Tags

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


Others are starting to get it!

And the formal NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ has begun in the wider post-conciliar church.

And we get a post that ties a few themes together…

So let’s begin.

Looking over the commentary and responses to the Filial Correction, I came across this most excellent post at the OnePeterFive blog (see here). The post is written by William M. Briggs and explains the essence underlying the eventual demise of the FrancisChruch. And the post-conciliar NUChurch likewise.

What is of particular note, is the example used by Mr. Briggs to explain the post-conciliar church’s violation of the Second Law of Thought, i.e. the Law of Non-Contradiction. Just as a friendly reminder (see here):

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B ” and “A is not B ” are mutually exclusive.

If we distill the meaning of the above into a simple example, we can say that these three laws explain why there can only be ONE correct answer on any given exam. The reason being that if there were TWO correct answers, then the Law of Identity would be violated. In other words, A ≠ B must hold always, everywhere and for everyone.

One can also infer that the universe of ERROR is much, much larger than the universe populated by TRUTH.

Going further, the significance behind the LNC, along with the other two Laws of Thought is explained as follows:

The law of non-contradiction, along with its complement, the law of excluded middle (the third of the three classic laws of thought) and the law of identity (the first of the three classic laws of thought), partitions its logical Universe into exactly two parts; it creates a dichotomy wherein the two parts are “mutually exclusive” and “jointly exhaustive”. The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.

In other words, one can say that the two parts that are “mutually exclusive” and “jointly exhaustive” are TRUTH and ERROR.

When taking all the above in total, it implies that there can only be ONE TRUTH, therefore ONE TRUE RELIGIOUS TRUTH, i.e. ONE TRUE RELIGION.

Just like there can be only one BIOLOGICAL TRUTH, i.e. ONE TRUE BIOLOGY.

Or physics, or math, or sociology…

Speaking of biology and sociology, please check out the new link in the right hand margin of this page, where Dr. Jordan Peterson provides the biological proof underlying Canon 1955. Excuse the digression…

Which brings me to the OnePeterFive post. In this post, the author brilliantly explains the violation of the LNC on the part of Fr. Spadaro BLTS.J. when he made his most famous FrancisLogic observation that “2+2 can equal 5”.

Now Mr. Briggs also goes one step further when calling out Fr. Spadaro on his LOGICAL ERROR. He correctly identifies the ERROR itself. Here is that passage:

If that argument makes sense to you, as it does to folks like Faggioli and Gibson and the others who are carping from the sidelines about qualifications of those who offered the Filial Correction, then you have succumbed to the idea that the Church is really about politics. That all battles are power plays, in which the side with the superior numbers or shiftier political abilities will, and should, win.

Ah yes. And you dear reader know exactly what IDEOLOGICAL school of POLITICS is notorious for making precisely that ERROR.

For the new readers, please view this:

So finally, how can we be double certain that the theory (as in Doctrine) and what is the day-to-day “reality of life” (as in Praxis) are compatible, and that the “2+2=5” ERROR, is in fact a social construct as opposed to a OBJECTIVE REALITY?

Simple.

If “2+2=5” was “reality”, then every tax lawyer who is defending a corporate criminal who is being charged with embezzlement or theft would be using it as the basis for his client’s defense.

Furthermore, theft would not even be considered a crime in the post-conciliar church. For how could something be OBJECTIVELY proven as “stolen” if the “math” is “correct”? And yet… (see here)

And THIS HERE!

Aside, did you dear readers know that it was the Cistercians who invented the double-entry accounting system?

Oh, the irony…

And I will leave off on that note.

One more thing. After you dear reader finish the below, please go back and read the Josef Seifert piece  titled “Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church?” (read post-conciliar NUChurch) at the Rorate Caeli blog and commentary here and here. The post below will provide a better insight into Dr. Seifert’s thoughts and the reaction against them.

He obviously hit a raw nerve…

Please read the below and enjoy…

*****

Politics Trumps Theology in Filial Correction Response

What if a man, a man of eminence and of great and well-credentialed education, a man of authority, a priest, even, a man who has the ear of the Pope, told you that sometimes 2 + 2 = 5? Would this man by virtue of his lofty position be correct?

What if a small child, a wretch with no virtue of schooling, a unkempt waif, told the great man, “No, sir. 2 + 2 always equals 4, even for God, who cannot change Truth”?

Hold on! What’s this untutored child doing? Doesn’t she realize her error? She has no authority to offer a correction! Why should we listen to a kid?

Here comes Massimo Faggioli, a professor at Villanova University’s Department of Theology and Religious Studies, to help us. He says the child represents a “tiny, extreme fringe of the opposition to” to our great man. The child “is clearly not a cardinal or bishop with formal standing in the Catholic Church.”

David Gibson, who is director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture, agrees. He says the child’s attempt at a correction is “akin to an online petition”. He also says, “It’s a great headline anytime a priest is accused of error. But these kids are really, kind of, the usual suspects of really far right types who have been upset with not only this priest, but other priests in recent years.”

Even the New York Times—the New York Times!—reminds us the child is not a cardinal. And therefore her criticism is of no consequence.

We can only conclude that because our child is not an authority, and has no right to offer a correction, she is wrong. 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. It sometimes, as the priest Antonio Spadaro (for that is his name) said, can be 5, or 3, or any number he likes. The actual figure doesn’t count as long as, presumably, the solution is merciful.

Right?

If that argument makes sense to you, as it does to folks like Faggioli and Gibson and the others who are carping from the sidelines about qualifications of those who offered the Filial Correction, then you have succumbed to the idea that the Church is really about politics. That all battles are power plays, in which the side with the superior numbers or shiftier political abilities will, and should, win.

The quotes above are real, changed only slightly to shift the emphasis from the accusations of heresy for some of Pope Francis’s statements, to our imaginary child. Faggioli and Gibson are far from alone. The Twitter spokesperson for Hope & Life Press scolded the Filial Correction signers, “You have zero authority to issue any correction whatsoever.”

Well known commentator Austen Ivereigh could also only see the political angle. He wrote “Big tactical error to include Fellay as only bishop. Signatories now clearly identified with schismatic anti-Vatican II movement.” This is spiritually akin to saying, “Big tactical error for that child not to have included a tenured math professor.”

It is also factually wrong since the Society of Saint Pius X headed by Bishop Fellay is not in schism, as acknowledged even by Pope Francis, who validated confessions given to its priests during the “Year of Mercy”. Ivereigh surely knows this, but chose to cast his “schism” aspersion anyway, because in politics as in war, all is fair.

Ivereigh’s worst error was to say numbers matter: “‘Theologians’ misnomer in most cases; 62 is a tiny number, given strength of feeling over #AmorisLaetitia; most are well-known trad critics.” Again, this is like saying, “The child was alone, so we can dismiss her criticism.” Or it’s like saying, “Only trad mathematicians hold to the old formulas.”

If Twitter were available circa 350 AD, Ivereigh might have tweeted, “Athanasius is only one man with almost no support. Dismiss him. Let’s hope rumors of Pope Liberius excommunicating him come true.”

Exclusively political reactions to the Filial Correction belie another attitude. It is as if these naysayers do not believe seriously, or at all, in the supernatural elements of the Catholic faith. The authors of the correction certainly do.

If the naysayers thought the supernatural element the most important, and not politics, there would have been immediate and lively discussion of the seven points of the Correction. Are they really heresies? All of them? Why? Why not? “Let’s dig into this most important matter,” they would have said. “The salvation of souls is paramount, and heresy cannot be countenanced. Here is where we agree, and here where we disagree on the theological points.”

Only after we figure out, really investigate, and agree on each the points are the motives of the writers and signers of the Correction up for grabs. To focus on personalities first is an inversion—and very telling.