CathInfo.com

.
I just came back and read this thread again, and it remains as interesting as it did from the beginning.
.

.
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 01:29:10 PM

Quote

I know you qualified it with "practically speaking" ... as in you had the Tridentine Mass, but we surely must know by now that the Crisis is about the faith and not just the Mass.

.
Actually, there was no coherent, competing "new religion" or "newfaith" before Vatican II either. The Faith was intact. Perhaps some bad ideas here and there were brewing, but overall Catholic priests and bishops had the Faith before Vatican II. Ergo, the Crisis didn't start until Vatican II.

You're talking about universal purity of doctrine, but I say: you will have a hard time finding purity of anything where human beings are involved. There are always rebels, idiots, poor students, heretics, and bad ideas even in the best of organizations and the best of times.

.
When I saw this post by Matthew, the analogy occurred to me as follows:
,
"Actually, there was no coherent, competing 'new religion' or 'newfaith' before Vatican II either... Ergo, the Crisis didn't start until Vatican II."
.
Suppose you go to the doctor with annoying symptoms and he runs some tests, with the results coming back that you have cancer: a crisis.
.
That would be the "official announcement" or when it became known or "institutionalized" that your cancer exists and is a reality.
.
Does that mean you had no cancer before the doctor's diagnosis?  I hope you would say, "NO, the cancer was real before it was diagnosed."
.
Similarly, the NEW RELIGION or the NEWFAITH was likewise real before Vat.II, because the Modernists had been working hard all along.
.
The NEW RELIGION and NEWFAITH was perhaps in some ways incipient and not fleshed out, but its key elements were well underway.
.
The Modernists knew exactly what they were doing, it was merely a matter of how to announce it and protect it from being wiped out.
.
So the doctor recommends a treatment plan, with rigorous procedures and unpleasant experiences you will have to endure.
.
But at Vat.II, the doctor's remedy was subverted and the microbes or virulent diseased cells were not controlled or eliminated.
  At Vat.II the unclean spirit won the day, and followers of what they thought was the Church Teaching carried out the changes.
  They conformed the visible Church to the disease that the doctor would have fought against.
.
You don't think the doctor's plan is a good one and you seek alternative treatment. You want a more certain answer to your health crisis.
  You have known too many cancer patients who died after undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments.
  You do some research and find that in the 1930's a scientist won the Nobel Prize for discovering that cancer cannot spread in a high oxygen environment.
  You do more research to find that one way of maintaining high oxygen content in your blood is to foster in it an alkaline environment.
  Cancer requires an acidic blood system in order to grow because that depletes oxygen, according to this discovery, which is 30 years old.
  So you go looking and find ways of keeping acidity out of your body, and with persistence, the cancer disappears.
  The doctor is surprised by this development and tells you that he's never seen such a change in a cancer patient.
  He says, "After only one year, your tests show no remnant of your ever having had cancer in the past, this is unbelievable."
  But he doesn't go public with the news, nor does he write letters or publish a peer-reviewed article about it.
  He happens to be very interested in being promoted to the Board Certified elite group, so he can be president of the hospital.
.
At Vat.II, it would have been a historic event if the Church had pulled out of the Modernist trap and had protected Sacred Tradition.
  It would have been fairly impossible to hide the fact that Modernists were being exposed for their corruption.
  The doctors such as Fenton, et.al., would not have been the directors of the cure and recovery, but someone else could have been.
  Fr. Feeney could have been such a director, but for him to help, the patient, the Church, would have had to seek his aid.
  Father had seen the writing on the wall 20 years before, and had set his sights on defending EENS.
  Because the Modernist attack on the Church could not have survived if EENS had been protected and the Church Teaching had endured.
  Unfortunately for us all, the Church did not seek Father's aid, and so the cancer spread.
.
.
As for the second part,
"You're talking about universal purity of doctrine, but I say: you will have a hard time finding purity of anything where human beings are involved. There are always rebels, idiots, poor students, heretics, and bad ideas even in the best of organizations and the best of times."

The purity of doctrine is one and the same as the Church's defined dogmas, for this is one and the same as God's revelation to man.
.
There is no corruption or lack of purity in the revelation of God.
.
Now, certainly there are mistakes man can make, and regarding dogma these mistakes are called ERRORS.
.
We can know what the errors of man are by learning and believing God's revelation given to us by defined dogma.
.
That's how important defined dogma is.
.
Now we have a new topic, as it were, but it's not really new. Because it's the same topic.
   Now we have the CMRI and their penchant for minimizing God's revelation given to us in defined dogma.
   They do this by claiming that BoD and BoB are defined dogmas of the Church.
   They say that if you don't accept their theological speculation (they don't call it that) then you're not welcome in their chapel.
   In other words, you must believe that these so-called defined dogmas are the Church Teaching (even though they are not).
   In so doing they cheapen defined dogma and they take away its importance.
.
The error of CMRI is to attack the very principle of dogma, when they say it is whatever their armchair theologians say it is.
.
There is a new thread on CI where an author of a new book Contra Crawford... posted his one-post-wonder contribution.

I don't think it's correct to refer to him as "Fr. Feeney". The title "Father" indicates not just the character of holy orders, but spiritual fatherhood conferred by the Church. Now, Leonard Feeney was suspended and even excommunicated, so that it was mortally sinful for him to exercise his sacramental powers, which he did anyway. His spiritual fatherhood was taken away by the Church.

Calling him "Father Feeney" is like saying "Father Martin Luther" or "Father George Tyrrell" or "Bishop Nestorius".