/
A math teacher is hired at a high school. Suppose that that teacher knows that 2+2=4. Suppose that the principal thinks 2+2=5. If the principal says to the teacher that in his classroom he can teach 2+2=4 but that he, the principal, still believes 2+2=5 and will allow others in the school to teach the same, then he is not recognizing in any way the objective reality that 2+2=4. He is simply carrying to its logical conclusion his subjective, erroneous persuasions.
The math teacher who knows that 2+2=4 (the SSPX) should not view getting hired by the principal who thinks 2+2=5 (Pope Francis) as an act of justice. Rather, the teacher should devote his time to explain to the principal and to the other teachers that 2+2 does not equal 5 but 4, and that no one can hold to the claim that 2+2=5. Error has no right to exist. Justice would occur when the principal submits to the truth that 2+2=4 and disallows his other teachers from teaching anything else.
Again, the Society cannot look upon a possible Francis “recognition” of them as an objective recognition of the Catholic Faith. Rather, they should understand it as a Pope in error (who thinks 2+2=5) extending ecumenism to Tradition (2+2=4). To repeat, in no way would a Francis “recognition” be a recognition of the “objective reality” that the Society is “in full communion with Eternal Rome.” He would simply be extending his own liberalism to Truth.
Moreover, one might say that if Rome “formally recognizes” the SSPX as “entirely Catholic” then Rome ipso facto declares that she herself does not have the Faith, thus ushering in a situation whereby a non-Catholic organization has somehow recognized a group of priests as “entirely Catholic.” Indeed, the Conciliar Church, represented by Modernist Rome, and the Catholic Church, which, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX possesses all four marks of, are two diametrically opposed institutions holding diametrically opposed doctrines, sacraments, liturgies and, well, Faith. Any Conciliar Church “recognition” of the Catholicity of the SSPX that does not involve a rejection of the principles of the Conciliar Church is no act of justice.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
you write:
“Moreover, one might say that if Rome “formally recognizes” the SSPX as “entirely Catholic” then Rome ipso facto declares that she herself does not have the Faith, thus ushering in a situation whereby a non-Catholic organization has somehow recognized a group of priests as “entirely Catholic.”
Yes, that is exactly what Francis and his sect are saying. They are telling us that they don’t believe in a Catholic God. Literally.
Why do you doubt them?
Sorry for turning the argument around on you, but that is the reality.
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
I do not see how the argument has been “turned around on me.” The reality is Francis does not have the Catholic faith. One cannot give what one does not have. He cannot in any way “recognize” the SSPX as Catholic. If this all just boil down to a PR game, then we are skating on thin ice. Either we live by principles or we do not. Either we are honest and admit that this makes no sense, logically speaking or we simply say it is just a marketing gimmick that tries to lure people into Society chapels based on a possible anti-Pope’s words. I think the story of the Israelites in the Book of Judith applies here. The Societiy is growing tired. It sees the accusations of “schismatic” and wants a seat at the table of the the New Church. So they are willing to force the hand of God if things don’t get resolved according to their timeline. Unlike the apostles, who rejoiced at being persecuted for truth, the Society wants to rid themselves of being despised and maligned. Sad.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Once again, I think the issue is different.
Francis has already recognized the SSPX as Catholic. How else can one explain Francis allowing the SSPX to hear confessions?
That’s reality!
What he hasn’t given them yet is “full” jurisdiction.
From the SSPX side, it has to do with prudence. If Francis comes along and says “I will give you what you want”, how can the SSPX decline?
I don’t think they can.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that the SSPX should do this or that. What I am most interested in is what is on the paper that Francis puts a pen to.
The game here is very devilish, a la a South American Peronist dictator devilish, who thinks that he is “as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University”.
Francis has already compromised the post-conciliar church by granting the SSPX universal jurisdiction to hear confession. This document will no doubt be a prime piece of evidence at what I call the future Counicl of Econe that straightens out this mess.
The “recognition” document will just add to that body of evidence.
And finally, the reason that Francis is pretty isolated, even with respect to the neo-Modernist prelates is that he is giving the store away. That is what is causing the tension with Cd. Muller.
These neo-Mods know that they will not be able to put the toothpaste back into the tube once Francis is gone and forgotten. And it is occuring to them that history will not judge them well.
And those who still have the Faith, they must be trembling at the prospects at their judgement day. They realize that they are being led by a material heretic to their eternal….
God does writes straight with crooked lines…
LikeLike
Michael E. Dowd said:
While some believe the Church is in the hands of the devil we must remember that the devil is in the hands of God. For those of us unable to read the future we must pray with patience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Petrus Romanus said:
This is extremely well said. The justice argument makes everything about the subject, the Society, and its “rights” and “freedom” inside the Conciliar Church. It betrays a liberal outlook. Lefebvre did not speak like this because he was fighting for the “rights” and “freedom” of Tradition , the object, over and against the Conciliar Church. His concern was to get the Romans to see themselves as not Catholic. But today, the SSPX is concerned with getting the Romans to see the SSPX as Catholic. It is a complete inversion of emphasis. It makes it about the subject and not the object. One could also argue that God has a right to a Modernist-free Church and that as a matter of justice his children are owed a Pope who is not a Modernist.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
What I think is at stake is where the “visible church” is. I think the SSPX realize that if they are regularized by Rome, it will provide more confirmation that they are in fact the indefectible Church.
And it is not just them who have recognized it. It would appear as if the entire CDF plenaria, less one cardinal, have recognized it. Here is the quote:
“We’ve 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…”
LikeLike
Petrus Romanus said:
“I think the SSPX realize that if they are regularized by Rome, it will provide more confirmation that they are in fact the indefectible Church. ” – This is the wisdom of man, not the wisdom of God. God gives eyes to see to those who ask. Grace is already available to those who want to see the truth about the Society. The reality is that Rome has separated from Tradition. Not the other way around. This is not a logical, principled way of thinking to play these PR games.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Hmmm…..
It would appear to me that the SSPX approach has been quite appropriate and effective.
I noticed a comment of yours on the Dallas Catholics blog. The author of the post would not even give the SSPX the time of day a few years back. Today he is fretting about the fact that Francis is setting a trap for them.
And I would put it to the approach that the SSPX took to the post-conciliar church which is bearing all this good fruit.
We can also compare this approach with those taken by other “irregular” Catholic groups. These don’t appear to be that successful nor effective.
So all in all, it would appear that it is not as cut and dry as you present it.
LikeLike
Michael E. Dowd said:
Thanks for the glimmers of new candles in the darkness.
LikeLike