Tags

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


Interesting developments over the last week or so coming from inside the Sacred Vatican Walls. But to fully understand the significance of these developments, a short digression is in order.

On an aside, this post falls into the category of “life comes at you fast”. But I digress again…

Over the last couple of posts, your humble blogger has been focusing on a philosophical theme. Your humble blogger has tried to pin down the difference between the philosophical foundation of the True Catholic Faith, namely Thomism and contrasting it with the post-conciliar ideology that replaced Thomism, known first as neo-Modernism but subsequently metamorphosing into post-modernism and even post-structuralism, that underpins (?) a post-conciliar FakeTheology™.

To understand the crisis in the current Institutional Church, we need to review the difference between what constitutes a philosophy and what constitutes an ideology. To this end, your humble blogger has produced a post title Everyone Has A Plan… In that post, a distinction has been made between “normative” or ideological statements and positive or philosophical claims. This paragraph reads as follows:

In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly-) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.

Given the above, we can then use Dr. John Lamont’s seminal essay titled Attacks on Thomism to understand the ROOT CAUSE underlying the disintegration of the post-conciliar church. In that essay, Dr. Lamont makes the following observation:

Thomism made an easy target for this propaganda, just because it is a highly developed philosophy. Any advanced field of study, such as philosophy, mathematics, or physics, can be convincingly portrayed as ‘arid’ and ‘rigid’. For most people’s tastes, this portrayal will often be true. Precise and rigorous subjects inevitably have arid components. Because it deals with fundamental questions whose answers are true always and everywhere, philosophy will be ‘ahistorical’ and ‘immutable’. It will not meet the desires and expectations of individuals or societies, because these desires and expectations are never geared towards subtle and difficult concepts. It will meet their needs – if it is true. But a demonstration of philosophical truth is a feeble counter to propaganda.

So what happened leading up to and post Vatican II is that Thomism was replaced by another “philosophy” which was nothing more than an ideology in disguise. This pseudo-philosophy is what is known as Phenomenology. Here is the Wikipedia entry:

Phenomenology (from Greek phainómenon “that which appears” and lógos “study”) is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. As a philosophical movement it was founded in the early years of the 20th century by Edmund Husserl and was later expanded upon by a circle of his followers at the universities of Göttingen and Munich in Germany. It then spread to France, the United States, and elsewhere, often in contexts far removed from Husserl’s early work.[1]

Phenomenology should not be considered as a unitary movement; rather, different authors share a common family resemblance but also with many significant differences. Accordingly:

A unique and final definition of phenomenology is dangerous and perhaps even paradoxical as it lacks a thematic focus. In fact, it is not a doctrine, nor a philosophical school, but rather a style of thought, a method, an open and ever-renewed experience having different results, and this may disorient anyone wishing to define the meaning of phenomenology.

Given that “A unique and final definition of phenomenology is dangerous and perhaps even paradoxical as it lacks a thematic focus”, we can then go to Dr. Lamont’s poignant debunking of what in essence is the “phenomenology as philosophy” narrative.

In the Lamont afore mentioned essay, he explains how the mid-20th Century neo-Modernists used two notions of the concept of “historical perspectivism”, one true and one false, to advance their phenomenological ideology. But at the end of the day, the false notion of “historical perspectivism” violated the law of thought known as the Law of Contradiction (non-Contradiction) and consigned the neo-Modernists to that Trotskyite trash heap of history. Here is that passage:

In addition, no great philosophical expertise is needed to see that the historical perspectivism of the neomodernists is self-refuting. Historical perspectivism is a universal philosophical claim about the nature of human concepts and human knowledge, a claim that is presented as being true for all people at all times, and as being known to be true by the neomodernists. But such a claim (it) contradicts historical perspectivism itself, which denies the possibility of knowledge of this sort.

So the neo-Modernists quietly rode this horse until they found a better, albeit a more irrational one. Actually, the neo-Modernists have been riding a series of more irrational ideological horses as time has gone by, over the last 100 years of so. But I digress…

Fast forward to the present and the current bishopric of Francis. Today we see that the ideology du jour is post-Structuralism. Just to provide a flavor of Francis’ favorite “philosopher”, one de Certeau, here is that passage:

Of all the French theorists… de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression… he argues… writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation…”

It’s really something to be even more TRANSRATIONAL than Foucault and Derrida… But I digress…

Back to the subject at hand.

In yesterday’s post, we republished a post written by Fred Martinez at the Catholic Monitor blog. Here is how he explains the ideological underpinning of Francis:

For Postmodernists like de Certeau, Derrida, Foucault and possibly Francis, if he is their disciple, falsehood or truth doesn’t matter.

The only thing that matters is achieving power for their liberal or leftist ideology.

And that ideology is… wait for it… Marxism.

NB: For my new readers, here is Dr. Jordan Peterson to explain.

And we know that Marxism, (Marxist-Leninist scientific atheism) does not provide for the possibility of a transcendent reality let alone entity,… let alone a Catholic God. The aim of Marxism is to control the physical means of production, i.e. the distribution of resources. The “poor” are a “means” to this end since it is they who need the resources. And it is the Marxists who are the ones that distribute those resources.

And this is the FrancisRabbitTheology in a nutshell.

Which brings us to the developments inside the Sacred Vatican Walls that I mentioned at the beginning of the post. Over at the OnePeterFive blog (see here), we get a GREAT post. In that post, we have a quote from Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Here is that passage: (emphasis added)

But it is problematic that we seek merely human solutions as an answer for our [own quest for our] destination.” In the face of great problems, explains the cardinal, “we insist upon human means instead of lifting up our hearts to God.” [emphasis added] The African cardinal then presents a striking thought: “Sometimes I have the impression that this secularization has entered the Church in order also to reduce our Faith to a human standard.”  A “Faith according to human terms” is being presented to man “which is not any more rooted in the depth of the Revelation of Christ and the Tradition of the Church, but, rather, in the claims and [purported] needs of modern man.”

Nuff said?

PS Once again, please read the above linked post titled Is Catholic Opposition to Pope Francis Growing?

PPS When watching the video at the top of the page, please take into account the hosts historic Anglican background and current “atheist” pose. Also take into account that the video is over 2 years old and from regularly watching his latest productions, it is evident that he has “evolved” in the area of metaphysics and “spirituality”.

So don’t get triggered. 😉

Advertisements