Chapel of the Holy Trinity, 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 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
So yesterday’s post was a primer.
And today we do literary criticism.
In yesterday’s post, your humble blogger wanted to set out the framework, or as we say on this blog – CONTEXT, for today’s post.
Before we go on to the subject matter itself, I need to make a short digression. On the 21 of May 2017, a post appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog titled Pope Francis condemns Catholic “Fanatics” about doctrinal clarity. In that post, the following appeared:
“But there were always those people who, without any commission, go about disturbing the Christian community with speeches that upset souls: “Eh, no, someone who says that is a heretic, you can’t say this, or that; this is the doctrine of the Church.’ And they are fanatics about things that are not clear, such as these fanatics who go about there, sowing discord in order to divide the Christian community. And this is the problem: when the doctrine of the Church, that which comes from the Gospel, that which the Holy Spirit inspires – because Jesus said, ‘He will teach us and remind you of all that I have taught’ – that doctrine becomes an ideology. And this is the great error of these people.”
Since May, the “literary construct” used by Francis to express the above thought has undergone a metamorphosis. In grammatical terms, one can say improvement. What has happened is that Francis has reduced the level of ambiguity to the following:
“On the contrary, traditionalist ideology has a faith like this [the pope makes a gesture of putting on earmuffs]. “The benediction should be done like this. In Mass, fingers should be like this, with gloves, like before …” What Vatican II has done with the liturgy has been something truly grand, because it has opened worship of God to the people. Now the people participate.”
This latter passage is from the Vox Cantorix blog post titled Of Bergoglian earmuffs and socks, and appeared on the 4th of September, 2017.
So as we can observe is that over the span of 3 1/2 months, Francis the bishop of Rome has gone from using cryptic and enigmatic “literary constructs” to express a “certain thought”, to using outright clear and precise verbiage to express that same “certain thought”.
Aside, the latter construct is not very Jesuitical, if I do say do myself…
Reason being that the latter “literary construct”, i.e. “traditionalist ideology” is a very precise term.
Come to think of it, the expression “traditionalist ideology” is as specific and as precise and as understandable as anything that one can come across, when going through the various speeches, conversations, musings at the Domus Saencte Maerta, and other off the cuff comments of Francis, i.e the Francis “magisterium”.
Actually, this “literary construct” is as precise and definitive as say… oh… this passage below is precise and definitive:
But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
Now you can’t get any more precise and clear and definitive than the above, now can you?
Which brings me to the subject matter at hand.
If one were to hear the expression “traditionalist ideology”, one might be excused if one experiences a feeling of cognizant dissonance. Yes, it is an oxymoron. One cause for the above could be due to reading the many posts about what constitutes an IDEOLOGY on this blog. But I digress…
So in an attempt to combat the dissonance, one might do a word search on a random search engine (hint: DuckDuckGo) and find the term IDEOLOGY defined as follows:
Now in our case, we would be referring to Catholic society.
So drilling down into the definition, we notice the term “normative beliefs”. Here is what we would find if we follow the links:
Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes.
Which leads to the question of where do “norms”, or to be more precise, “moral norms” come from?
In Catholic Society, “moral norms” originate from two sources, namely: as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” and as known through “divine revelation.”
So naturally, something that is known as a “norm” would be closely associated with an underlying “law” from which that norm originated. Now, when I use the term “law” I am speaking in a very general case.
In the specific Catholic sense, the origin of the law is defined as follows: (see here)
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law – the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.
1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: “For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.”
So from the above, it is plainly obvious that any “moral norm” must originate in Natural Moral Law which originated in God and was divinely revealed by His Son.
Which then begs the question, how does one get from:
But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery
The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329 [emphasis added] (see here)?
The obvious answer is: one can’t.
So the question that is in need of an answer is: by what thought process can one get from A to B, given that both cannot be correct? I.e. they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive positions.
The answer is that this circle can only be “squared” by a POST-MODERNIST thought process. Here is another short video that sets the proper CONTEXT for the above. When viewing this, think about how closely Dr. Peterson comes comes to explaining the phenomenon of Francis, bishop of Rome.
And the reason that the POST-MODERNIST thought process can explain this logical contradiction is that…
…the post-Modernists to some degree, because their in-coherency is one of their least of their sins, but they don’t care about that. No, no, you got to understand, it’s Modernists and Enlightenment people, even traditionalists who care about coherency. The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic.
So what’s the point of this exercise and why am I beating this POST-MODERNIST dead horse again? Where is the “newness” you dear reader might be asking right about now?
The “newness” of the above has to be the “novelty”, in Jesuitical terms, whereby a pathological, consummate and seemingly incorrigible Jesuit is now using clear, precise and specific language to argue his position.
Yes, he is using the term IDEOLOGY!
And please ignore the fact that that word doesn’t mean what Francis thinks it means.
So the point of the above 1500 or so words, is to NOTE that this new game being played, is no longer a game based on a sleight of hand nor nuance nor even acts of omission. The game now being played presently is one of negation of OBJECTIVE REALITY. It is a game of explicit and overt negation of the NATURAL LAW and it’s source NATURAL MORAL LAW.
And the implementation is being done by F. O. R. C. E.
Here is the Jordan Peterson quote: ( the 4:00 minute mark)
Jordan Peterson: It was no longer specifically about economics. It was about power. And everything to the post-modernists is about power.
And that’s actually why they are so dangerous. Because if your engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power, all they are motivate to do is accrue all the power to them.
What else is there? There’s no logic, there’s no investigation, there is no negotiation, there’s no dialogue. There’s no discussion. There’s no meeting of minds and consensus.
And here is how this power play is playing ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of human activity. Below is a series of posts that appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog:
Here is the original post written by Joseph Seifert that appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog titled Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church?
And here is the post about FrancisSuppression of Dr. Josef Seifert titled: Note: more on Josef Seifert’s “retirement” for Amoris Laetitia critiques.
And here is the Dr. Roberto Mattei post about the Seifert Case titled: The Seifert Case: Who is separating themselves from the Church?
And the answer to the last re-phrased question is: YES!
But this necessary adjustment raises another question in its own right.
Concluding, it is worth noting that since the POST-MODERNISTS have gone so far as to negate everything that human society has learned and received, i.e that which is known from the “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”, and are forced to ERRONEOUSLY
deconstruct interpret that part of our Faith that comes from known through “divine revelation”, even their fellow post-conciliar neo-Modernists are revolting.
The reason the neo-Modernists are revolting is that they now see that the POST-MODERNISTS are not able to make a positive, rational case for their post-conciliar “theology” any longer. The neo-Modernists, to their credit, realize that it is one thing to omit the nature of Truth, but quite another to overtly and explicitly negate it. The neo-Modernists also realize that negation of OBJECTIVE TRUTH is not only a non starter, but is not sustainable for the post-conciliar “theology” in the long run.
Eventually NATURAL LAW will reassert itself. And that is the point of the Seifert article.
I would also suggest that this is the motivation for scenes from the packed conference dedicated to the 10 year anniversary of the Summorum Pontificum in Rome like this:
Yes, you read that right. The former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was there.
This is YUGE.
And finally, it is also this observation that is borne out in the changed literary style of the FrancisChurch. Whereas the neo-Modernists were happy to cloak their Modernist heresy in what Louie Verrecchio coined the “pseudosacral homopoetic prose”, FrancisChurch has been forced to resort to a new style, one that can be correctly termed as POSTMODERIST TRANSRATIONAL BRUTALISM.
Here is that catalog.
And I will end here and wish you all a nice weekend.