The Trend Is Your Friend!

Tags

Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, 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, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Today I will begin my coverage of the “fall out” from the AE “Joy of Sex”, and let’s face it, it’s all about sex. (see here) But more on this in a follow-up post.

Back to the subject at hand. I have not commented on “The Big Letter™” as Fr. Z. has termed it (or maybe the word “Scarlet” should be added between “Big” and “Letter”), or its individual paragraphs so far, since I neither had the free time nor even an inkling of where to begin.

But on an aside, my favorite so far is paragraph 304. Here is the first sentence:

“It is reductive (dealing with or describing something complicated in a simple or too simple way) simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being.”

And then comes the punch line:

“I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas…”

Folks, this is something I would expect from a certain faux prelate’s comedy routine…. like the one in the video at the top of this post. When I read THE BIG SCARLET LETTER™ , I thought “Fr.” Guido, since it’s the product of the same “school”, i.e. the Buenos Aires “5 Minute University’s theology department” that we have identified in earlier posts. (see here)

It is that bad. Or funny, depending on your state of sobriety. 😉

But anyways, I have let other bloggers be the proverbial beasts of burden and do the hard work, bloggers like those to which I link in the right hand margin.

Yet, you dear reader do not take the time out of your busy schedule to come to my Deus Ex Machina blog and read my 1200+ word missives in order to find out that which you find on other blogs.

No sireeeeeee!

What you dear reader come to this blog is for the CONTEXT!.

So here goes.

Using a “quasi – 5 Minute University” approach, two definitions need to be set out from the beginning, namely:

Subjective:

• philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind

• : based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

Objective:

• : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

• philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

So naturally, when reading this THE BIG SCARLET LETTER™ and the various associated commentary, one needs to distinguish between these two fundamentally different forms of arguments. And from what I have seen, the overwhelming argumentation to date has been of the “subjective” variety. (see here)

One of the exceptions to this “rule” has been the interview that His Eminence Cardinal Burke gave to the CN Register. I think His Eminence hits the proverbial nail squarely on the head. In other words, what he does is that he clearly INDICATES that HELL is an objective reality. In other words, HELL exists outside of the mind : exists in the real world. Furthermore, the Unversal Magisterium and the associated RULES also exist outside of the mind : exist in the real world. Furthermore, if individual receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin, they will….ahem! And nothing that is or can be written, regardless of whether it is written by a pope, an Argentinian “archbishop” (see here) or from the looks of it, a  “Buenos Aires school of theology” trained stand up comic can change it.

Hope this is clear to all.

Furthermore, reading the below text, please keep in mind the recent PUBLIC STATEMENT by Archbishop Pozzo from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith who stated: (see here)

“In what concerns the Second Vatican Council, the course taken in the meetings of the last years (Ed. note: with the SSPX) has led to an important clarification: the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium,” Archbishop Pozzo specified.

You see? The Neo-modernists are starting to get it!

Also, notice the trend.

And as they say in the investment community: “The trend is your friend!”

I will end here for today. The below is the interview with Card. Burke which I am re-posting (see here)…

FOR THE RECORD.

 

‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church

REGISTER EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Burke says a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, ‘by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.’

The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently-issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “On Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.

Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful, and potentially a source of scandal not only for the faithful but for others of good will who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society.

It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, a meeting of bishops representing the universal Church “to assist the Roman Pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world” (Canon 342). In other words, it would be a contradiction of the work of the Synod of Bishops to set in motion confusion regarding what the Church teaches, and safeguards and fosters by her discipline.

The only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching. Pope Francis makes clear, from the beginning, that the post-synodal apostolic exhortation is not an act of the magisterium (No. 3). The very form of the document confirms the same. It is written as a reflection of the Holy Father on the work of the last two sessions of the Synod of Bishops. For instance, in Chapter Eight, which some wish to interpret as the proposal of a new discipline with obvious implications for the Church’s doctrine, Pope Francis, citing his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, declares:

I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street” (No. 308).

In other words, the Holy Father is proposing what he personally believes is the will of Christ for His Church, but he does not intend to impose his point of view, nor to condemn those who insist on what he calls “a more rigorous pastoral care.” The personal, that is, non-magisterial, nature of the document is also evident in the fact that the references cited are principally the final report of the 2015 session of the Synod of Bishops, and the addresses and homilies of Pope Francis himself. There is no consistent effort to relate the text, in general, or these citations to the magisterium, the Fathers of the Church and other proven authors.

What is more, as noted above, a document which is the fruit of the Synod of Bishops must always be read in the light of the purpose of the Synod itself, namely, to safeguard and foster what the Church has always taught and practiced in accord with her teaching.

In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.

How then is the document to be received? First of all, it should be received with the profound respect owed to the Roman Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ, in the words of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of both the Bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium, 23). Certain commentators confuse such respect with a supposed obligation to “believe with divine and Catholic faith” (Canon 750, § 1) everything contained in the document. But the Catholic Church, while insisting on the respect owed to the Petrine Office as instituted by Our Lord Himself, has never held that every utterance of the Successor of St. Peter should be received as part of her infallible magisterium.

The Church has historically been sensitive to the erroneous tendency to interpret every word of the pope as binding in conscience, which, of course, is absurd. According to a traditional understanding, the pope has two bodies, the body which is his as an individual member of the faithful and is subject to mortality, and the body which is his as Vicar of Christ on earth which, according to Our Lord’s promise, endures until His return in glory. The first body is his mortal body; the second body is the divine institution of the office of St. Peter and his successors.

The liturgical rites and the vesture surrounding the papacy underline the distinction, so that a personal reflection of the Pope, while received with the respect owed to his person, is not confused with the binding faith owed to the exercise of the magisterium. In the exercise of the magisterium, the Roman Pontiff as Vicar of Christ acts in an unbroken communion with his predecessors beginning with St. Peter.

I remember the discussion which surrounded the publication of the conversations between Blessed Pope Paul VI and Jean Guitton in 1967. The concern was the danger that the faithful would confuse the Pope’s personal reflections with official Church teaching. While the Roman Pontiff has personal reflections which are interesting and can be inspiring, the Church must be ever attentive to point out that their publication is a personal act and not an exercise of the Papal Magisterium. Otherwise, those who do not understand the distinction, or do not want to understand it, will present such reflections and even anecdotal remarks of the Pope as declarations of a change in the Church’s teaching, to the great confusion of the faithful. Such confusion is harmful to the faithful and weakens the witness of the Church as the Body of Christ in the world.

With the publication of Amoris Laetitia, the task of pastors and other teachers of the faith is to present it within the context of the Church’s teaching and discipline, so that it serves to build up the Body of Christ in its first cell of life, which is marriage and the family. In other words, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation can only be correctly interpreted, as a non-magisterial document, using the key of the Magisterium as it is described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (85-87).

The Church’s official doctrine, in fact, provides the irreplaceable interpretative key to the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, so that it may truly serve the good of all the faithful, uniting them ever more closely to Christ Who alone is our salvation. There can be no opposition or contradiction between the Church’s doctrine and her pastoral practice, since, as the Catechism reminds us, doctrine is inherently pastoral:

The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates (890).

The pastoral nature of doctrine is seen, in an eloquent manner, in the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family. Christ Himself shows the deeply pastoral nature of the truth of the faith in his teaching on Holy Matrimony in the Gospel (Matthew 19, 3-12), in which He teaches anew the truth of God’s plan for marriage “from the beginning.”

During the past two years, in which the Church has engaged in an intense discussion of marriage and the family, I have frequently recalled an experience from my childhood. I was raised on a family dairy farm in rural Wisconsin, the youngest of six children of good Catholic parents. Ten o’clock Sunday Mass at our parish church in the nearby town was clearly at the heart of our life of faith. At a certain point, I became aware of a couple, friends of my parents from a neighboring farm, who were always at Holy Mass but never received Holy Communion. When I asked my father why they never received Holy Communion, he explained to me that the husband was married to another woman and, therefore, could not receive the sacraments.

I recall vividly that my father explained to me the Church’s practice, in fidelity to her teaching, in a serene manner. The discipline obviously made sense to him, and it made sense to me. In fact, his explanation was a primary occasion for me to reflect on the nature of marriage as an indissoluble bond between husband and wife. At the same time, I must say that the parish priest always treated the couple involved with the greatest respect, even as they took part in parish life in a manner appropriate to the irregular state of their union. For my part, I always had the impression that, even though it must have been very difficult to be unable to receive the Sacraments, they were at peace in living according to the truth about their marital state.

Over more than 40 years of priestly life and ministry, during 21 of which I have served as a bishop, I have known numerous other couples in an irregular union for whom I or my brother priests have had pastoral care. Even though their suffering would be clear to any compassionate soul, I have seen ever more clearly over the years that the first sign of respect and love for them is to speak the truth to them with love. In that way, the Church’s teaching is not something which further wounds them but, in truth, frees them for the love of God and their neighbor.

It may be helpful to illustrate one example of the need to interpret the text of Amoris Laetitia with the key of the magisterium. There is frequent reference in the document to the “ideal” of marriage. Such a description of marriage can be misleading. It could lead the reader to think of marriage as an eternal idea to which, in the changing historical circumstances, man and woman more or less conform. But Christian marriage is not an idea; it is a sacrament which confers the grace upon a man and woman to live in faithful, permanent and procreative love of each other. Every Christian couple who validly marry receive, from the moment of their consent, the grace to live the love which they pledge to each other.

Because we all suffer the effects of original sin and because the world in which we live advocates a completely different understanding of marriage, the married suffer temptations to betray the objective reality of their love. But Christ always gives the grace for them to remain faithful to that love until death. The only thing that can limit them in their faithful response is their failure to respond to the grace given them in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. In other words, their struggle is not with some idea imposed upon them by the Church. Their struggle is with the forces which would lead them to betray the reality of Christ’s life within them.

Over the years and, in a particular way, during the past two years, I have met many men and women who, for whatever reason, are separated or divorced from their spouse, but who are living in fidelity to the truth of their marriage and continuing to pray daily for the eternal salvation of their spouse, even if he or she has abandoned them. In our conversations, they acknowledge the suffering involved but, above all, the profound peace which is theirs in remaining faithful to their marriage.

Some say that such a response to separation or divorce constitutes a heroism to which the average member of the faithful cannot be held, but, in truth, we are all called, whatever our state in life, to live heroically. Pope St. John Paul II, at the conclusion of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, making reference to the words of Our Lord at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount — “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5, 48) — taught us the heroic nature of our daily life in Christ with these words:

As the [Second Vatican] Council itself explained, this ideal of perfection must not be misunderstood as if it involved some kind of extraordinary existence, possible only for a few “uncommon heroes” of holiness. The ways of holiness are many, according to the vocation of each individual… The time has come to re-propose wholeheartedly to everyone this high standard of ordinary Christian living: the whole life of the Christian community and of Christian families must lead in this direction (Novo Millennio Ineunte, 31).

Meeting men and women who, notwithstanding a breakdown in marital life, remain faithful to the grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony, I have witnessed the heroic life which grace makes possible for us daily, every day.

St. Augustine of Hippo, preaching on the feast day of St. Lawrence, Deacon and Martyr, in the year 417, used a beautiful image to encourage us in our cooperation with the divine grace which Our Lord has won for us by His Passion and Death. He assures us that in the garden of the Lord there are not only the roses of martyrs but also the lilies of virgins, the ivies of spouses, and the violets of widows. He concludes that, therefore, no one should despair regarding his vocation for “Christ has died for all” (Sermon 304).

May the reception of Amoris Laetitia, in fidelity to the Magisterium, confirm spouses in the grace of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, so that they may be a sacrament of the faithful and enduring love of God for us “from the beginning” which reached its fullest manifestation in the Redemptive Incarnation of God the Son. May the Magisterium as the key to its understanding see to it “that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 890).

Cardinal Raymond Burke is the patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/#ixzz45ZaXfsxp

Advertisements

CDF – SSPX Dialogue: A BREAKTHROUGH?

Tags

Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, 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, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Here is one for the glass half full/half empty category.

As you by now know, your humble blogger has been following the SSPX/Vatican movements with respect to the “full communion” issue. (see here and here) Today we get more news.

Over at the Sedevacantist website Novus Ordo Watch, a translation of an article from the French  newspaper La Croix appeared (see here).  Of note is the following passage citing Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission:

“Vatican II documents (should) be welcomed according to the required degree of adherence.” The acceptance of the texts on relations with other religions [Nostra Aetate] does not constitute a prerequisite for juridical recognition of the Lefebvrist society and certain questions will be able to remain “objects of discussion and clarification,”

He followed this up with the following:

”“In what concerns the Second Vatican Council, the course taken in the meetings of the last years has led to an important clarification: the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium,” Archbishop Pozzo specified.

WOW!

Once again:

”“In what concerns the Second Vatican Council, the course taken in the meetings of the last years has led to an important clarification: the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium,” Archbishop Pozzo specified.

For those who are new to the ins and outs, the finer points and the nuances of the “irregular status” of the SSPX within the Universal Church and the background which brought it about, need to understand that this is…

BIG!

What we have in this La Croix article is a very high official of not only the Ecclesia Dei Commission but in essence the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith stating that through the:“dialogue” with the SSPX, the post-conciliar Church has “clarified” that indeed, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have been correct all along in that the pastoral, non binding council that was VII…

MUST BE READ WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH AND ITS CONSTANT MAGISTERIUM.

Full Stop

So what is the significance of this passage, you might ask dear reader?

For the initiated, as you recall, it is the Nostra Aetate (Catholic Church’s VII document on the relations with other “religions”, read Judaism in the aftermath of the Second World War) which was the ROOT CAUSE used by the Neo-modernist forces at VII to justify the entire Vatican II process in the first place. If we have the post-conciliar church now admitting that Nostra Aetate MUST be read in line Catholic Tradition and the Universal Magisterium, then we have a real breakthrough going forward.

Below is the republication of the La Croix article from the Novus Ordo Watch website…

FOR THE RECORD

 

Certain Conciliar Texts Can Be Objects of “Discussion” With the SSPX, According to the Vatican

By Marie Malzac, April 7, 2016, 3:43 p.m.

Days after the meeting between Pope Francis and the superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, indicated that “Vatican II documents (should) be welcomed according to the required degree of adherence.” The acceptance of the texts on relations with other religions [Nostra Aetate] does not constitute a prerequisite for juridical recognition of the Lefebvrist society and certain questions will be able to remain “objects of discussion and clarification,” he explained to La Croix.

The meeting, on April 1, between Pope Francis and Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Lefebvrist line, falls “within the context of the SSPX’s progression towards full reconciliation, which will come with canonical recognition of the institute,” which was explained to La Croix by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is in charge of relations with Tradition inside of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.“At this moment, it is especially important to work towards creating a climate of trust … to overcome the hardness of distrust, which is understandable after so many years of distance and fracture,” continued Archbishop Pozzo, assuring he wants to “dispel” it in order to rediscover “the reasons for unity and for promoting the integrity of the Catholic faith and the Tradition of the Church.”

Different degrees of adherence are required

For the person in charge of discussions with the SSPX, it is fitting to recall the three essential points which make a person Catholic: “adherence to the profession of faith, the bond of the sacraments and hierarchical communion with the pope.” This is what the Doctrinal Declaration will contain, “which will be submitted to the adherence of the SSPX at the appropriate time.”“In what concerns the Second Vatican Council, the course taken in the meetings of the last years has led to an important clarification: the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium,” Archbishop Pozzo specified.“The affirmations of truths of faith and of sure Catholic doctrine contained in the Second Vatican Council documents must be welcomed according to the degree of required adherence,” the Italian bishop continued, who repeats the distinction between dogma and certain decrees or declarations containing “directives for pastoral action, orientations and suggestions, or exhortations of a practical-pastoral character,” as is notably the case with Nostra Aetate, in its opening to dialogue with non-Christian religions.

Not an obstacle for canonical recognitionThese “will constitute and be part of, after canonical recognition, a subject of discussion and further deepening, in view towards a greater precision, in order to avoid misunderstandings or equivocations which, as we know, have become widespread in the present ecclesiastical world.”“The difficulties raised by the SSPX regarding questions of Church-State relations and religious liberty, the practice of ecumenism and dialogue with non-Christian religions, certain aspects of liturgical reform and their concrete application, remain objects of discussion and clarification,” Archbishop Pozzo added, “but do not constitute an obstacle to the SSPX’s canonical and juridical recognition.”The SSPX is asked “to accept that the magisterium of the Church is the only one to whom is confided the deposit of the faith to be guarded, defended and interpreted.” “I believe this clarification can constitute a fixed point for the SSPX.”

(Marie Malzac, “Certains textes conciliaires peuvent être objet de « discussion » avec la FSSPX, selon le Vatican”, La Croix, April 7, 2016; our translation; underlining added.)

The Voice Of Sanity In The TRANSRATIONAL Wilderness

Tags

Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, 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, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Today we revert back to our Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium theme, i.e. what your humble blogger termed the Lex Armaticus. Just as a reminder, the Lex Armaticus states that:

Those entities which abide by the natural law that God created to govern His creation, i.e. the et Invisibilium, will be those who/that will continue to exist as part of the visible world, i.e. the Visibilium Omnium. And naturally, those that do not adhere to the et Invisibilium, will eventually be consigned to what Leon Trotsky called the “trash-heap of history”.

Furthermore, as we have also pointed out on numerous occasions (see here), the primary cause (as in causal relationship) of being consigned to the Trotskyite “trash-heap of history” is the phenomenon which we termed as TRANSRATIONALISM (Merriam Webster Dictionary: going beyond or surpassing human reason or the rational”). On an aside, we know that there is nothing “beyond or surpassing human reason or the rational” aside of GOD that is.

Which brings us to today’s subject matter. One of the main sources of not only European, but global instability brought about by the IDEOLOGY OF TRANSRATIONALISM is what is known as the European Project (the PROJECT), a.k.a. the European Union (EU). For those unfamiliar with the PROJECT, the European PROJECT is an effort to create an European super-state by destroying multiple ancient European cultures and civilizations and melding it into one artificial Über Kultur, naturally governed by an army of “European” elite. The social basis for this Project is what is known as Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. Critical Theory in turn is a TRANSRATIONAL construct which goes by the more familiar term of CULTURAL MARXISM (see here and here).

The manner in which this European Super-State is being “created” is through  “quasi-democratic” means. Quasi-democratic means, in the sense that the local populations of the member states vote for their representatives, who then go to Brussels (European Parliament) and vote according to the best interests of the “European-elites” and NOT according to the best interests of their domestic constituencies. Needless to say, over the course of the life of the PROJECT, the European structures and laws that have been passed (for the most part TRANSRATIONAL), have created a series of crises in the member states (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Finland, France to date). These crises, on the surface are economic in nature, but the underlying social decay brought about by Critical Theory (Cultural Marxism) is by far the largest of the ROOT CAUSES underlying these various crises.

Yet, since the PROJECT needs democratic legitimacy, therefore must allow for their citizenry to vote at some lower level, other democratic mechanism have started to break through the TRANSRATIONAL firewall and are starting to bring about a RATIONALISATION PROCESS within the European Union. One of these mechanisms is the local and national REFERENDUM.

Which brings me to the specifics. On the 23 of June of this year, the United Kingdom will be holding a REFERENDUM about leaving the European PROJECT. This is a BFD, as our less than eloquent Vice-President would say. Another smaller manifestation of the dreaded REFERENDUM was held yesterday in the Netherlands. The issue was whether to allow the PROJECT to extend into the Ukraine. And needless to say, the REFERENDUM did not go well for the “European elites”.

Which brings me to today’s repost. One of the RATIONALIST voices in the wilderness is one Nigel Farage. In the video clip above, he explains the general situation of how the PROJECT got to the TRANSRATIONAL state that it has come to. In the article below, via the Daily Telegraph, Mr. Farage explains how the internet is breaking through the monopoly of the Main Stream Media and starting to break down the TRANSRATIONAL structures that have been erected by monied interests on the European continent.

A second reason why I am bringing this material to your attention is the illustrate the POWER of the internet and the access to OBJECTIVE INFORMATION which it is bringing to the wider population. We see the CAUSAL effects of this phenomenon in many places presently, from The Donald phenomenon in the US to the Britain REFERENDUM pertaining to leaving the EU (BREXIT) to the election of RATIONAL governments in Hungary (2010) and Poland (2015). We also see the FRIGHT in the eyes of other TRANSRATIONAL “Global elites”. Here is the relevant passage from the excellent 1Peter5 blog:(see here):

There is also, I’m told, a general fear of social media within the higher echelons of our Church. It is not well understood, and they are unable to gauge effectively the power that it wields in shaping the narrative. This makes them vary wary of provoking a viral firestorm of opposition. The petition, for example, may have only garnered 2800 signatures, but it was brought up during a Synod press conference with Cardinal Pell. It was the reason I was invited to write an op-ed about the Synod in the Washington Post. It was then referenced by Vaticanista Antonio Socci.

I will leave off on this note. The below repost is from the Daily Telegraph via the Zero Hedge blog. The title is Nigel Farage On The Future Of Politics, but it could easily be read as “S. Armaticus On The Future Of The Church”. 

Pleasant thought, isn’t it?

FOR THE RECORD

Nigel Farage On The Future Of Politics

The Dutch referendum shows how the internet is taking back power from our Europhile elites

Today’s Dutch referendum on the EU’s expansionist agreement with Ukraine really is the people’s referendum.

GeenPeil, a project stemming from the popular Dutch blog GeenStijl, collected some 420,000 signed, verified, signatures triggering this referendum. It is an extraordinary achievement that highlights how western democracy is evolving.

The internet truly is the gamechanger of our time. A small collection of individuals with an idea can find thousands of other kindred spirits who join them in championing a cause. That develops, becoming tens of thousands and then allowing a message to reach out to millions.

This revolution is sweeping Europe as we speak. Just look at Beppe Grillo’s Five Star movement in Italy, who harness a system of direct democracy amongst their supporters. When Five Star had MEPs elected to the European Parliament, the party asked supporters to vote on which group they should sit with. Supporters had their say and the Five Star Movement now sit alongside Ukip.

Without the internet, the development and growth of Ukip in Britain would have been far tougher. YouTube gave speeches I made in the European Parliament a platform, reaching out to new audiences not just in the United Kingdom but right across the world. Most encouragingly, these are young audiences, a generation who are now able to access virtually unlimited quantities of information. The internet takes western democracy into a new sphere. Unchartered territory with exciting possibilities.

Our own British referendum on EU membership illustrates the point perfectly. It was Ukip’s people’s army that forced the Prime Minister’s hand and ensured that he delivered on his In/Out referendum pledge – a referendum he had previously spoken out against and did not support until the people’s voice grew too loud to ignore.

The era of top-down political operations is ending. Mass membership, open, accessible political movements are the future. Membership structures that are low-cost but allow involvement for those wishing to participate from the comfort of their own homes is where politics is headed, engaging an entirely new section of the population who have been left behind by the distant, remote current political structures. 

We’ve seen the way that Arron Banks’ Leave.EU have harnessed the power of Facebook to create a social media following that is bigger than any British political party in mere months. Grassroots Out have reached out directly to those who have not typically engaged in British politics, holding packed public meetings across the United Kingdom with speakers from all parties and none, creating a mass movement of supporters who want out of the European Union.

The future for Ukip amidst this backdrop of change is one of new opportuity. As a relatively young party, the people’s army is not constrained by traditional structures and foundations of conventional Westminster thinking. We are free to take a fresh approach and blaze a new trail. And we intend to.

Ukip will be doing everything we can to get the UK out of the EU in the forthcoming referendum, a referendum I believe we will win. Once we have returned power from Brussels, we in Ukip can then become a force for change that delivers powers downwards, back to those who should always be in charge: we, the people.

More “Fog Lifting” On The SSPX Issue

Tags

Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, 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, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Today we follow-up on two posts (see here and here) I published on the 26th and 27th of February regarding commentary which appeared post the conference given by the Argentine-Spanish Bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Alfonso de Galarreta, in Versailles, on January 17, 2016. In that conference, Bishop Galarreta made the comment that IN HIS OPINION, Francis would be “regularizing” the SSPX status within the Church structures.

Here is what Bishop Galarreta said:

“I think, and this is the other aspect of things, that this pope who tells anyone who will listen that we are Catholic, who says and repeats that the Society is Catholic, that we are Catholic, will never condemn us, and that he wants our ‘case’ taken care of. I think– and he has already started down this path – that when he sees that we cannot agree with the Congregation of the Faith, I think that he will overreach any doctrinal, theoretical, practical condition, or any condition whatsoever… He is going to take his own steps towards recognizing the Society. He has already begun; he is simply going to continue. And I am not saying what I desire but what I foresee. I foresee, I think that the pope will lean towards a one-sided recognition of the Society, and that by acts rather than by a legal or canonical approach.”

And as everyone by now knows, Francis met with the Superior General of the Society of St. Piux X last week Friday, the 1st of April 2016 at the Domus Sanctae Marthae for a 40 minute conversation. The repost below contains information from this meeting from the Vatican side and is from the Italian daily Il Foglio via Giuseppe Nardi and the Eponymous Flower blog.

From my perspective, and I have been following this issue quite closely, I have reservations about both the information flow from the Francis/Fellay meeting and the timing. First the timing, this meeting no doubt has been brought about at this moment due to the Apostolic Exhortation that will hit the Catholic world this Friday and has purportedly “resulted” from the Stealth Sex Synod of 2014/2015™ quite aptly named “Amoris Laetitia”. Nomen Omen!

The more troubling issue however is the information flow. If we are at the point where the two parties are “discussing” a regularization process, then I smell a rat. If you recall dear reader, when Francis gave the SSPX “personal jurisdiction” to hear confessions, he made an impromptu statement as a fait accompli. Even the SSPX were suprised by the announcement. If he is now serious about regularizing the SSPX, Francis would have proceeded in a similar manner. Here is the quote:

“In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.”

If Francis was serious, he would have proceeded likewise with the “regularization”. Since he has not, one is left to suspect that we are being played and diverted into a substitute conversation to offset the fallout from the important issue which is the “Amoris Laetitia”.

Given the above, it also needs to be pointed out that it is not Francis that is driving this process but rather the Holy Ghost. And it is He that will allow this process to play out according to how He desires. So let’s keep praying and fasting and keep our game faces on.

I will end here. I am reproducing the Eponymous Flower post without comment (see here) and …

FOR THE RECORD

 

Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X: “The Meeting Went Well” — “It Goes in the Direction of a Personal Prelature”

(Rome) Matteo Matzuzzi, the Vatican expert of the Italian daily Il Foglio , reported initially on Monday  that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, was received by Pope Francis in private audience last Friday. Here is Matzuzzi’s piece:

The Pope Met Bernard Fellay, head of the Lefebvrians

The pope on Saturday ¹ received Bernard Fellay, the superior general and direct successor ² of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre at the head of St. Pius X. The conversation “was positive” as Il Foglio  learned from Vatican sources. Between Francis and Fellay “the consultation went well.”

It is a further step towards canonical recognition of the Fraternity to the Holy See in the form of an ad hoc erected Prelature on the model of Opus Dei, therefore with far-reaching and not only organizational autonomy.

In an interview recently translated into five languages ​​and published on the website of the  Society, Fellay showed himself very open to dialogue, by repeatedly emphasizing his appreciation for the reigning pope:

“I would not be more surprised if he sees us as one of those margins, to which he obviously gives preference. And precisely in this perspective he uses the expression “to travel part of the way” with the people on the periphery, in the hope of being able to improve things. This is therefore not a firm resolution to come directly to the destination, one way or another, a way to go … but the main thing is is quite peaceful, nice, without knowing very well where that will lead. This is probably one of the main reasons. “

Already towards the end of 2013 there was, as the internet site Rorate Caeli brought to light,  a first meeting in Santa Marta. However, It was not a conversation, but more of a chance encounter.

In an interview Fellay noted another aspect of which reveals how far the path to reconciliation has already progressed:

“Very surprising, since it is clear that Pope Francis wants to give us life and to survive. To anyone who wants to hear it, he says he will never do anything evil to the Fraternity. He also said that we are Catholic. He has refused to convict us as schismatics, he said, you are not schismatic, you are Catholic ‘, even if he subsequently used a somewhat enigmatic word  when he said we were on the way to full communion. For this expression, full communion, ‘we would like to have a clear definition, because it looks as if  it corresponds to nothing precise. This is a feeling … you do not know exactly what it is.”

A decision in Econe where the Society has its headquarters ³ was particularly appreciated, relates to the pope granting permission that  Catholics may confess to  Lefebvrian priests. The Pope explained that in the letter last September 1, in which he granted an indulgence for the Jubilee Year:

“A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.”

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
image: Il Foglio (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches…
AMDG

Philosophical Reboot

Tags

Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, 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, Viral hepatitis types B & C

I have been away for a few days. Today I respond to the “deconstructionist” theme that I have addressed in a couple of recent post (see here and here). Over the course of these posts, I have tried to explain how these “philosophical” and quite esoteric (in reality IDEOLOGICAL) movements came about. We started by explaining the background of how the STRUCTURALIST movement came about (see here), and how the DECONSTRUCTIONIST movement developed in order to extract the STRUCTURALISTS from the logical cud du sac which they found themselves in due to them breaking the logical rule of non-self-contradiction.

Naturally, the solution that your humble blogger proposes to the recurrent problems with logic faced by Modernist philosophy IDEOLOGY is a return Scholasticism and OBJECTIVE REALITY. (see here)

Which brings me to today’s guest post from Crisis Magazine and Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. It would appear that your humble blogger is not the only one to recognize to “potential” of this solution. 🙂 So without any further delay, I bring you the below post that I am reproducing… (with emphasis added)

FOR THE RECORD

 

Is Scholasticism Making a Comeback?

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J.

“Truth is the self-manifestation and state of evidence of real things. Consequently, truth is something secondary, following from something else. Truth does not exist for itself alone. Primary and precedent to it are existing things, the real. Knowledge of truth, therefore, aims ultimately not at ‘truth’ but, strictly speaking, at gaining sight of reality.”
∼  Josef Pieper, Scholasticism. 1960.

“Like anything human, they (scholastic writers) have their imperfections. But the standard objections are just ridiculously overstated and there is some truly excellent and useful work to be found in many of those old books from the late nineteenth century through to the early 1960s. I think we are much the poorer for having let it all slip down the memory hole. Indeed, we’re paying a heavy price for it. If you want to know why theology is in such a mess today and secularism in such a position of strength, I would say that it has in large part to do with the fact that Catholic intellectuals have largely lost the intellectual muscle that Scholasticism use to provide.”
∼  Edward Feser, “Scholastic Metaphysics: An Interview,” Thomistica.

In the September 1987 issue of Modern Age, Frederick Wilhelmsen wrote a famous essay titled: “Great Books: Enemies of Wisdom?” In it, he recounted his own experience as a student at the University of Detroit. He remembered in particular his courses in scholastic philosophy, which he went on to develop in his own later works. His army experience taught him that many other young men taught at similar schools had learned the basics of thinking in a way those unfamiliar with it did not. Wilhelmsen followed the shift away from this type of direct philosophical education that educators denigrated to a short-lived “great books” approach that later gave way to what we know today: mostly eclecticism and relativism. The result of this shift, he thought, led to an educational system where no real philosophy was taught or learned, only opinions. Everything became relativized without any grounding in basic metaphysics with which to evaluate philosophical ideas, particularly ethics.

Wilhelmsen did not think everyone was an Aristotle, but he did not think they were dummies either. Graduates of Catholic colleges at that time were given a pretty good foundation, often with eighteen to twenty-four hours of philosophical courses required. These courses served these students well for the rest of their lives. It is not so much that anything is wrong with studying “great books.” We need and want to know what they contain. But by themselves, they contradict each other. So without a foundation in philosophy itself, students of “great books” ended up in relativism with no real way to understand and defend the truth of things. Multiculturalism and diversity, among other fads, become substitutes for thought. All “cultures” are “true.” Every “diversity” is valid, not because it is true but because it is diverse. Indeed, these theories become enemies of thought because the noble name of truth is eliminated from the philosophy curriculum as a “prejudice” or “arrogance.”

All of this background comes to mind on reading Edward Feser’s remarkable book Scholastic Metaphysics. As Feser himself amusingly notes, his colleagues refer to his book as “Feser’s Manual.” It is that in the very best of a noble tradition that was in fact concerned with educating the mind so that it would know the truth of things. What this book does, and does very well, is give us an insightful introduction to metaphysics. First of all, the book is a basic introduction to thinking itself, even though it presupposes, as the manualists did, a good grasp of logic, or, in other words, to think systematically about what is. The book is similar in this sense to Robert Sokolowski’s The Phenomenology of the Human Person, itself one of the best books ever on the nature of philosophical issues and how to think about them.

Feser has done his homework. He is quite familiar with modern analytic philosophy along with other modern systems. He came to Aristotle and Aquinas, whom he knows well, from his realization of problems in the modern systems. Likewise, Feser is acquainted more than most with the various texts that were once profitably used in Catholic university and seminary philosophy departments but later abandoned during the last half century. Feser recognizes that these writers, who were perhaps not perfect, were often very good thinkers in their own right as well as familiar with the intellectual tradition of the West. Along with participants of the century-long Thomistic revival inaugurated by Pope Leo XIII, Feser is familiar with a whole new group of scholastic and analytic thinkers who appreciate the scholastic attempt to explain reality. He admires in particular the works of David Oderberg and Brian Ellis.

II.

All of this treatment, of course, involves coming to terms with Scotus, Occam, Suarez, Hume, Descartes, Hegel, Kant, and the whole effort of modern philosophy to explain what happens in the world. It is often said that the wars of the world are first carried out in the minds of the dons debating what appear to be obscure points of philosophic doctrine. We might wonder what difference do these questions about substance and accident, act and potency, causality, being and existence make? The fact is they make all the difference in the world. Aristotle’s famous remark that “a small error in the beginning will lead to a huge error in the end” is clearly at work in Feser’s approach. He understands what is at stake when we fail to account for the world that is. Here we are mindful of Chesterton’s remark that in the end we will have to be believers even to say that the grass is green and the sky is blue. Arguments about epistemology and metaphysics are not mere “debates.” They are sketches of future political and social realities, of chaos or civilization.

One of the pleasures of this book is that Feser is locked in argument with those who seek to explain reality but whose examination of it often leaves out something important. He is not afraid to say that an argument is “bogus” or “absurd” or “incoherent,” nor is he afraid to explain why. Feser says these things only after he shows the point that grounds his judgment. And lest we forget, philosophy is about judgment. Truth is in a judgment—we say of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. What is particularly good about this book is its order. Truth is reached by critically examining observations and explanations that do or do not explain reality.

In this sense, Feser’s book is quite the opposite of the “fuzziness” of the modern mind that claims that nothing is true or that all is relative. But once said, the truth of the position that nothing is true is open to judgment. And this judgment is what Feser provides in this book. In this sense, it is one of the most refreshing books I have come across in years. Who else is willing to make a case, to articulate in the name of scholasticism, a cohesive case, for teleology, analogy, prime matter, causality, substance, common sense, esse et essetia, and the validity of the mind’s knowing powers?

Feser is aware of many good philosophers who, like himself, are working their way through the modern mind. They discover, often surprising themselves, that their pursuit leads them to Aristotle, Aquinas, and the scholastic tradition. This tradition, newly reflected on, turns out, after having been downgraded by Catholic educators for decades, to be the newest thing on the block. David Warren recently mentioned the interest in St. Thomas that is found among, of all people, contemporary Chinese philosophers. Feser’s book on metaphysics is a dialogue with many analytic philosophers. Not a few of them, as he shows, begin to see points of contact with Aristotle and Aquinas because of the limits of their own system.

But this book is not just a book on what various philosophers think. It is about thinking about reality. Each section of the book—1) act and potency, 2) causation, 3) substance, and 4) essence and existence—carries the reader through the experience of actually thinking of these issues, of why they make sense. Thus, it restores that awareness of philosophic immediacy that Wilhelmsen, to whom Feser refers, rightly thought to be lost when the schools abandoned scholastic philosophy for what turns out to be mostly a mess of pottage.

III.

Feser has published a book on atheism, The Last Superstition—great title. He has a book on Aquinas, edited a book on Aristotle’s methodology, and promises one on the philosophy of nature. He has published any number of scholarly essays on such basic issues as teleology, natural law, motion, even on the “Role of Nature in Sexual Ethics,” as well as studies on several contemporary thinkers. I mention all of this scholarship in connection with another experience that I have had in recent years. Several philosophy departments in Catholic universities such as the University of Dallas, Steubenville, the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Fordham University, Ave Maria, the University of Notre Dame, and especially the Catholic University of America have graduated any number of young men and women of first-rate accomplishment in the field of philosophy.

Most Catholic universities prefer what critics call “prestige” hiring. They do not hire such scholars because they come from the intellectual tradition of Aquinas and scholasticism however good their knowledge of modern thought may also be. So these well-prepared young men and women manage to find jobs in seminaries, smaller colleges, in state schools, think-tanks, or even in business. More actual philosophy is probably taught at Christendom or Thomas More than must students in more famous schools ever heard of. Though Feser himself, interestingly enough, went to the University of California at Santa Barbara and teaches at Pasadena City College, he is a prime example of a quiet revolution that is taking place whereby the basics of the scholastic tradition are recovered and developed. Such scholars as Feser see that more needs to be said than modern thought or most Catholic thought has been willing to acknowledge.

Edward Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics is an ordinary “manual” that is not ordinary. It is nothing less than a defense of reality, of the capacity of the mind to know what is. It is a book that puts science in the right place because it has the mind in the right place. Who else can teach us the real excitement that is metaphysics? “The best explanation of why the world works just the way it does is that there is something in the very nature of potency that requires actualization by something already actual—that is, the best explanation is that the principle of causation is true” (133). Feser’s book is filled with such insightful passages that we so seldom hear.

In Feser’s little “manual,” we have the seeds of something great, the realization that, on philosophical grounds themselves, the scholastic tradition in the heritage of Aristotle and Aquinas is in fact the newest thing in academia. The only people who do not know this are likely to be academicians, but they are often out-of-date. We need, as I have often said, to go to the books that tell the truth, not only tell it, but know what it is on the basis of reason and argument. This book on “scholastic metaphysics” is precisely one of these books. If professors do not assign it, let the student read it by himself. If the department won’t consider it, go elsewhere to find someone who will. For we sense that, in our increasingly decadent culture, there is light in the darkness, a light that has been burning all along in obscure texts that a small but growing number of scholars like Edward Feser thought worthy to read.

Editor’s note: The image above is a detail from “The Apotheosis of Saint Thomas Aquinas” painted by Francisco de Zurbaran in 1631.

Obama Deconstructs Communism

Tags

Black Lives Matter, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Today we return to the LEX ARMATICUS and the theme of OBJECTIVE MEANING OF WORDS AND THEIR COMMON USAGE. Or in this case, the NON-USAGE of words. And just as a refresher, in our post titled Deconstructing Francis (see here) we defined the LEX ARMATICUS as:

“…those entities which abide by the natural law that God created to govern His creation, i.e. the et Invisibilium, will be those who/that will continue to exist as part of the visible world, i.e. the Visibilium Omnium. And naturally, those that do not adhere to the et Invisibilium, will eventually be consigned to what Leon Trotsky called the “trash-heap of history”.”

In today’s post, we observe a strange phenomenon. An IDEOLOGY that has been consigned to the Trotskyite “trash-heap of history” is being “rebranded” by modern day IDEOLOGUES in a TRANSRATIONAL attempt to maintain a VIRTUAL REALITY. Now we know from our LEX ARMATICUS that anything that does not conform to the et Invisibilium is destined to be consigned to the aforementioned trash-heap.

Enter one Barrack Hussein Obama. As a functional crypto-Marxist, yet one functioning in an OBJECTIVE REALITY (the US) in which most participants are cognizant (for the most part) of the IDEOLOGICAL TRASH-HEAP on which ECONOMIC MARXISM rests, who has made a trip to the Caribbean island penal colony otherwise known as Cuba recently. And on this trip, he has ventured to provide his fellow nominal-Marxist hosts and jail wardens some fraternal advise. The long and short of the advise can be summed up as follows:

You have to change, but remember to first DECONSTRUCT the message.

When reading through the below text, notice the LEX ARMATICUS at work. Also notice the DECONSTRUCTION of language process whereby a failed IDEOLOGY is trying to disguise its failures and “recast” them as successes. Yet there is no getting away from the undeniable fact that the LEX ARMATICUS is at work, forcing changes to be made. Those forced changes that must be made, must be in line with a more…

‘abstract’, ‘rationalist’, ‘ahistorical’, ‘arid’, ‘frozen’, ‘immobile’, ‘obsessed’, ‘encouraging pure secularity’, ‘sclerotically hardened and furred theologically, spiritually and ecclesially’ ‘philosophically, economically and decentralized’, ‘causing a rupture between theology economic theory and life’, a ‘wax mask’, a ‘straightjacket’ that ‘reduced theological economic speculation to sterility’.

Where have we heard that before? (see here)

Concluding, it also needs to be mentioned that there are “failures” which go UNMENTIONED, nor can they ever be mentioned when these two IDEOLOGUES meet. Those “failures” are the 149 million “fatalities” that resulted from the FAILED IDEOLOGY that these two IDEOLOGUES spent their lives propagating. And this figure does not include the infanticide that is presently raging on a global scale. When reading the below passage, also keep all these souls in your thoughts and prayers. It might be a slow process, but LEX ARMATICUS infers that this TRANSRATIONAL madness will come to an end and these individual tragedies will not have been in vain.

From the Zero Hedge website (see original here), I am reproducing the below post…

FOR THE RECORD

The Difference Between Capitalism & Communism (Explained To President Obama)

As President Obama explained in his Townhall in Cuba…

To make a broader point, so often in the past there’s been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist. And especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you’re a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you’re some crazy communist that’s going to take away everybody’s property. And I mean, those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory — you should just decide what works.

And I said this to President Castro in Cuba. I said, look, you’ve made great progress in educating young people. Every child in Cuba gets a basic education — that’s a huge improvement from where it was. Medical care — the life expectancy of Cubans is equivalent to the United States, despite it being a very poor country, because they have access to health care. That’s a huge achievement. They should be congratulated. But you drive around Havana and you say this economy is not working. It looks like it did in the 1950s. And so you have to be practical in asking yourself how can you achieve the goals of equality and inclusion, but also recognize that the market system produces a lot of wealth and goods and services and innovation. And it also gives individuals freedom because they have initiative.

And so you don’t have to be rigid in saying it’s either this or that, you can say — depending on the problem you’re trying to solve, depending on the social issues that you’re trying to address what works. And I think that what you’ll find is that the most successful societies, the most successful economies are ones that are rooted in a market-based system, but also recognize that a market does not work by itself. It has to have a social and moral and ethical and community basis, and there has to be inclusion. Otherwise it’s not stable.

And it’s up to you — whether you’re in business or in academia or the nonprofit sector, whatever you’re doing — to create new forms that are adapted to the new conditions that we live in today.

Investors.com’s Michael Ramirez succinctly explains the difference…

And we leave it to RedState.com to rage…

When I first started listening I was appalled. Communism and capitalism are much more than “interesting intellectual arguments.” They are one facet of how a society views its people, subject versus citizen, and the role of the government, master of the people or servant of the people. Then I thought, maybe I’m being too critical. But as he finished I was truly horrified at what I’d heard.

First, we need to knock away the undergrowth. Let’s ignore the idea that there is a “sharp division” between left and right. That isn’t true and I’m not sure who, other than Obama, believes that. Certainly no one who lived in Latin America in the 1950s and 60s would. And no, Cuba does not have life expectancy comparable to the United States. Infants who die of birth defects and suicides do not count in Cuban statistics. And, ultimately, no one really knows what Cuban life expectancy is because it is not transparent of outside observation.

The real point here would be that fundamentally, Obama is a Marxist. As far as he is concerned the conflict between East and West from the end of World War II until the collapse of the Soviet empire was between competing economic arrangements. That was not the case. It was the conflict between the autonomy of the person and the autonomy of the state. No where is his argument more obviously fallacious than in Argentina which has suffered under differing varieties of Peronism, an amalgamation of socialist and capitalist impulses under the banner of Argentine superiority.

Doing “what works,” absent any guiding principles is dangerous. As far as Obama is concerned, letting Mexican drug cartels buy weapons in the United States is okay because his objective was creating a set of facts that justified more restrictive gun laws. One could actually argue that he was using “capitalism”, that is the sale of firearms, to achieve a “socialist” aim, disarming the American people. This is the same logic that led to the involuntary sterilization of undesirable people in the United States (three generations of imbeciles is enough, after all) and the extermination of undesirables in Nazi Germany. The only difference between the two is the grandiosity of scale and concept. Both are based on “what works.” “What works” is a subsidiary question that government should look at. The primary questions are “what is right” and “what is least intrusive upon the rights of the citizens.”

The scary idea that “inclusion and equality” are core govermental goals is evident in ObamaCare forcing nuns to be provided with contraceptive coverage and in the way the beliefs of religious people are not allowed to be taken outside the church.

Obama is profoundly un-American. Not from the standpoint that he is not an American per se, but because he has consciously rejected the very founding principles of the nation. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been sent to the ashcan and we are left with “what works.”

Tired Of Being Played For Suckers

Tags

Black Lives Matter, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Before I start, I hope all my readers had a blessed Easter!

Now to the subject at hand.

You know it had to happen. Your humble blogger was bound to put his “toe into the political pond to test the water” in this election cycle. Although most of you could guess the manner in which the vote will be cast, I think it is interesting to republish an article written by Raymond Arroyo which appeared on the Lifezette.com website via Newsmax (see here).

Two things that I found interesting in this article. First is that it is written from a positivistic angle (Positive statements are (purportedly-) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.), i.e. trying to determine the CAUSE at the ROOT of a specific EFFECT, in this case why Catholics are overwhelmingly voting for The Donald. The second thing is a subjective assessment in which Mr. Arroyo writes the following:

Conservative evangelicals and Catholics feel betrayed by the politicians they helped elect in the past.

Your humble blogger’s comment is: Yep!

Like the gentleman in the below cartoon with a minor edit, (Catholic is the new black)…

But please don’t misunderstand. Your humble blogger is not making a political endorsement.

Yet.

And now, for your reading pleasure, here is the article…

The Reasons Catholics and Evangelicals are Flocking to Trump

Are they voting against the church establishment, too?

by Raymond Arroyo

On primary day in Florida it was like Palm Sunday for Donald Trump, replicating a trend seen in contest after contest: Evangelical and Catholic voters swung decisively for the GOP front-runner. The question is: Why?

The Florida exit polls were striking. A full 50 percent of Catholics in the Sunshine State voted for Trump, while only 33 percent voted for the Catholic, Sen. Marco Rubio. Trump’s support among born-again Christian voters was 49 percent. Meanwhile, the evangelical Ted Cruz languished with only 20 percent of the votes from his own pew mates.

Trump’s hold on both Catholics and evangelicals is by no means restricted to Florida. Massachusetts exit polls reveal that Trump drew a stunning 53 percent of the Catholic vote and 49 percent of evangelicals there.     

On the surface a thrice-married, jet-setting billionaire with a penchant for expletives and a casual familiarity with scripture would seem a bad match for religiously minded voters. Nevertheless, in Michigan, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and other contests, Trump handily won the majority of both Catholics and evangelicals. Something is clearly happening, but what?

Leaders are all too aware of the pattern. Seeking to stop the faithful stampede to Donald, a phalanx of religious leaders have risen up in recent days — not to support another candidate, but to condemn Trump with usually harsh and unforgiving language. Evangelical heavyweights like James Dobson, Max Lucado and Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention have decried Trump as an “economic swindle” and a “social Darwinist.” Lucado insisted that Trump lacks “decency.”

A parcel of Catholic intellectuals recently signed an open letter condemning the GOP front-runner for his “vulgarity, oafishness” and “shocking ignorance.” In between garment rending, these “Never Trumpers,” like so many in the Beltway crowd, admit they can neither explain nor make sense of the Catholic/evangelical Trump phenomenon.

Stephen Prothero, a Boston College religion professor, explained the evangelical exodus to Trump in a recent Politico article. It’s simple, he says: “American evangelicals are just not that evangelical anymore.”

I’m not sure so that theory washes — and it certainly does not explain the Catholic support for Trump. So I decided to make it my business to visit key primary states and talk to Catholic and evangelical Americans on their own turf. I tried to situate myself at polling places in Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Michigan on big primary nights while on the road. In some cases, I visited the states shortly after primary voting, speaking in depth with scores of Catholics and evangelicals. Their surprising personal explanations for casting votes for Donald Trump made more sense to me than anything I have heard or read in D.C. 

For all the fury and indignation coming from the establishment over the rise of Trump, in the minds of these voters, it is the establishment itself that is most responsible for his rise and enduring popularity. 

Conservative evangelicals and Catholics feel betrayed by the politicians they helped elect in the past. An observation shared by a man in Alabama was heard over and over again: “We voted for these people and look at the state of marriage. We voted for them and I’m now competing for jobs with people coming across the border. Why not give Trump a chance? He says he’ll protect the border. He says he’s pro-life now. I believe him and nobody owns him. He could be different.” 

When I challenged these faith-based voters with the concerns raised by leaders in their respective communions, I discovered an even deeper reason for their support of Trump. Nearly every evangelical and Catholic I encountered expressed outrage over what some described as “the politicization of the church.”

Both evangelical and Catholic leaders have in recent years hardened their positions on a host of once secondary political issues, to the dismay of their conservative flock. While muting their voices on the big ticket issues of life and traditional marriage, these voters claim, the churches are embracing agendas long championed by the Democratic party. Pope Francis’ support of a UN treaty to limit carbon emissions, an emphasis on the social gospel, as well as calls from some evangelicals and the Catholic bishops to loosen immigration restrictions have irritated swaths of rank and file faithful. 

This political divide within the church squares with what Korey Maas noted in a recent Federalist article: “Monmouth has found that 76 percent of Catholic Republicans support building a wall across the border, 61 percent support the Trump immigration plan — despite Pope Francis and the Bishops’ insistence to welcome the immigrant.” 

These faithful voters seem open to receiving general moral principals from the churches to shape their voting. But the combination of making it seem heretical to disagree over what they see as secondary political issues and blatantly forbidding them to vote for a particular candidate has made them rebellious. They are not just voting against the establishment of their party, but the establishment in their churches.   

“Voting for Trump is a way to stop the Church’s advance into politics. It’s a check and balance,” a Catholic Michigan woman told me. “Jesus didn’t come to ply a political agenda. He came to save us. All these other things (immigration and environmental policies) are prudential judgments. We don’t need the bishops telling us about immigration. We live the problem every day.”

An evangelical in Louisiana was just as explicit: “To me Trump blocks all these church people who want to be politicians. I love my pastor, but we didn’t elect him to speak for us politically. I’ve got this — and I agree with Trump.”

Perhaps Holy Week is the perfect time for religious and political leaders to do some soul searching and to recall the ruinous effects of those who attempted to secure their power by demonizing a charismatic leader. Only in this case, by misunderstanding the motives of their own people, their efforts could well cause the candidate they fear most to rise again.

Raymond Arroyo is a New York Times best-selling author, most recently of “Will Wilder: The Relic of Perilous Falls” (Random House) and managing editor of EWTN News. This piece originally appeared in Newsmax. 

 

A great sign of Hope for the Church universal…

Tags

Black Lives Matter, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

“Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” 

This is by far the most famous of Victor Hugo’s quotes.

If this quote can be applied to any “idea” that has surfaced over the last 50 years in the Universal Church, it has to be applicable to the project undertaken by a group of Italian clergy and scholars presently known as The Scholaticum. 

The reason that I am bringing this matter to your attention, again, dear reader is that The Scholasticum project addresses what this blogger and others have identified as the ROOT CAUSE of the distintegration of the structures of the Universal Church. I will once again quote from John Lamont and his essay Attacks on Thomism which appeared on the Rorate Caeli blog on the 1st of January 2015 (see here). In this post, John Lamont accurately addresses the ROOT CAUSE UNDERLYING THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE INSITUTIONAL CHURCH. Here is what he writes:

The substantive accusations made against this Thomism are that it unjustifiably limited theology to a particular philosophical system, that theology was forced to conform to it, and that it was not the true thought of St. Thomas. These claims play a subordinate role in the criticism of preconciliar Thomism, whose main thrust lies in accusations that Thomism was ‘abstract’, ‘rationalist’, ‘ahistorical’, ‘arid’, ‘frozen’, ‘immobile’, ‘obsessed’, ‘encouraging pure secularity’, ‘sclerotically hardened and furred theologically, spiritually and ecclesially’, ‘causing a rupture between theology and life’, a ‘wax mask’, a ‘straightjacket’ that ‘reduced theological speculation to sterility’. The essence of this villainous form of Thomism is supposed to be given by the 24 Thomistic theses developed by leading scholars and endorsed by the Sacred Congregation of Studies in 1914, as containing the principles and main pronouncements of St. Thomas’s philosophy.³

These charges however are easily refutable. Here is that key passage:

Thomism made an easy target for this propaganda, just because it is a highly developed philosophy. Any advanced field of study, such as philosophy, mathematics, or physics, can be convincingly portrayed as ‘arid’ and ‘rigid’. For most people’s tastes, this portrayal will often be true. Precise and rigorous subjects inevitably have arid components. Because it deals with fundamental questions whose answers are true always and everywhere, philosophy will be ‘ahistorical’ and ‘immutable’. It will not meet the desires and expectations of individuals or societies, because these desires and expectations are never geared towards subtle and difficult concepts. It will meet their needs – if it is true. But a demonstration of philosophical truth is a feeble counter to propaganda.

And what are the consequences (causal relationship) of the destruction of the Thomistic philosophical basis of Catholic theology and its replacement with a neo-modernist based hodge-podge of “views, which revived essential elements of the modernist heresy of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries”? Here is what Mr Lamont writes:

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.

The above is an OBJECTIVELY TRUE statement.

But Thomism lives on. Here is the conclusion of the above paragraph:

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.

And as you by now have figured out, Thomism in particular and Scholasticism in general has survived. And it will continue to live on. One venue where it will live on is at the Scholasticum. Here is what is key to understand about this new institution:

The Scholasticum is an institute for the study of Scholastic Theology and Philosophy, headquartered at Rome, dedicated to the promotion of the greater appreciation and understanding of Medieval Theology and Philosophy as it was taught at the University of Paris in the mid 13th century. 

What we see in the above text is a return to the fundamentals. By returning to the mid 13th century Theology and Philosophy of the University of Paris, we are returning back to treating Theology as science and studing this discipline through what is presently referred to as a scientific method.

And just to remind everyone as to the significance of this undertaking, I will end this post with a definition which we laid out in our post Settled Stupidity (see here). The definition to which I referred above is for what constitutes organic growth:

Organic Growth: reconciliation of reason with revelation, of science with faith and of philosophy with theology, SUBJECT TO: that source of our Faith that comes from divine Revelation.

For a further treatment of this matter, please go to the She Blinded Us With Science! post (see here).

Concluding, all I can say is that I pray (and fast) that this institution succeeds. If He will’s it, it cannot be different. But we also know that “God helps those who help themselves”.

So it is also up to all of us to do our bit!

Photo post by @BrAlexisBugnolo.

Source: A great sign of Hope for the Church universal…

The Proselytization Pre-Blog

Tags

Black Lives Matter, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Today we do an introduction to “evangelization” and publish a “pre-blog” from the Word on Fire blog titled Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors (see here).

I found this post interesting since the subject matter is written from a positivistic perspective. In other words:

In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly-) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.

The blow text is written from a positivisitic point of view, and describes observations pertaining to… like the title claims, “why atheists change their minds”. What I find interesting about this post is how prominantly a “rationalistic” or Thomist appoach to prostelization evangelization “encountering the other person”, figures.

Please read through the below and I will return to the subject matter in a follow-up post. Hence the term “pre-blog”.

FOR THE RECORD

Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors

Conversions from atheism are often gradual and complex, no doubt. For many converts the road is slow and tedious, tiring and trying. But in the end unbelievers who find God can enjoy an inner peace that comes from a clear conscience in knowing they held to truth and followed the arguments faithfully.

Of course not all converts from atheism become Christian or even religious. Some converts only reach a deistic belief in God (an areligious position that God is “impersonal”) but the leap is still monumental; and it opens new, unforeseen horizons.

The factors that lead to faith are often diverse. It is clear that every former atheist has walked a unique path to God. Cardinal Ratzinger was once asked how many ways there are to God. He replied:

“As many ways as there are people. For even within the same faith each man’s way is an entirely personal one.”

Of course, the pope-to-be was not endorsing the view that “all religions are equal” but rather that there always seems to be a unique combination of factors—or steps—that move each convert towards belief in God. It also seems that some of these factors are more prominent across the board than others.

Here are eight common factors that lead atheists to change their minds about God:

 

1. Good Literature and Reasonable Writing.

Reasonable atheists eventually become theists because they are reasonable; and furthermore, because they are honest. They are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads; and in many cases the evidence comes to the atheist most coherently and well-presented through the writings of believers in God.

Author Karen Edmisten admits on her blog:

“I once thought I’d be a lifelong atheist. Then I became desperately unhappy, read up on philosophy and various religions (while assiduously avoiding Christianity), and waited for something to make sense. I was initially  appalled when Christianity began to look  like the sensible thing, surprised when I wanted to be baptized, and stunned that I ended up a Catholic.”

Dr. Holly Ordway, author of Not God’s Type: An Atheist Academic Lays Down Her Arms, describes the consequences of reading great, intelligent Christian writers:

“I found that my favorite authors were men and women of deep Christian faith. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien above all; and then the poets: Gerard Manley Hopkins, George Herbert, John Donne, and others. Their work was unsettling to my atheist convictions…”

Dr. Ordway mentions the eminent 20th century Oxford thinker, C.S. Lewis. Lewis is a prime example of a reasonable but unbelieving thinker who was willing to read from all angles and perspectives. As a result of his open inquiry, he became a believer in Christ and one of modern Christianity’s greatest apologists.

G.K. Chesterton and George MacDonald were two of the most influential writers to effect Lewis’ conversion. He writes in his autobiography, Surprised By Joy:

“In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for… A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.”

Author Dale Ahlquist writes matter-of-factly that “C.S. Lewis was an atheist until he read Chesterton’s book, The Everlasting Man, but he wasn’t afterwards…”

Ironically, it was C.S. Lewis’ influential defenses of Christianity that would eventually prompt countless conversions to Christianity—and his influence continues today unhindered. Among the Lewis-led converts from atheism is former feminist and professor of philosophy, Lorraine Murray, who recalls:

“In college I turned my back on Catholicism, my childhood faith, and became a radical, gender-bending feminist and a passionate atheist …. Reading Lewis, I found something that I must have been quietly hungering for all along, which was a reasoned approach to my childhood beliefs, which had centered almost entirely on emotion. As I turned the pages of this book, I could no longer ignore the Truth, nor turn my back on the Way and the Life. Little by little, and inch by inch, I found my way back to Jesus Christ and returned to the Catholic Church.”

For an in-depth account of Murray’s conversion, see her book: Confessions Of An Ex-Feminist.

 

2. “Experimentation” with Prayer and the Word of God.

The Word of God is living. It has power beyond human comprehension because it is “God-breathed.” God speaks to man in many ways; but especially through prayer and the reading of the inspired Scriptures. When curiosity (or even interest) of non-believers leads to experimentation with prayer or reading the Bible the results can be shocking, as many converts attest.

One former atheist who was profoundly affected by prayer and the Scriptures is author Devin Rose. On his blog, he describes the role that God’s Word played in his gradual conversion process from atheism to Christianity:

“I began praying, saying, “God, you know I do not believe in you, but I am in trouble and need help. If you are real, help me.” I started reading the Bible to learn about what Christianity said…”

Once Rose began to read the Scriptures and talk to God, even as a skeptic, he found himself overwhelmed by something very real:

“Still, I persevered. I kept reading the Bible, asking my roommate questions about what I was reading, and praying. Then, slowly, and amazingly, my faith grew and it eventually threatened to whelm my many doubts and unbelief.”

And the rest was history for the now rising Catholic apologist and author of The Protestant’s Dilemma.

Similarly, renowned sci-fi author John C. Wright distinctly recalls a prayer he said as an adamant atheist:

“I prayed. ‘Dear God, I know… that you do not exist. Nonetheless, as a scholar, I am forced to entertain the hypothetical possibility that I am mistaken. So just in case I am mistaken, please reveal yourself to me in some fashion that will prove your case. If you do not answer, I can safely assume that either you do not care whether I believe in you, or that you have no power to produce evidence to persuade me…If you do not exist, this prayer is merely words in the air, and I lose nothing but a bit of my dignity. Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation in this matter, John Wright.’”

Wright soon received the answer (and effect) he did not expect:

“Something from beyond the reach of time and space, more fundamental than reality, reached across the universe and broke into my soul and changed me…I was altered down to the root of my being…It was like falling in love.”

Wright was welcomed into the Catholic Church at Easter in 2008.

 

3. Historical Study of the Gospels.

Lee Strobel, the former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and author of the influential work, The Case For Christ, is a prime example of what happens when an honest atheist sets out to establish once and for all whether the claims of the Gospels are reliable or not.

Strobel writes at the end of his investigation in The Case For Christ:

“I’ll admit it:I was ambushed by the amount and quality of the evidence that Jesus is the unique Son of God… I shook my head in amazement. I had seen defendants carted off to the death chamber on much less convincing proof! The cumulative facts and data pointed unmistakably towards a conclusion that I wasn’t entirely comfortable in reaching.” (p. 264)

Modern historical scholars like Craig Blomberg and N.T. Wright have advanced the area of historical theology and the study of the claims of the Gospels to exciting new heights. The results of such ground-breaking studies are one of the greatest threats to modern day atheism.

Referring specifically to the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ in the Gospels (discussed below), former atheist and freelancer, Philip Vander Elst, writes:

“The more I thought about all these points, the more convinced I became that the internal evidence for the reliability of the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole was overwhelming.”

 

4. Honest Philosophical Reasoning.

Philosophy means “love of truth.” Philosophy is meant to lead one to truth; and it certainly will, if the philosopher is willing to honestly consider the arguments from both sides and follow the best arguments wherever they may lead.

Psychologist Dr. Kevin Vost recalls his discovery of the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas:

“Pope Leo XIII had written in the 1879 encyclical Aeterni Patris that for scientific types who follow only reason, after the grace of God, nothing is as likely to win them back to the faith as the wisdom of St. Thomas, and this was the case for me. He showed me how true Christian faith complements and perfects reason; it doesn’t contradict or belittle it. He solved all the logical dilemmas.”

Philosopher Dr. Ed Feser, in his article, The Road From Atheism, recounts the shocking effectof opening himself to the arguments for the existence of God:

“As I taught and thought about the arguments for God’s existence, and in particular the cosmological argument, I went from thinking “These arguments are no good” to thinking “These arguments are a little better than they are given credit for” and then to “These arguments are actually kind of interesting.”  Eventually it hit me: “Oh my goodness, these arguments are right after all!”

Feser concludes:

“Speaking for myself, anyway, I can say this much.  When I was an undergrad I came across the saying that learning a little philosophy leads you away from God, but learning a lot of philosophy leads you back.  As a young man who had learned a little philosophy, I scoffed.  But in later years and at least in my own case, I would come to see that it’s true.”

Two fantastic books from Edward Feser include The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism and Aquinas. Also recommended is Kevin Vost’s From Atheism to Catholicism: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to the Truth.

 

5. Reasonable Believers.

It has been the obnoxious position of some (not all) atheists that in order to believe in God, one must have a significant lack of intelligence and/or reason. Most atheists believe that modern science has ruled out the possibility of the existence of God. For this reason, they tag believers with a lack of up-to-date knowledge and critical thinking skills. (Of course, the question of the existence of a God who is outside of the physical universe is fundamentally aphilosophical question—not a scientific question.)

Intelligent and reasonable believers in God, who can engage atheistic arguments with clarity and logic, become a great challenge to atheists who hold this shallow attitude towards the existence of God.

Theists especially make a statement when they are experts in any field of science. To list just a few examples: Galileo and Kepler (astronomy), Pascal (hydrostatics), Boyle (chemistry), Newton (calculus), Linnaeus (systematic biology), Faraday (electromagnetics), Cuvier (comparative anatomy), Kelvin (thermodynamics), Lister (antiseptic surgery), and Mendel (genetics).

An honest atheist might presume, upon encountering Christians (for example) who have reasonable explanations for their supernatural beliefs, that the existence of God is at least plausible. This encounter might then mark the beginning of the non-believer’s openness towards God as a reality.

Consider the notable conversion of former atheist blogger, Jennifer Fulwiler. Her journey from atheism to agnosticism and—eventually—to Catholicism, was slow and gradual with many different points of impact. But encountering intelligent believers in God was a key chink in her atheist armor.

In this video interview with Brandon Vogt, Jen explains how encountering intelligent, reasonable theists (especially her husband) impacted her in the journey towards her eventual conversion.

For the full account of Jen’s conversion process, get her must-read book, Something Other Than God. Her blog is conversiondiary.com.

And then there’s Leah Libresco—another atheist blogger turned Catholic. Leah recalls the challenging impact of reasonable Christians in her academic circle:

“I was in a philosophical debating group, so the strongest pitch I saw was probably the way my Catholic friends rooted their moral, philosophical, or aesthetic arguments in their theology. We covered a huge spread of topics so I got so see a lot of long and winding paths into the consequences of belief.”

Recalling her first encounter with this group of intelligent Christians, she writes on her blog:

“When I went to college…I met smart Christians for the first time, and it was a real shock.”

That initial “shock” stirred her curiosity and propelled her in the direction of Christianity. Leah is now an active Catholic.

Finally, there’s Edith Stein, a brilliant 20th century philosopher. As an atheist, Edith was shocked when she discovered the writings of Catholic philosopher, Max Scheler. As one account of her conversion recounts:

“Edith was enthralled by Scheler’s eloquence in expounding and defending Catholic spiritual ideals. Listening to his lectures on the phenomenology of religion, she became disposed to take religious ideas and attitudes seriously for the first time since her adolescence, when she had lost her faith and and given up prayer.”

Edith Stein would eventually convert to Catholicism and die a martyr. She is now known as St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.

 

6. Modern Advances and Limitations in Science.

Antony Flew was one of the world’s most famous atheists of the 20th century. He debated William Lane Craig and others on the existence of God. But eventually his recognition of the profound order and complexity of the universe, and its apparent fine-tuning, was a decisive reason for the renowned atheist to change his mind about God’s existence.

In a fascinating interview with Dr. Ben Wiker, Flew explains:

“There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe.”

He concluded that it was reasonable to believe that the organization of space, time, matter and energy throughout the universe is far from random.

As Dr. Peter Kreeft has pointed out, no person would see a hut on a beach and conclude that it must have randomly assembled itself by some random natural process, void of an intelligent designer. Its order necessitates a designer. Thus if this “beach hut analogy” is true, how much more should we believe in an Intelligent Designer behind the vastly more complex and ordered universe and the precise physical laws that govern it (click here for William Lane Craig’s argument for the fine-tuning of the universe).

Flew continues in his exposition on why he changed his mind about God:

“The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint . . . The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.”

Parents often describe their experience of procreation as “a miracle,” regardless of their religious background or philosophical worldview. Intuitively, they seem to accept that there is something deeply mysterious and transcendent at work in the bringing forth (and sustenance) of new human life. Flew also was able to realize (after a lifetime of study and reflection) that there could be no merely natural explanation for life in the universe.

For a more in-depth account of Flew’s change of mind on God’s existence, read There Is A God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

7. Evidence For The Resurrection.

Thanks to the phenomenal work of leading New Testament scholars, including Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and N.T. Wright, the case for Christ’s resurrection has become more airtight than ever.

Modern historical studies have left little doubt about what the best explanation is for the alleged postmortem appearances of the risen Jesus, the conversions of Paul and James, and the empty tomb: Jesus really was raised from the dead. Even most of today’s critical New Testament scholars accept these basic facts as historically certain (the appearances, conversions, empty tomb, etc); but they are left limping with second-rate alternative explanations in a last ditch effort to refute the true resurrection of Christ and “signature of God”, as scholar Richard Swinburne has tagged it.

The case for the resurrection of Jesus had a significant impact on the former atheist, now Christian apologist, Alister McGrath. He recalls in one of his articles:

“My early concern was to get straight what Christians believed, and why they believed it. How does the Resurrection fit into the web of Christian beliefs? How does it fit into the overall scheme of the Christian faith? After several years of wrestling with these issues, I came down firmly on the side of Christian orthodoxy. I became, and remain, a dedicated and convinced defender of traditional Christian theology. Having persuaded myself of its merits, I was more than happy to try to persuade others as well.”

For more on McGrath’s journey see his book, Surprised By Meaning.

 

8. Beauty.

The great theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, wrote:

“Beauty is the word that shall be our first. Beauty is the last thing which the thinking intellect dares to approach, since only it dances as an uncontained splendour around the double constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another.”

Father von Balthasar held strong to the notion that to lead non-believers to belief in God we must begin with the beautiful.

Dr. Peter Kreeft calls this the Argument from Aesthetic Experience. The Boston College philosopher testifies that he knows of several former atheists who came to a belief in God based on this argument (for more from Dr. Kreeft, see his Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God).

In classic Kreeftian fashion, he puts forward the argument in the following way:

“There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.

You either see this one or you don’t.”

Restoration Round-up: Spring 2016 Edition

Tags

Big Gender, Black Lives Matter, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Francis Effect, 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, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Pontifical High Mass, President Andrzej Duda, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Map of Europe with Mass Locations of the Traditional Mass

Today we revert to the subject matter which is the primary reason for the existance of this blog, namely chronicling the “Restoration of all thing in Christ”. We will jump around a bit between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere and between the different Restorationist movements within the Catholic Church.

We start off in the Southern Hemisphere at the SSPX seminaries. The below is a translated post from the SSPX District of Mexico website (original see here). Looks like the Australian Seminary in Goulburn is experiencing steady and consistent growth under the rectorship of Fr. Daniel Themann.

Here is the tranlation…

Entrants at the seminaries – Argentina and Australia

The seminaries of the Society of St. Pius X in the Southern Hemisphere have received new seminarians in this March dedicated to St. Joseph, patron of the universal Church.

In Argentina, the seminary of Our Lady Redemptrix in La Reja, received 11 students for the year of humanities (5 Mexicanos, 4 Argentinos, one Colombian and one Dominican) and 7 seminarians in the first year of spirituality (2 Mexicanos, 2 Argentinos 1 Guatemala, 1 Paraguayo). Two candidates for Brothers also knocked on the door of the Novitiate of the Brothers of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.

In Australia, the Seminary of the Holy Cross in Goulburn received 3 students in the year of humanities (one Australian, one Nigerian and one Filipino) and 4 seminarians in the first year of spirituality: 1 Australian, 1 Korean, 1 Indian and 1 from New Zealand. An Australian applicant also knocked on the door of the Brothers Novitiate.

In total, this academic year 2016 sees 51 young people prepare for the priesthood in these two seminars, wherein 14 seminarians have been added to the year of Humanities.

When taking into account this past autumn 2015, in Flavigny (France), Winona (USA) and Zaitzkofen (Germany), total entrants into the seminaries of the Society stands at 47 seminarians for their first year.

Over at the SSPX seminary in Winona, on the 11th of March, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais conferred Minor Orders on 13 seminarians (see here) and Major Orders on a further 9 seminarians on the 12th of March. Deo gratias!

Away from the SSPX seminaries, the wider Restoration is also moving along. Of note are the following:

On the New Liturgical Movement website, there is a post chronicling the restoration of the veiling of statues for Passiontide (see here). Among the “veilers” this year, for the first time in 50 years, is the parish of St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church, Oklee, Minnesota. Here is the NLM website comment: “This is the first time this parish has veiled in over 50 years. Great job, Fr. Hamness!”. And your humble blogger would just like to add: brick by brick and YOU GO GIRL!

On the Fr. Z. blog, a post appeared asking Fr. Z for guidance as to the proper etiquette when “operating a standard issue beretta biretta”, or as Fr. Z termed it “birettaquette”. (see here) The introduction to the request is what interested this blogger, and here it is: Our parish has recently begun celebrating the EF. Have assisted in choir before but concerned I may not be doing so correctly. My parochial vicar will be celebrating a sung Mass on the Solemnity of St. Joseph this weekend. Can you recommend any online source that spells out the proper posture and biretta usage for priests in choir? Yes, we have to be thankful for the little miracles.

And further news from the Mid-West comes from the Detroit area. Over at the Musings blog (see here) we are informed that: “We are delighted to report that as a direct result of the strong attendance at its first two Tridentine Masses, Detroit’s Old St. Mary’s Church will commence offering First Friday High Masses in the Extraordinary Form every month at 7:00 PM, beginning on Friday, April 1.” Furthermore, Fr. Jake VanAssche has begun offering Tridentine Low Masses on the Saturdays of Lent at 10:00 AM at St. Michael Church in Pontiac. And it keeps on coming.

And now for a “tag-team” effort, we have the New Liturgical Movement website reporting about something in the Musings of a Pertinacious Papist backyard. In a post titled  New: Men’s Holy League in Detroit, Michigan – Every Second Saturday of the Month, we are informed of the following: “I was pleased to hear from an NLM reader who told me of the Holy League that has just begin meeting at Assumption Grotto in Detroit every second Saturday. (The church is located at 13770 Gratiot Avenue.) The structured Holy Hour for men at 6.30 pm will be followed by Holy Mass (EF), after Mass there is coffee and fraternity. They met for the first time this past Saturday and I heard it was a great success, with over 50 attending. It will continue each month through the year.” What’s there more to say, other than DETROIT ROCKS!

And now we travel back to the Old Continent and Western Europe. On the Eponymous Flower website a post appeared containing a map with venues where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered in France, Germany and the UK. I am reposting it in its entirety below while putting the accompanying map itself at the top of this post (see here):

New Map Shows Mass Locations Since Summorum Pontificum

(Rome) The French side ProjectSP5 published a map of Europe which includes the Mass  locations of the traditional Mass.  ProjectSP5 standa for Project Summorum Pontificum. The map highlights the spread of the traditional Rite, which Pope Benedict XVI has restored the traditional Rite again to its official right of residence in the world Church. 

Distinct Geographic Differences

A glance on the map immediately shows significant geographic differences between the various European states.  Strikingly thick are the Mass locations in France, England and the German language area, less dense are the Catholic nations of Poland, Italy, Dpain and Portugal.

SomeCounties, notably Ireland, we’re not included.

The traditional Rite is thus more prominently represented in those areas where the Catholic Faith has been historically endangered by great pressure.  That was true for England though the long Anglican state persecution, for France through radical secularization and for the German speaking areas through the Church schism of the 16th century, which separated both the people and the state, and in the last half-century from a protestantizing in progressive Church circles.

Map Documents Counter-Reaction

The “Rheinisch Alliance” from the leading German and French speaking bishops and theologians are in this area and worked a massive influence on the Second Vatican Council. The consequences were an inner-Church break, which has not been resolved and has thrown the Church into a difficult crisis. 

The maps with the Mass locations documented in the same area as the reaction to this development and gives the impression of the vitality of faith and the Church.

The (map) also shows a significant shortcoming. Some Mass locations are missing, others are imprecisely located on the map. . A more precise and comprehensive map, “would be desired and would make the implementation and effect of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of  Papst Benedict  XVI”,  says the traditional site  Messa in Latino. The project of the French blogger is still a noteworthy beginning.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi

Bild: ProjectSP5 (Screenshot)

Trans: Tabcred vekron99@hotmail.com

And not to leave out the SSPX breakaway communities, namely the FSSP in this case, over on their Polish language website, a post appeared containing the Mass schedule of the FSSP for the World Youth Days in Krakow this coming June. The schedule can be seen here. One of the churches where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will be offered is the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in Krakow. This is the same church were Cardinal Burke offered the first Pontifical High Mass in Krakow since the liturgical destruction of 1969/1970 (see here). On an aside, it would appear that the FSSP is becoming “close” to this church which was formerly “occupied” by the Jesuits. Maybe with a strong showing for WYD, the archdiocese could be persuaded to “give it up” to the FSSP. Please keep this prayer intention close to the top of your “prayer intentions list”, as is your humble blogger. What is needed is a miracle, especially with a Archbishop like Card. Dziwisz, of JPII fame, in the See of Krakow it will not be easy. But as we know, never put anything past the Holy Spirit. Remember, it’s His Church.

Concluding, all in all, we are seeing progress on many fronts. Of note are two national Churches which need to be kept in mind presently. These are the Polish Church and the Mexican Church. They have been the least destroyed of the national Churches and there appears to be an internal “stirring” that is coming across my radar screen. It appears to be only a matter of time until we see an “ignition event” which could propel a Restoration in these churches to the next level. In the mean time, we fast and we pray!