Tags

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


Today we stay with the SSPX “recognition” talks and what can be called the Summorum Pontificum endgame. In fact, the Summorum Pontificum endgame is nothing more than the battle at one level, the liturgical level, of a wider fight for the Catholic Church and at the end Western Civilization itself.

To properly appreciate the significance of this liturgical war in the big scheme of things, one must understand the philosophical war that underpins the liturgical war, the Catholic theological war and the wider war for Western Civilization itself.

The philosophical war itself is being fought out between two camps: the phenomenologists and the Thomists. Now this battle is of a fundamental nature, since it has to do with how the Church and wider Western Civilization will not only understand, but how it will define what is TRUTH.

To be more precise, the above observation can be reduced to the following: will truth be a capital “T” truth, (Aristotle -> St. Thomas Aquinas -> Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange -> Pope Benedict XVI) or a small “t” truth (Plato -> Pontious Pilate -> Descarte -> Hegel -> young Ratzinger -> Kasper)?

And the defining issue within the capital vs. small “t” truth debate can be reduced to the following:

is truth as the Thomist’s claim, i.e. the process of “bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’)?  

Or

is truth what the Phenomenologist’s claim, i.e “bringing thought into line with life” (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’)?

Naturally, and in reality, since truth exists outside of the human mind, the former definition is correct. For a good and in-depth explanation, I bring you a long interview by Tara Mr Carthy and Rocking Mr. E on the corruption of truth. (see here – MUST WATCH)

Now, the small “t” truth is not truth at all, but rather an “ideological construct”. The reason “truth as ideological construct” is convenient for leftists, including “catholic” dissidents, is that small “t” truth is simply pure, distilled relativism. So anything goes.

As to how the above relates to the post-conciliar church, since one can correctly claim that the entire Vatican II experiment was designed around the ERROR of ecumenism, then using a proper definition of Truth would have been self refuting.

I.e. it is a non-starter.

Don’t believe me?

Simply: if there is only ONE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, then there can only be ONE RELIGION.

And one math, and one physics, etc…

So for practical considerations, a goal seeking, “end justifies the means” relativistic mindset imported the “truth as ideological construct” to make their ideology “work”.

Not too scientific… or rational for that matter?

So now to the liturgy.

If you are a VII innovator, or a super-innovator like Francis, and you’ve just had an “epiphany” that ecumenism is the way to go, and that “truth” now only SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church, you can’t then go and offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Especially since your new-found “co-religionists” have developed a negative “theology” for the last 450 years, that was based solely on the notion that the mass is just a communal meal and definitely NOT A SACRIFICE.

Yes?

Fast forward to today.

If you are a Francis, and you are angling to take the Bride of Christ into the ONE WORLD RELIGION, a Restorationist, rationalist, capital “T” Truth movement, sweeping through your institution, is the last thing that you want to see, or that you will tolerate.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi!

So is it any wonder why all this time and effort is being expended by Francis and TeamFrancis to somehow eliminate this threat?

I think not.

Concluding, I would like to draw your attention to two interesting developments to reinforce the above.

First, I would like to commend Steve Skojec for going out of our Catholic “ghetto” and linking to a Charles Hugh Smith post titled When We Can No Longer Tell the Truth… 

I consider this significant.

Here’s why.

As my regular readers know, I have been linking to individuals who one can term “functional Catholics”, or people who are writing about or giving seminars on issues that are Scholastic and/or Thomistic at their core.

What I find lacking in the Catholic blogosphere is that it focuses on Catholic issues, while missing the CONTEXT of the underlying wider PROCESS. If one limits his focus on one specific, narrow subject matter, what appear as random incidents can be in fact part and parcel of wider and related PHENOMENON.

Therefore, if one doesn’t understand György Lukács, then one can’t understand the Nouvelle Théologie school in its proper CONTEXT, and therefore one cannot understand the PHENOMENON that is Francis.

I will finish off with a GREAT EXAMPLE of just this that ties all the above into one nice package.

Over at Stefan Molyneux’s YouTube channel, (video at top of post) a video appeared with the Brazilian journalist/philosopher Olavo de Carvalho.

If you dear reader watch to the end, AND YOU MUST, you will see experience a conversation getting to the ROOT CAUSE of why the Catholic Church is under attack, with a concerned Stefan Molyneux fretting about the situation of the Catholic Church itself.

And he and Olavo mean the Catholic Church, not the post-conciliar church!

You must watch!

Folks, Stefan’s going there…

MUST WATCH!

One more thing.

Before I leave off, and since we touched on the subject of Thomists, a new blog has appeared, or rather re-emerged, under the title of RadTrad Thomist, written by Dr. Peter Chojnowski. I highly recommend that all my readers visit Dr. Chojnowski’s blog. For your convenience, I have linked to his blog in the right hand margin of this blog.

And one more thing, a great post appeared at the RadTrad Thomist blog titled Francis’s Plans for the Latin Mass: On the Agenda for a Long Time? 

How fitting, yes?

Here is the relevent passage that provides historical perspective to the Summorum Pontificum endgame:

This “new” plan does not surprise me. In 2001, I was told by an SSPX District Superior who had just met with Bishop Fellay — who himself had met with Cardinal Hoyos — that this was the plan.  According to the Superior, Cardinal Hoyos told Bishop Fellay that the plan was to have all traditional groups under Bishop Fellay himself. When the surprised Bishop Fellay asked the Cardinal, “What about the Fraternity of St. Peter?,” the Cardinal said, “They would be under you!” The condition, however, was that all of the four SSPX bishops needed to “come in” together. This was back in the time of John Paul II.

Advertisements