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

In yesterday’s post, (see here) your humble blogger tried to present a set of links to posts whose underlying “narrative” was INCOMPETENCE on a grand scale.

What is even more troubling when reading through this material is that the parties engaging in these “questionable” activities, appear not to be concerned that they are breaking long held governmental standards of bureaucratic “impartiality” or of even outright breaking the law.

It would appear as if these people somehow think that they are above the law...

Be that as it may, and before we move on, your humble blogger would like to draw your attention to the above video once again. I would like my readers to pay attention to the exchange where Dr. Peterson speaks about INCOMPETENT people who decide that they will change very complicate and sophisticated systems and institutions without a large dose of HUMILITY.

And not the type that Francis promotes either…

Moving onto the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, we get this “faux pas” (?) wherein a person not COMPETENT in Catholic theology decides to exert his WILL in the “Communion to the heretics” issue:

So in the above screen grab, one can notice two aspects of this quite disturbing (yet not entirely unexpected to the clear thinking Catholic) comment by the President of the German “Republic”.

The first is the crassness and arrogance with which the comment was made. It is as if the warnings of Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864) are returning to haunt those who have forgotten that which is written in this INFALLIBLE document.

Specifically, ERROR 44. states as follows: (emphasis added)

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. — Allocutions “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850, and “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

Now moving over to the Natural side of the ONTOLOGICAL reality which ERROR 44. mirrors, the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (1791) makes the following claim:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So what we see in the above text is that introducing ERROR into either a POLITICAL or ECCLESIASTICAL PROCESS, allows for that ERROR to CORRUPT the PROCESS itself. The downstream effects of the CORRUPTION of a NATURAL PROCESS brings with it UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

Specifically, once we abrogate the ONTOLOGICAL REALITY that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

…we lose our claim to those said RIGHTS.

And the reason we lose our God given RIGHTS is by introducing ERROR into our understanding of where those RIGHTS come from originally.

The end of the Slipper Slope of this ERRONEOUS understanding of the origin of the RIGHTS OF MAN and the nature of the RIGHTS OF GOD brings us to Herr Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

In the above statement of the current President of the German “Republic”, we see the PROCESS clearly. Once we, human beings with our fallen nature, deprived God of the rights that are His and His alone, we enter into a VIRTUAL REALITY in which OUR RIGHTS which we obtained from Him, are also abrogated.

The RIGHTS that were formally OURS, have now been expropriated by those who have the most… wait for it… POWER.

Sound familiar?

Well it should.

It is classical Marxism.

Which explains this situation HERE

So the question then becomes: how did we get here?

For an answer to this quite pertinent question, your humble blogger refers you to a case study under the title of Case Study Vatican II produced by The Kenan Institute For Ethics.

Here is the Introduction to this case study:

Father John Courtney Murray, SJ was a busy professor at Woodstock College in Maryland, where he taught Trinitarian theology, edited Theological Studies, a prominent journal of Jesuit theology, and was considered a leading American Catholic theologian. In 1954, after over a decade publishing on church-state issues and religious freedom, Murray was ordered to stop writing about these topics altogether. These controversial subjects had led to heated exchanges between him and more conservative, traditional elements of the Church both in the United States and at the Vatican.2 Influential members of the Roman Curia felt that religious liberty was intolerable because “error has no rights”3 – that is, people do not have the right to follow a religion that is false. By 1963, however, Murray was asked to attend the second session of the Second Vatican Council.4 Murray served as a peritus, or expert, on religious freedom and was largely responsible for influencing and drafting one of the most important documents emerging from the Council, Dignitatis Humanae, “Declaration on Religious Freedom.”

So what is unfolding before our very eyes is the Slippery Slope that started with the rehabilitation of ERROR at the “Second Vatican Council”, which now threatens the loss of our Natural Rights given by God to His creation, in 50 short years time.

It would appear now that this state of affairs has reached the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium. From the statement of Herr Steinmeier, he is making the claim that it is the STATE now, that “has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.”

In the bigger picture, what we see in the above case is that something that was supposed to be SACROSANCT, i.e. the notion of a “separation of church and state”, in reality is non-existent.

And the reason being that in reality, the “separation of church and state” is what is termed a FALSE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT in post-Modernist speak.

Or as we say here, the “separation of church and state” is not grounded in ONTOLOGICAL REALITY.

And another element of this FALSE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT can now be seen spreading its tentacles into other areas of society at present. Here is just a sampling from a random screen grab:

Which brings me to the second aspect of the Steinmeier claim, which is to remind you dear and loyal reader of the “other” Golden Rule, which states:

Those who have the gold, make the rules.

So since Herr Steinmeier is a proxy for the “gold”, i.e. POWER, he can make the RULES!

It’s as simple as that!

Nuff said…

Concluding, what we see in the above is that once fallen man enters onto a Slippery Slope of justifying or even acquiescing to ERROR, the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES are unavoidable.

In the above text we can observe that what started out as an apparently “liberalizing” and “innocuous” “reform” during the Enlightenment and reached the height of its development in the Conciliar document Dignitatis Humanae, i.e. that all “religions are equal”, therefore the need for the “separation of church and state”, has morphed into a state of affairs under which a sizable majority of the Western population is now in jeopardy of losing its Natural God-given right to freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association altogether.

The only bulwark against this ERRONEOUS mentality was the pre-conciliar Catholic Church, (and is the  INDEFECTIBLE Catholic Church) and its Universal Magisterium.

But since the post-conciliar church (in which the INDEFECIBLE CHURCH “subsists”) abandoned… bah suppressed its TRUE DOCTRINE and acquiesced to ERROR, there is nothing now to stand in ERROR’s way.

Mr. Steinmeier’s statement above is just the manifestation of the above and provides proof of the ERRONEOUS nature of Dignitatis Humanae document itself.

The reason for this sequence of events on the part of the post-conciliar church, and its ability to foresee the consequences of its actions, is most likely INCOMPETENCE.

And the delusions of leftist political activism…

Nota bene: Archbishop Lefebvre identified just these consequences at the time of the council, refusing to sign the document. (see here)

From the secular side, it appears to be that certain “special interests” need those God-given rights to be curtailed in order for them to maintain their “special rights” which they obtained through POLITICAL POWER which …

… grows out of the barrel of a gun. (Mao)

As for the SACROSANCT principle of the “separation of church and state” and Dignitatis Humanae.

Requiescant in pace!