Tags
#fakenarratives, #fakenews, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Dr. Curt Doolittle, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, FrancisChurch - In Liquidation, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Jozef Pilsudski, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Miracle on the Vistula, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Polish Bolshevik War 1920, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, r/K Selection Theory, Raymond Burke, Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "c"atholicZombie, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s Ann Corcoran, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Bio-History, s Boris Johnson, s BREXIT, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Catholic Church, s Chapel of the Holy Trinity, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, sCatholic Church in Poland, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, Zombie, ZombieBishop, ZombieChurch
Today a CONVERGENCE PROCESS™ post that deals with something that needs to be understood. What’s more, some meditation on this subject would also be in order.
For my new readers, a CONVERGENCE PROCESS™ is one where Faith and Reason are further reconciled. And as we know, at the Final Judgement, FAITH and REASON will have been fully reconciled and become ONE, since all that which is unknown at present, will at this time be known.
Given the above, what is quite clear is that the body of knowledge increases over time, and follows what is known as the Mamet Principle, i.e. that which is known, cannot subsequently become unknown.
So given the above, those aspects of human thought that do not comply with that which is already known, are preordained to FAILURE.
Today’s examples of something that is preordained to FAILURE comes by way of that which we call the Francis Theology of Death™. Our source information for why specific aspects of the ToD™ are preordained to FAILURE come from the social sciences and our favorite Catholic clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson.
And yes, your humble blogger will go out on a limb and make the claim that Dr. Jordan Peterson is the preeminent catholic thinker of the 21st Century, in the same way as your humble blogger considers Milton Friedman as the preeminent catholic thinker of the 20th Century.
So on the back to that shocking claim, let’s get cracking…
Below is a quick 6:00 minute video of Dr. Peterson explaining the meaning of Michelangelo’s David, the Biblical story of Cane and Able and an excerpt from Carlo Collodiego’s Pinocchio.
In this short clip, Dr. Peterson touches on some very contemporary issues that have been touched upon by The Francis or have been observed during Francis’ bishopric of Rome.
Two issues that come to mind are the concepts of IDEALS and JUDGEMENT. And what’s more, we learn from Dr. Peterson’s lecture that these two concepts are interconnected.
So Dr. Peterson, through the explanation of the back-story behind the idea of Michaelangelo’s David, in one short paragraph explains the relationship between IDEALS and JUDGEMENT.
What is important to note, before we get to the quote, is that Catholic theology in particular, but also Catholic thought in general has always striven for the IDEAL.
But what’s even more important to understand, what Catholic theology has never thought is that the IDEAL is mandatory. And this is due to our PROPER understanding of the nature of fallen man. Therefore, if the IDEAL was mandatory, the Faith would be useless since “fallen man” could not meet this standard. And if they became (somehow magically) IDEAL, they would not need Sanctifying or Actual Grace for their salvation, making the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary unnecessary.
So here is Dr. Peterson explaining the relationship between the IDEAL and JUDGEMENT:
I’ve often thought this about Michelangelo’s statue of David, which is heroic. So David was the shepherd obviously. It doesn’t sound like much but back in those times, being a shepherd was a big deal. Because there were lions. And you had a sling shot. And so, you got to defend your sheep from lions with a sling shot. So you weren’t exactly like this 19th Century English guy dressed in a frilly blue suit. You were tough as a bloody… well… someone who would go after a lion with a slingshot. It’s no joke. Anyways, the statue is very heroic. You look at that and you think that’s the possibility of human kind. But by the same token, it’s also what you’re not. And so, as well as being an IDEAL, it’s a JUDGE.
And so, every IDEAL is a JUDGE.
And as we know, our Faith does not place a precondition on us to be IDEAL, but rather provides for us a set of MINIMUM requirements. These MINIMUM requirements can be discerned from the below passage:
[11] Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? [12] Otherwise believe for the very works’ sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do. [13] Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. [14] If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do. [15] If you love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:11-15)
And naturally, Mark 10: 11,12 is what can be considered as a MINIMUM “commandment” that Our Lord instructed his Faithful to keep. And just as a reminder:
[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
So when we hear The Francis or his sidekick Card. Kasper telling us that Mark 10; 11,12 is an IDEAL, they are not telling the TRUTH.
Moving on, this FALSE conflation of a MINIMUM into an IDEAL is also explained to the Faithful in Holy Scripture. Here is Dr. Peterson explaining the back-story for the Francis/Kasperian misrepresentation from the Biblical story of Cane and Abel:
Student question: Going back to your example of Cane and Abel, so you are using that example to illustrate becoming bitter as a result of not being able to achieve status as a result (Peterson interjects: success even) of hard work. But in the example of Cane and Abel, (…) the one who was a shepherd was favored, so was that the result of the hard work or was that the result of …
Dr. Peterson: Good question.
Those stories are very, very complicated. And the story is very ambivalent about whether Cane is not rewarded because he makes bad sacrifices or because God is just in a bad mood. If you read the story (…) when Cane comes to God to complain, God basically tells him:
‘… look buddy, before you go about criticizing the STRUCTURE of REALITY, you should look to your own inadequacies. As sin crouches at your door as a predatory, sexually aroused animal, and you invited it in to have it’s way with you, and something has emerged as a consequence, so don’t be bothering me about my creation before you look to yourself.’
So there’s a very strong hint that the reason that God has not favored Cane’s sacrifices is because they weren’t of particularly good quality.
(…)
The idea that Cane kills Abel to get rid of his IDEAL and also to punish God, roughly speaking, it’s a brilliant story.
I mean, these guys who go around shooting up high schools are shooting up… high schools in particular, they’re definitely out for revenge and what they are revenging themselves against, and to who is not exactly clear.
Given the above, and given the patently erroneous understanding of what constitutes the IDEAL and how it fits into the bigger picture of The Francis and FrancisChurch, one can recognize the same “rebellion against the STRUCTURE OF REALITY” that is contained in the example of Cane.
The motivation is resentment, or more accurately, the Nietzschean “Ressentiment”. The Ressentiment is caused by ABJECT FAILURE. Bergoglio’s career as a priest, Superior General of the Argentinian Society of Jesus, Bishop of Buenos Aires and the Bishopric of Rome has a strong thread of FAILURE running through it.
Once again: How Is It That No One Seen It Coming?
Yet the OBJECTIVE REALITY is that he has ascended to the top of the Catholic Hierarchy. What does this tell us about the Due Diligence PROCESS of the College of Cardinals? But I digress… Yet by examining Bergoglio’s career, at each step of his “climb”, there was always some external help, a non-spiritual force that was critical in order for him to advance.
And this might be… or rather… most likely is, the ROOT CAUSE of Francis’ Ressentiment against everything the Catholic Church teaches and represents, and the reason why he wants to exact “permanent change” on the Bride of Christ.
So what Bergoglio in fact wants to do, just as Cane before him, is to destroy the IDEAL:
The idea that Cane kills Abel to get rid of his IDEAL and also to punish God,..
Concluding, it is transparently obvious that The Francis and his henchmen, the likes of Cardinal Kasper et al are misrepresenting Catholic doctrine and moral theology.
Yet very little is being written about why this is the case from an academic perspective. This is surprising since the discipline of sociology and psychology have to a great degree replaced the study of systematic theology in the post-conciliar seminaries. So most priests that have been ordained since 1970 should be familiar with the terms and concepts.
What’s also important to note is that the knowledge gained to date in these academic disciplines possesses universal characteristics, therefore applicable to the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium. Given this, we can use this knowledge to gain a better understanding of why Francis and his minions do the things that they do.
What’s of greater importance than gaining an understanding of what it is we are observing taking place around the Sacred Vatican Walls, is to understand the fact that the universal tenets of NATURAL LAW as understood through the study of sociology and psychology, that Team Francis is breaking will constitute their undoing.
The reason that it is correct to make this claim is due to the fact that as a body of knowledge increases, any body of knowledge, it MUST reconciles itself with Catholic Doctrine and the NATURAL MORAL LAW.
And if the churchmen don’t want to undertake this RECONCILIATION and CONVERGENCE PROCESS™, then I guess it will have to be left to the laity.
Any errors contained in the Francis Theology of Death™ will ultimately have to go through this corrective PROCESS. Errors pertaining to FrancisChurch’s teaching on the subjects of IDEALS and JUDGEMENT will be corrected, if Catholic moral teaching is to have any UNIVERSAL meaning or application.
And one application of these UNIVERSALS will be this: it will be the IDEAL that will JUDGE the “sophisticated theologian” Bergoglio.
The only question in the mean time is how many more souls will be lost because of this ignorance and evil LUNACY?
Pingback: Canon212 Update: In China and Around the Planet, the FrancisFaith Will Be Instilled By Force – The Stumbling Block
Mark Wauck said:
New Old LIberal Bishop is Worried by the Immemorial Mass of All Ages
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/03/new-old-liberal-bishop-is-worried-by.html
Note ref to boys and intellectuals. Troublemakers!
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
It will have to come to a head. The homosexualists (basically is what they are) will not give any territory to the Catholics since the ladder are an existential threat to the former.
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
I’ve been telling my extended family for years: what they really want is the kids. I think they’re finally starting to get that. That’s always what the pervs really want in the end.
LikeLike
Chris Benischek said:
This is an honest day’s work, SA. I can see you decided to come out with both barrels blazing for Holy Week. Well done; great fun.
When you’ve rested a bit–though I know there may not be much time for that–gently may I remind you that we await your weaving in to this narrative the Tale of the Eleven Little Volumes, and Aftermath. It well highlights “the slight regard in which these ‘gentlemen’ hold the truth.” And the arrogance that they think they can lie at will to the world and not ever be held to account–flouting the moral law with arrogance not seen since oh I don’t know when…Casey at the Bat perhaps?
It also highlights the heresy to which the anti-Pope has hitched his star. Hunermann and Werbick and their ‘School.’
And of course there is that little puzzler about “Interior Continuity,” “Inner Continuity,” and modernist outer space. Way out.
All in all, I think Ol’ Benedict just unloaded a couple of barrels of his own on ol’ anti-Pope, inner continuity be damned.
Thanks,
C. B.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
If you haven’t seen the Magiste piece, here it is:
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/03/26/far-from-continuity-here-there-is-a-chasm-the-true-story-of-the-eleven-booklets/
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Magister’s take was my take.
I thought that the entire “eleven little books” was a scam to get Pope Benedict to give some sort of endorsement to the Francis Theology of Death. So Sandro laid it out much better than I could have.
And he puts his finger on the motive: Bergoglio’s bad Catholic formation and doctrinal incompetence. TeamFrancis can’t hide it any longer. Francis has not theological clothes.
Boy, what a surprise.
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
Of course I can’t KNOW what’s going on in Bergoglio’s head–I only know stuff like that re Ratzinger–and I’m almost scared to find that out about such a singularly repulsive person, but, yeah, resentment does seem to be a real driving force for him. The air that he breathes.
I’m curious. Does Peterson ever mention the concept of “fallen human nature”? We know that it’s not mentioned by Jesus in the gospels, nor anywhere else in the New Testament (Paul does, unlike Jesus, mention Adam a few times but only to point out that “all have sinned.”). Nor does Judaism have a concept of “fallen human nature”–the Genesis narrative is transparently a metaphor for the human condition: man, as a finite, created being is incapable of perfection so he should accept that condition and not try to become like the infinite, perfect God. Notably, the Jews never transformed that narrative into a concept of a Fall of Human Nature.
The idea that man, by his own actions, is able to change the very nature of a creature created as such by God seems pretty dubious. And, indeed, as the history of Christian theology has shown, it leads to insoluble conundrums re the justice of God, human freedom, etc. (Cf. the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski’s God Owes Us Nothing: A Brief Remark on Pascal’s Religion and on the Spirit of Jansenism. The fact that man is finite and created, and therefore imperfect as God alone is perfect, seems to me to be a sufficient explanation for the fact that people commit sins. The fact that this explanation seems to have satisfied Jesus and his disciples is also good enough for me.
BTW, one of the reasons Kołakowski’s book interests me is because it’s an attack on “Neo-Augustinian” thought. That means it’s an attack on Lutheran, Calvinist, Jansenist thought but especially on the Nouvelle Theologie that draws from those currents of thought. That’s very much what the current crisis is about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
“Does Peterson ever mention the concept of “fallen human nature”?”
Yes, that is his base assumption. Might have even used the term. Aside, his vocabulary is noticeably Catholic.
What I think Peterson is getting at is that the Old and New Testament is part and parcel of the same “religious tradition”. So he sees the New Testament as a “development” of the Old Testament using classical Greek/Roman philosophical tools and Nitzschean/Jungian psychoanalysis. A very Piagetian approach.
“The idea that man, by his own actions, is able to change the very nature of a creature created as such by God seems pretty dubious.”
I don’t think Peterson is making that claim.
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
I don’t mean does he use that concept at a “base assumption,” but rather does he use that term specifically? I know he talks a lot about human beings being imperfect–that he uses terminology that resonates “Catholic”–but that’s different than saying that human nature has been altered by human action. I don’t say I’d be surprised if he did use that specific phrase, but I’m curious. I mean, if a reference pops into your head, that’s all.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
What I think is helpful is to look at Dr. P in terms of how close he is to Catholicism (converging) as opposed to what still separates us.
I see this really bizarre phenomenon where we expect our friends to be perfect, yet our enemies we explain away by saying that we should meet them were they are.
Clever trick deployed to it’s fullest potentional in the post-conciliar church.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
PS I have a new post up. Check it out.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Found a clip with Dr. Peterson speaking about original sin. It comes at about the 19:00 minute mark of the below clip.
From my understanding, it appears that his position is that Original Sin is real and has existed since the creation of man.
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
Thanks, this is about what I’d expect him to say. OTOH, he doesn’t commit totally to any theological theory. His reference to “original” sin seems to come when he speaks of man being flawed “from the beginning … maybe even catastrophically so,” then he appears to refer a bit later to the Protestant/Augustinian view of Total Depravity, which, as Kołakowski points out, was rejected by the Church at the time of the original Jansenist Controversy. Later, referring to what he’s already said, he refers to all those theories as offering a “dismal prospect,” and offers a sort of Kantian interpretation of religion as “structures of simplification” to organize reality for us (Kantian categories of thought). But he appears to reject that as a final interpretation of what he calls “the human condition,” the term I used in talking about the Genesis narrative. From there he moves on to Nietzche’s development of Kant–a type of fideism in religious terms–which he also seems to reject. He doesn’t come to a conclusion in this lecture, but he does indicate that he agrees with Jung regarding the “immaturity” of both science and Christianity. An interesting position with merit. OTOH, nowhere does he suggest anything like the Augustinian doctrine of human nature as literally “fallen” from one state to another as a result of human action. Rather, as he says, these are interpretations of “the human condition” which, in his words, is “flawed.” But I think the clear meaning of his words is that “flawed from the beginning” = imperfect. And that simply means, imperfect because all created/finite being is by definition imperfect, and so in need of salvation.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Let us always keep in mind that we should not allow the Perfect to be the enemy of the Good.
Peterson is an acedemic. And a secular one at that.
Your standard is for someone like Francis or his ghost writers (like the Argentines Carlos Galli and Juan Carlos Scannone, the Germans Peter Hünermann and Jürgen Werbick, the Italians Aristide Fumagalli, Piero Coda, Marinella Perroni, and Roberto Repole, the Slovenian Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik).
Si?
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
I wasn’t criticizing Peterson. From what I could tell from that lecture he offers a way forward for Christians that both Trads and V2ers would benefit from. I was simply tracing his historical overview of proffered solutions.
LikeLike
Michael Dowd said:
I don’t think a convergence process can take place until:
—The clarification process has runs its course.
—The philosophies opposing Christianity are seen as bankrupt.
We may be making progress with the clarification process at least for a small segment of the population. However, seeing the oppositions to Christianity as bankrup could be a long way off.
We have at least two major areas of false teaching both having unprecedented strength: Post-modernism and Islam. Post-modernism prepares a society for Islam be weakening it. Just look at what Islam is doing to Europe.
It is difficult to be optimistic about the future. I see the mid-term future where there is only a remnant of Catholicism in an illegal and underground Church. The Catholic Church as we know it today will be essentially Protestant as it largely is now.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
If you are on Twitter, another front has has opened up against Francis. The “yoot”.
Francis tried to claim that these were bots. Turned out to be real people, and they are pissed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael Dowd said:
Pope Francis is not only a heretic he is a fraud and a manipulator. How easy it is for “youths” to see through all of this. All so called information requested and promoted by the Vatican is used for exploitation.
LikeLike
Chris Benischek said:
Duped? Heavens to Betsy. What did you expect? “Rigged Synod,” anybody? See, Pentin. Diabolical Narcissists, anyone? See, Barnhardt. Honest Abe, Honest ‘Pope,’ ? See, Henry “They Don’t Call Him Dictator For Nuthin” Sire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
PS That’s why it’s so important to whack away at the foundation of post-Modernism, i.e. the definition of what constitutes TRUTH.
Once that is gone, the whole house of cards will fall…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chris Benischek said:
Absolutely right. You can already hear the whole (2+2+5) Bergoglian Court howl in response: “What is Truth!?!?”
Good little Pilates, all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chris Benischek said:
That is, the (2+2=5) Bergoglian Court. And really, most are more Judas–whom after all the anti-Pope Bergoglio publicly holds most likely was saved–than Pilate. Interesting dream of his wife, by the way, is it not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
johnfkennedy63 said:
I wonder when one of the Little Judas members of PF’s court will have enough and go all Judas publicly?
LikeLike