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

Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? (Matt 19:4)

Boy, oh boy,… boy oh boy!

Today is the Feast of the Epiphany and I already have in my possession enough material for TWO Restoration Round-up 2018 posts of 1000 words each on hand.

Just to remind, information making the cut to be included in these posts must be of SIGNIFICANTLY UNIQUE importance that moves the Overton Window. In other words, this Restoration material “moves” what is considered the “mainstream range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people“.

And this above referred to move is positive. What this new information does is that it brings the debate battle to the death between Tradition and the “spirit of VII” right smack into the middle of the Overton Window.

So let’s get cracking…

To wrap this debate itself in more technical terms, this death struggle is between two “operational” interpretations of not so much what actually transpired at the Second Vatican Council, but of how it was interpreted… bah, SOLD to the pew sitters (wallets) post factum. And given the Orwellian dictum that ‘he who controls the past, controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past’, the fight is over who controls the interpretation of the “spirit of VII” presently. This maxim also strongly supports our contention behind the significance of the last post here and specifically the book that appeared under the title of: Slaying the “Spirit” of VII” with the Light of Truth.

This battle is commonly presented in terms of two post-conciliar “operational” hermeneutics (methodology of interpretation), one of continuity and one of rupture.

The reason why both these hermeneutics are “operational” is that they serve as “vehicles” through which the Universal Magisterium will be either maintained or discarded. If the Magisterium is maintained, it remains Catholic. If the Magisterium is discarded, post-conciliar church becomes a “new religion”, i.e. a sect.

So this death match is for all the marbles!

Actually, for all the tangible assets, cash on hand and rights to future cash flows!

The reason that the hermeneutic of rupture arose was because a part of the post-conciliar progressivist cabal thought that the post-conciliar church was moving too slowly toward the “new religion”.

If not now, when?

So in order for the “hermeneutic of rupture”, something quite “alien” to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, operational vehicle to be introduced into the Catholic Overton Window, it needed first to be “legitimized”. The vehicle through which it was legitimized is through “open dialogue”. And the promotion of this  “dialogue” was then wrapped in what became known as the Bologna School.

Nota bene: Notice how little if anything is being written about the Bologna School these days?

Back to the subject at hand and taking one step back. Please recall that to a neo-Marxist, cum neo-Modernists, there are two ways in which something is legitimized. There is the Leninist/Trotskyite mechanism, i.e. overthrow of established regime (legitimization by force), or the Gramscian mechanism (legitimization by stealth), i.e. subversion through infiltrating the departments of the targeted institution. Needless to say, the Bologna School melded into the post-conciliar church through the implementation of the Gramscian approach.

The above is critical to understand before we move on.

The problem with the hermeneutic of rupture though, 50 years on, is that it is an objectively abysmal failure.

What’s more, an objective case can be made for the presupposition that it is this “rupture” element inside the post-conciliar church that is wreaking havoc in the Institutional Church and causing its disintegration.

This anecdotal evidence is now being joined by empirical evidence, which is overwhelming and it is beginning to be methodically compiled and presented to the Church at large.

So let’s go to the empirical evidence, shall we?

A post containing a new study appeared yesterday at the 1Peter5 blog. In the  post written by Jack P. Oostveen and titled The Data on the Death of Religious Orders: How Does Your Favorite Measure Up?, we are presented with information about the “health and strength”, or the lack there of, of the various religious communities.

Readers of this blog will be familiar with this material and methodology since it has been partially presented earlier on this blog. In post titled A Final Rendezvous With Destiny and With Death in April of 2015, we used this same methodology, but on a sample group of religious orders. The 1Peter5 post in turn can be considered the magnum opus of studies of the Catholic religious communities. Furthermore, it is a post that EVERY ordinary or superior general of EVERY diocese or religious community within the UNIVERSAL CHURCH should become INTIMATELY familiar with, screen-grabs of the various graphs being INDELIBLY IMPRINTED in the mind of said ordinary or superior general.

But that’s not all the new information…

As it just so happens, on the same day as the 1Peter5 post appeared, a second post appeared over on The Catholic Herald website. In a post titled How to save the English Church, we are provided with much very insightful information. What I would like to concentrate on here is one piece of significant empirical evidence that appears in this passage:

Let us put these numbers another way. In 1970, for every 10,000 Sunday Mass-goers, there were 40 priests to serve them. But by 2014, the same number had 46 priests. In fact, Catholics in 2014 had a better priests-to-practisers ratio than at any time between 1950 (and no doubt long before) and the 1990s.

What this data tells us is that the ratio of pew sitters to priests is very consistent over time, and especially over the period that interests us, i.e. the entire post-conciliar crisis period. In other words, the crisis in vocations is almost perfectly correlated with and proportional to the crisis in mass attendance.

So the inference that can be drawn form the above information is that with a steady increase in vocations, one can expect to see a proportional increase in mass attendance. And this no doubt has to do with the fact that religious families produce vocations, and the rate at which they produce vocations is roughly constant.

Therefore, if we presuppose that the above is a correct analysis of the current situation, the way forward to get the Catholic Church out of Her present crisis is similar to the one proposed by Jack P. Oostveen in his 1Peter5 post: (emphasis added)

Of those institutes whose timelines are depicted in Figure 9 (Traditionalist, aka Catholic), we can ask ourselves what they have in common, aside from the fact that they were founded at a time of liturgical and doctrinal crisis in the Church. They all, in some way, are meeting the challenges of today. Each of them is confronting the crisis through sound liturgy and doctrine, like teaching, preaching, or living their religious lives in accordance with the Deposit of Faith.

Graph here:

The author, in his conclusion section then goes on to ask the most significant question that needs to be asked by all FAITHFUL CATHOLICS, and that is this:

Considering the magnitude of the loss, one has to wonder: why is there such reluctance among so many of the prelates and Superiors of the Congregations to acknowledge the reason for which the decline began and then to respond accordingly? The ongoing decline does not only pertain to those religious congregations in severe decline; it affects the entire Church and all humanity.

In our follow-up post, we will answer this question, so stayed tuned because the answer will be quite shocking.

But for now, and concluding, what Jack P. Oostveen, the author of the analysis in  1Peter5 suggest, and the empirical study of the religious communities supports his recommendation is that the post-conciliar church needs to “confront the crisis through sound liturgy and doctrine, like teaching, preaching, or living their religious lives in accordance with the Deposit of Faith”.

As for the recommendation of the author of the post that appeared in The Catholic Herald, here is what he suggests:

The basic model is simple: lift a surplus-to-requirements church out of the normal parish system and give it to a niche group that can do something distinctive with it.

And by niche groups, Stephen Bullivant means: Institute for Christ the King (St Walburge’s and English Martyrs) and the Syro-Malabar Church and the FSSP. All three groups proclaim sound liturgy and doctrine.

Yet these above suggestions are directly opposite to those that are promoted by the Bologna School. What’s even odder is that the Bologna School knows that their “doctrinal” approach is a FAILED approach.

For this information, we go over to the MondayVatican blog from way back in early 2015. In a post titled Pope Francis: Which Peripheries?, we can read the following:

What a pity, then, that a Pew Forum survey suggests instead that this approach (Bologna School) may not be helpful. In a survey on reasons why Catholics leave to join Protestant sects, the Pew Forum established as the first three reasons the search for a personal connection with God, participation in a particular style of worship and, finally, a felt need for a greater emphasis on morality.

And where was this survey taken?

Well, right in Francis’ back yard. Latin America!

Here’s more from this post and the next paragraph:

This latter reason provides interesting data, as interesting as the data suggesting that evangelicals strongly defend family and life issues and reject gender ideology at the same time that the Catholic Church in South America shows itself to be weak on ethical issues.

Oh my!

And then this is how Andrea Gagliarducci at the MondayVatican closes this discussion:

The loss of Latin America’s faithful seems to be endemic. Pope Francis’ Argentina merited treatment as a case history in the Van Thuan Observatory’s 2012 Report on Social Teaching in the World as the country that more than any other has been subjected to the colonization of human nature carried out by international lobbies.

And this was written before Francis “came out” as one of the major “colonizers” for the “international lobbies”. Here we are talking about something along the lines of this here.

I will leave off by asking just one question. And the question is this:

Given that Francis knows exactly the scale and breadth of the damage and destruction that has been wrought onto the Institutional Church, especially in Latin America by the Bologna School approach, why has he been forcing them onto the Universal Church for his entire bishopric of Rome?

The answer will be provided in the next post, so stay tuned…