(a) “a loyal opposition” pseudo-enemies of the Revolution, who pretend to attack, to ridicule, and to expose the forces of the Left, but undermine its real enemies through infiltration, misinformation, calumnies, and especially with shouts of “Extremism!,” “Heresy!,” “Hate!,” “Irreverence!,” “Disobedience!”

(b) The admixture of good with bad, making good and useful changes, while making bad and subversive ones.

(c) Giving the impression of correcting abuses, or of having intentions of doing so, or pretending alarm at the excesses of the avant-garde of the “reform.”

(d) Taking a step back, i.e., actually saying something or doing something which is genuinely good, even revealing the fact of or attacking the Revolutionary Conspiracy.

(e) Making some conservative gesture in order to divert attention from another Revolutionary “giant step:” An example of this tactic was the issuance of the encyclical, Veterum Sapientia by John XXIII in 1962, a statement which affirmed that Latin is the official language of the Western Church, giving its useful advantages, its venerableness, its needfulness, and so on; at the same time every encouragement was being given to “the vernacular movement.”

(f) Contriving pretexts for destroying those who present a problem for the Revolutionists, and for neutralizing their effect; this tactic calls for an oblique attack: Fr. Coughlin was removed from his radio ministry on the excuse that his radio messages were political (1939); Fr. Feeney was censured not for heresy, but for disobedience; Archbishop Lefebvre was maneuvered into a situation wherein he had to disobey his ecclesiastical superiors, or abandon his efforts to provide Traditionalist priests for the oppressed faithful (1988).

(g) Closing the issue: Once a step forward is taken, all discussion concerning the matter is terminated, no matter how strong the opposition, no matter how execrable the action in question: The Vatican allowed the various national bishops’ conferences to decide whether their priests would distribute Communion in the hand. Those who continue to oppose the measure are called names, but never allowed to argue before a proper forum.

Mr. Guimaraes is one of my favorite commentators on these issues.

Quote

...Another moral flaw that I see in their statement is that, despite some few mentions of the Commandments and one quote from the Gospel, almost the totality of their docuмentation is based on the teaching of John Paul II. (1) The Cardinals publicly affirm that they are repeating the traditional doctrine, but the docuмents they quote are only those of the post-Vatican II Pope Wojtyla.

Now then, JPII was very far from being a master of sound morality. Although he sometimes repeated the traditional teaching of the Church, habitually his moral approach was a tributary of the Personalism of Max Scheler, which is opposed to the traditional philosophy of the Church. His theology of the body is clearly immoral; eulogies of nudism are not rare in his works, and in the World Youth Days he implicitly promoted free love among youth. If the Cardinals wanted to defend the perennial morals of the Church, why did they base themselves on this contaminated source?

The Cardinals’ failure to quote the immense ensemble of traditional docuмents of the Church on marriage and Communion is an omission fostering the idea that the Conciliar Church – to which the four Cardinals belong – is different from the Magisterium prior to Vatican II. One could even say that the Cardinals themselves are in practical schism regarding the past of the Church. However, this is the very accusation made by Bishop Schneider and, more recently, Card. Brandmuller, against those who do not accept the teachings of John Paul II. Why this contradictory position?

With the increase of speed in the Bergoglian Revolution, which was set up by none other than Benedict XVI, the number of reactions against Pope Francis is growing. Recently even a newspaper like The Wall Street Journal labeled him “the leader of the global left.”

To catalyze these reactions, nothing could be more convenient than the emergence of a religious false right that would draw together all the discontent conservatives in the Church and prevent them from seeking an authentic leadership and possibly become traditionalists.

This is what seems to be the goal of the four Cardinals, principally of Card. Burke, who is the most expressive and outspoken member of the group. His principal acolyte in the public arena is Bishop Schneider, whose role in the false right I have already analyzed.

If this is true, which I believe it is, then this would explain why the Dubia were written with the certainty that it would not have an answer. Its goal would be to simply put Francis in an embarrassing position. But in reality the writers would be playing the same the game, allowing Francis to advance with a controlled reaction.

Full article here http://traditioninaction.org/bev/199bev12_30_2016.htm

Quote from: MarylandTrad

Mr. Guimaraes is one of my favorite commentators on these issues.

Quote

...Another moral flaw that I see in their statement is that, despite some few mentions of the Commandments and one quote from the Gospel, almost the totality of their docuмentation is based on the teaching of John Paul II. (1) The Cardinals publicly affirm that they are repeating the traditional doctrine, but the docuмents they quote are only those of the post-Vatican II Pope Wojtyla.

Now then, JPII was very far from being a master of sound morality. Although he sometimes repeated the traditional teaching of the Church, habitually his moral approach was a tributary of the Personalism of Max Scheler, which is opposed to the traditional philosophy of the Church. His theology of the body is clearly immoral; eulogies of nudism are not rare in his works, and in the World Youth Days he implicitly promoted free love among youth. If the Cardinals wanted to defend the perennial morals of the Church, why did they base themselves on this contaminated source?

The Cardinals’ failure to quote the immense ensemble of traditional docuмents of the Church on marriage and Communion is an omission fostering the idea that the Conciliar Church – to which the four Cardinals belong – is different from the Magisterium prior to Vatican II. One could even say that the Cardinals themselves are in practical schism regarding the past of the Church. However, this is the very accusation made by Bishop Schneider and, more recently, Card. Brandmuller, against those who do not accept the teachings of John Paul II. Why this contradictory position?

With the increase of speed in the Bergoglian Revolution, which was set up by none other than Benedict XVI, the number of reactions against Pope Francis is growing. Recently even a newspaper like The Wall Street Journal labeled him “the leader of the global left.”

To catalyze these reactions, nothing could be more convenient than the emergence of a religious false right that would draw together all the discontent conservatives in the Church and prevent them from seeking an authentic leadership and possibly become traditionalists.

This is what seems to be the goal of the four Cardinals, principally of Card. Burke, who is the most expressive and outspoken member of the group. His principal acolyte in the public arena is Bishop Schneider, whose role in the false right I have already analyzed.

If this is true, which I believe it is, then this would explain why the Dubia were written with the certainty that it would not have an answer. Its goal would be to simply put Francis in an embarrassing position. But in reality the writers would be playing the same the game, allowing Francis to advance with a controlled reaction.

Full article here http://traditioninaction.org/bev/199bev12_30_2016.htm

Great find MaryLand Trad!



We've been discussing "Doubts about the Dubia" for a month on this forum.

There were sentiments of hope and intuitive cynicism, but it took a Vatican II scholar to detail the problems.

Coincidentally, TRADITION IN ACTION has just published the full 11-Volume Collection on Vatican II Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani?
(My God My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?).