Tags

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


Oh my!

But before we get to the “oh my!”, in good Thomist style and form, we begin today’s post with a definition.

Definition of fetish

1 a : an object (such as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence

b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession

c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

2 : fixation

3 : a rite or cult of fetish worshippers

So let’s get cracking.

We begin with a sighting.

The “sighting” that I am referring to appears in the following passage from one of our favorite Catholic blogs and sources of REAL INFORMATION (DATA POINTS), OnePeterFive: (see here)

“It was a true surprise,” sources inside the Synod commented today with admiration, while they noted that “the relatio, which passed not without conflicts, found at the last moment a common base of support.” In the breathless hours of the final draft Cardinal Walter Kasper, cited the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, where he speaks about the “principle of prudence.” And in the relatio of the Germanic Circle he proposed the key word “discernment,” a word dear to the Jesuits and to Bergoglio. That evening Müller carried the book of Aquinas home with him. The next morning he accepted the compromise proposed by the progressives. [emphasis added]

The passage above describes part of the process by which the FrancisChurch and the homosexualist FrancisCardinal Schönborn scammed the Prefect of the CDF, one Cardinal Muller to a compromise over the text produced by the German Group, which later was verbatim pasted into the FrancisDocument “Joy of Adultery”, in order to get the Prefect’s approval of the wording of the said document.

What I would like to draw your attention to is the following part of the above passage: (emphasis added)

In the breathless hours of the final draft Cardinal Walter Kasper, cited the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, where he speaks about the “principle of prudence.”

Now hold that thought…

And please go and read the entire post (see here).

Now, whenever the name of, or reference to St. Thomas of Aquinas appears, your humble blogger has this instinctive reaction to go to the top of the Deus ex Machina blog, click on the page Why Thomism? and spend 5 to 10 minutes re-reading the essay. The reason being that it allows one to place himself in the proper mindset to read the rest of the offending document where the name of St. Thomas appeared. Like our post-Modernist adversaries like to say: CONTEXT is everything.

Now, so why is this proper mindset important?

The reason it is important is because we are dealing with two types of post-conciliar clerics, namely neo-Modernists and post-Modernists. One characteristic that applies to both these camps is that they consider themselves anti-Thomist. One can say, post-Thomist.

In other words, Thomism was suppressed never to raise its head never, ever and ever again at the cult gathering known as the Second Vatican Council. It was at this Council that the cult of fetish worshippers, thought that they were finally putting Thomism to rest once and for all. Here is the relevant passage: (with emphasis and added emphasis)

This propaganda (strategy that suppressed Thomism) was often crassly expressed, to a degree amazing in scholarly venues. But once it had succeeded in making an emotional connection, this crassness – as is the way with propaganda – only strengthened its power. Once this power had been demonstrated, fear of being its victim added to its strength.

Now that the party behind it has achieved dominance in the Church, and banished Thomist philosophy and theology from virtually every Catholic institution of higher education, this propaganda largely takes a retrospective form. The overthrow of the attempted Thomist monopoly on orthodoxy – the ‘razing of the bastions’ touted by Hans Urs von Balthasar – and the alleged enlightenment and freedom of thought that resulted from this overthrow, are presented as the great theological achievements of the Council.

The evils of the Thomists and their suffocating ideology provide the reason for dismissing their positions unexamined, and for proceeding as if the progressive movement that replaced them is in effect the whole of Catholic theology.

In other words, Thomism was not only stigmatized, but also weaponized against the Thomists.

Having this passage indelibly imprinted in my prefrontal cortex, I am always on the lookout for any reference to Thomism by the post-conciliarists since Thomism was supposed to be… well, like Polly, the Norwegian Blue in the Monty Python dead parrot skit. (see here)

So if the above is in fact the correct interpretation of post-conciliar epistemology (study of the nature of truth), and it most certainly is, then why the present fetish with Thomism in FrancisChurch?

A rhetorical question for the time being…

Now, if we are to believe some of the contemporary common wisdom, namely that ALL the present players behind the Sacred Vatican Walls are MEN OF THE COUNCIL, (see here) and if “From Ratzinger to Bergoglio, (is) just the next step in the logical “progression”, then why has Thomism been resurrected by the FrancisChurch and what purpose does St. Thomas’ work serve in this debate?

Once again,

“The overthrow of the attempted Thomist monopoly on orthodoxy – the ‘razing of the bastions’ touted by Hans Urs von Balthasar – and the alleged enlightenment and freedom of thought that resulted from this overthrow, are presented as the great theological achievements of the Council.

The answer to this daunting question is provided in the concluding section of the seminal John Lamont essay, namely:

The key to the neomodernist capture of power is however also the reason for their failure to sustain a religious culture. Neomodernism is not like Protestantism, which contains ideas with a positive content as well as being a rejection of Catholicism. These ideas – justification by faith, and the like – are not correct, but they say something substantial, and have an appeal that can give rise to an important movement.

Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world.

This is one thing that on the natural level permitted the survival of Thomism, despite the drastic measures taken to uproot it from the Church; unlike neomodernism, it has something positive and substantial to say.

Moreover, what it has to say is actually true. This is in no way a guarantee of broad success, but it ensures the continued existence of Thomism in the small constituency of good scholars who are concerned with the truth and in a position to discover it. Whether it will expand much beyond this constituency in the future is unknown, but there is no doubt that its future shows more promise than that of neomodernism.

But this is not the end of the story.

The question of “why Thomism” now turns to the question of “why Thomism now”?

Please remember:

IF: ALL the present players behind the Sacred Vatican Walls are MEN OF THE COUNCIL,

THEN: Thomism should be as irrelevant to them as it was to their philosophical IDEOLOGICAL forefathers at the Council.

Yes?

The only logical explanation for why Thomism has now reestablished itself in FrancisChurch as the DOMINANT philosophical framework (if only as a rhetorical trick for the post-Modernist’s in charge) 50 short years after it’s suppression, is that it has been recognized as the only philosophical framework that is OBJECTIVELY TRUE by these purported MEN OF THE COUNCIL. 

In other words, all the artificially made up alternative “philosophical frameworks” erected in the post-conciliar church are FALSE. And:

“As a result it (neo-Modernism and post-Modernism) has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world.”

And just to finish off this thought with an excellent example, we go back to the OnePeterFive post for this passage:

When asked to explain a little further the concrete circumstances of the Müller-Kasper-compromise during the synod, the source says: “The day of the compromise were in fact really two. On one day, we, especially Müller and Kasper, mostly discussed Thomas Aquinas – who stood, in Latin, in the middle of the table of the Congregation for the Faith.”

The OPTICS of St. Thomas standing, in Latin, in the middle of the table at the CDF sounds much like: an object (such as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence.

No?

Concluding, what is of the utmost of importance to understand is that which we are watching (the VIRTUAL REALITY) and that which is OBJECTIVELY REAL are not one and the same.

For something to be OBJECTIVELY REAL, it has to be OBJECTIVELY REAL on all the different levels of a given observable OCCURRENCE. In our case, it has to be REAL not only on the pastoral level, but it also has to be REAL on the doctrinal level, it has to be REAL on the theological level and at its ROOT, it MUST be REAL on the PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL.

So if we look at this PHENOMENON through Ockham’s razor, the most likely explanation of the above continuously sighted references to Thomism by the post-conciliarist MEN OF THE COUNCIL is that:

A minority of at least 10% of this population has come to the UNSHAKABLE BELIEF that Thomism is the ONLY WAY FORWARD if the Institutional Church is to survive.

And this UNSHAKABLE MINORITY OF AT LEAST 10% OF THE POPULATION is  forcing the existing power structures, i.e. FrancisChurch to conform!

I will leave off with the relevant passage from the post titled What Terrifies FrancisChurch, Whether They Know It Or Not… (w/Update):

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

And this above passage quite nicely explains the current FrancisChurch’s fetish with Thomism.

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate! 

PS Oh My! “Joy Of Sex” Not Thomistic…