Author Topic: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis (Read 1314 times)

rowenwdse · « **on:** January 22, 2022, 09:34:43 PM »

This is a possible explanation of the Church Crisis starting from the early 1900s. It is based on the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X and the Apocalypse. I believe it makes sense and am wondering what you all might think?

It is attached here and can also be viewed via this link from my google drive:

Please Click Here - The Church Follows Its Divine Head

In +JMJ,
Roger

bodeens · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2022, 09:46:42 PM »

The explanation is explicitly the destruction of EENS. Even Feeney's enemies conclude this. Rahner was shocked at VII that the "conservatives" caved so hard on docuмents weakening the dogma because this was the very line that separated the liberals from conservatives at Vatican I, which even modernist Jesuit Sullivan writes about in his book on the matter. The poison had been injected with the discovery of the New World and had been swirling about in the Church for about 200 years before it really started infecting the seminaries in the 1800s.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2022, 09:58:34 PM »

It didn't start in the early 1900s. It started with the early Jesuits of the 16th century, who started to chip away at EENS dogma after the discovery of the new world. Then the enemies of the Church exploited Baptism of Desire to gut EENS dogma, and the gutting of EENS dogma led to the novel and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II.

While that was happening to undermine faith, when Cardinal Siri was elected pope in 1958, the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Communist infiltrators among the Cardinals uncanonically (and illegitimately) ousted Pope Gregory XVII and replaced him with Agent Roncalli. We've had a series of infiltraors take over the papacy ever since, wrecking the Church.

It's really that simple.

So bad has the destruction of EENS and Catholic ecclesiology been that the majority of Traditional Catholics still don't get it. Rahner understood, but somehow Trad Catholics don't. Archbishop Lefebvre missed the mark, and therefore so does the entire SSPX. And some of the most stauch (sedevacantist) Traditionalists are at the same time some of the worst when it comes to understanting the core theological problem here. Most Trads tend to think that the crisis began in 1962, and so they cling to the corrupted theology of the 1950s as the epitome of Catholicism, whereas it was that same theological Zeitgeist that brought us Vatican II, and so we see the SSPX slouching towards a repeated of the same thing.

As bodeens pointed out, Rahner called out the erosion of EENS ("greater hope for salvation" he called it) as the most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II and marvelled that no one even noticed and that there was almost no opposition to that particular aspect of the Council. That's because the job of destroying it had progressed so much that everybody thought this was Traditonal Catholicism. It was universall taught in the seminaries, so that Archbishop Lefebvre himself believed that infidels could be saved.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2022, 10:19:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 22, 2022, 09:58:34 PM

It didn't start in the early 1900s. It started with the early Jesuits of the 16th century, who started to chip away at EENS dogma after the discovery of the new world. Then the enemies of the Church exploited Baptism of Desire to gut EENS dogma, and the gutting of EENS dogma led to the novel and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II.

While that was happening to undermine faith, when Cardinal Siri was elected pope in 1958, the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Communist infiltrators among the Cardinals uncanonically (and illegitimately) ousted Pope Gregory XVII and replaced him with Agent Roncalli. We've had a series of infiltraors take over the papacy ever since, wrecking the Church.

It's really that simple.

So bad has the destruction of EENS and Catholic ecclesiology been that the majority of Traditional Catholics still don't get it. Rahner understood, but somehow Trad Catholics don't. Archbishop Lefebvre missed the mark, and therefore so does the entire SSPX. And some of the most stauch (sedevacantist) Traditionalists are at the same time some of the worst when it comes to understanting the core theological problem here. Most Trads tend to think that the crisis began in 1962, and so they cling to the corrupted theology of the 1950s as the epitome of Catholicism, whereas it was that same theological Zeitgeist that brought us Vatican II, and so we see the SSPX slouching towards a repeated of the same thing.

As bodeens pointed out, Rahner called out the erosion of EENS ("greater hope for salvation" he called it) as the most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II and marvelled that no one even noticed and that there was almost no opposition to that particular aspect of the Council. That's because the job of destroying it had progressed so much that everybody thought this was Traditonal Catholicism. It was universall taught in the seminaries, so that Archbishop Lefebvre himself believed that infidels could be saved.

Well said. I've come across so many people, trads and CINOs (Catholic In Name Only), that always ask the question of "but what about the (pagans, Jєωs, Protestants, Mahometans, etc)??"

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2022, 09:48:45 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 22, 2022, 09:58:34 PM

It didn't start in the early 1900s. It started with the early Jesuits of the 16th century, who started to chip away at EENS dogma after the discovery of the new world. Then the enemies of the Church exploited Baptism of Desire to gut EENS dogma, and the gutting of EENS dogma led to the novel and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II.

While that was happening to undermine faith, when Cardinal Siri was elected pope in 1958, the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Communist infiltrators among the Cardinals uncanonically (and illegitimately) ousted Pope Gregory XVII and replaced him with Agent Roncalli. We've had a series of infiltraors take over the papacy ever since, wrecking the Church.

It's really that simple.

So bad has the destruction of EENS and Catholic ecclesiology been that the majority of Traditional Catholics still don't get it. Rahner understood, but somehow Trad Catholics don't. Archbishop Lefebvre missed the mark, and therefore so does the entire SSPX. And some of the most stauch (sedevacantist) Traditionalists are at the same time some of the worst when it comes to understanting the core theological problem here. Most Trads tend to think that the crisis began in 1962, and so they cling to the corrupted theology of the 1950s as the epitome of Catholicism, whereas it was that same theological Zeitgeist that brought us Vatican II, and so we see the SSPX slouching towards a repeated of the same thing.

As bodeens pointed out, Rahner called out the erosion of EENS ("greater hope for salvation" he called it) as the most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II and marvelled that no one even noticed and that there was almost no opposition to that particular aspect of the Council. That's because the job of destroying it had progressed so much that everybody thought this was Traditonal Catholicism. It was universall taught in the seminaries, so that Archbishop Lefebvre himself believed that infidels could be saved.

.
There is a four hundred year gap between Bellarmine telling us that 'all the theologians' teach baptism of desire/membership in voto and the development of universalism (quasi or actual). During this time, there was no 'slow march' toward universalism.

I agree that the discovery of the new world played a role in standardizing the Tridentine/Bellarminian understanding of baptism of desire. It is an important historical context. But nothing other than that.

If there was an essential problem with this teaching, we would have seen the full scale demolition of EENS *much* sooner. As it stands, it took 400 years before the exploitation really began. This alone makes any causal claim dubious.

LeDeg · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2022, 10:32:15 AM »

I'm not sure the elapse of 400 years somehow negates or lessens Lad's remarks. The proliferation of catechisms, for example, happened slowly and not every catechism taught it until it was pretty much standard in the 19th century.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2022, 10:35:10 AM »

Quote from: LeDeg on January 23, 2022, 10:32:15 AM

I'm not sure the elapse of 400 years somehow negates or lessens Lad's remarks. The proliferation of catechisms, for example, happened slowly and not every catechism taught it until it was pretty much standard in the 19th century.

On the contrary, concurrent to Trent Bellarmine *already says* BOD is taught by all theologians.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2022, 11:33:39 AM »

Its not often you'll find me quoting John Lane, but what he says here is more or less my position:

"Dear X,

On the so-called "three baptisms," that is a polemical term invented to
prejudice the mind against the common doctrine of the theologians. There is
only one baptism. There are three ways of receiving the grace of baptism.
I have read all of the arguments. I read them many years ago and
periodically somebody pokes them under my nose again and I review them. The
problem is not that the arguments are implausible - they are obviously very
plausible as they have convinced good and intelligent men. But the problem
is that these arguments are not made by ANY authorised expert in the Faith
whose job it was to explain the Faith. Satan loves to trap us however he
can, and his favourite (because it was his first) trick is to appeal to our
vanity. He convinces us that we are competent to examine the arguments
ourselves, instead of relying upon the theologians. We are "good" he tells
us quietly. We want only to know the truth, he whispers. We should look at
these arguments and see if they are sound, he urges us. No! We should ask
the proponents of these strange theories to quote the theologians or stand
self-condemned. And let them not quote a Father or two, and think that they
have satisfied the requirements of humility. No, they must quote
theologians from the past five hundred years and then, when they find that
they cannot, they must admit that if their oh-so-plausible arguments are
sound, then the Church herself has permitted her authorised experts to teach
gross error for hundreds of years and she has never stopped them or even
complained!

Such a church may suit people who want to do their own theology - be their
own gods, in fact - but it doesn't suit Catholics, for whom the hierarchy is
the proximate rule of faith to which we must conform our beliefs, however
humiliating or painful it is to do so.

Sorry for the lecture. Your sentiments in general are really very Catholic
and beautiful, and I do hope you can at least see that those of us who
refuse to discuss the BOD/BOB arguments are not necessarily lacking charity,
but rather we are zealous for the purity of the Faith and for the honour of
Holy Mother Church, which is insulted by those who accuse her of not
noticing error and heresy being taught in all of her schools and seminaries
for hundreds of years. That is a blasphemy which pious ears should find
deeply offensive.

Yours in Christ our Glorious King,
John Lane"

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=115

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2022, 11:44:38 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on January 23, 2022, 10:35:10 AM

On the contrary, concurrent to Trent Bellarmine *already says* BOD is taught by all theologians.

Citation? Only thing I read from Bellarmine was he said BoB was taught by all the Fathers whereas there was disagreement about BoD. Then in his treament of the question, he limited it to a Catechumen, as Bellarmine more than any other theologian (some argue to a fault) emphasized the VISIBILITY of the Church, holding it to be a VISIBLE SOCIETY in its essence, asking whether it's possible for a Catechumen who dies before ACTUALLY receiving the Sacrament to be saved. He concluded that a Catechumen was partly in the visible Church (he used the analogy of the vestibule of a church building), where they were partial or imperfect members of the Church. Bellarmine would absolutely never have entertained the notion that anyone who was not VISIBLY united to the Church could be saved by a BoD.

And that's precisely my issue here. People constantly derailed the discussion into a question of BoD, hide behind these Doctors, but then illegitimately extend BoD to all manner of heretic, infidel, etc. THAT is the question. BoD per se is a secondary question.

If you hold that non-Catholics (outside of, say, Catechumens) can be saved with a BoD, then you effectively reject the ecclesiology of Trent and that of St. Robert Bellarmine, and are in fact embracing the ecclesiology of Vatican II (and also the Protestans who had a similar "invisible Church" ecclesiology).

If you hold that a non-Catholic, someone not in some way visibly united to the Church, can be saved, then Bellarmine is your foe, not your ally. BoDers like to appropriate Bellarmine to demonstrated that non-Catholics (heretics and infidels) can be saved, but that's illegitimate and a slander of Bellarmine.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2022, 11:53:13 AM »

As far as the Cekadian "infallibility of theologians" poosition, it's absurd on the face of it.

From about 400-1100 (about 700 years), "all theologians" taught the position of St. Augustine that unbaptized infants go to Hell and suffer there. It wasn't until Abelard began questioning it that the issue was reconsidered, and the Church side with Abelard, against 700 years of unanimous theological teaching (look it up in Catholic Encyclopedia). [As an side, Abelard also rejected BoD.]

So, then, for 1500 years, the Church unanimously and dogmatically taught that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity were necessary for salvation. What gave the right to those 16th century theologians to throw that out? If that wasn't an infallible teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing, unanimously taught by the Church Fathers, and "always and everywhere".

If theologians are infallible, I ask the Cekadans to cite more than one theologian who did not approve of the teachings of Vatican II (no, +Lefebvre was not a theologian). +Guerard des Lauriers was the only one, the lone voice. There was a unanimous consensus and approval of Vatican II by ALL the theologians of the Church. So where did the infallibility of theologians go then, eh, Father Cekada?

Father Cekada stated at one point that he couldn't accept that fact that all infidels are lost ... for emotional reasons, because he couldn't believe that all those natives of the Americans were lost until they were discovered by the missionaries. So it's OK for Cekada to reject 1500 years of unanimous Catholic teaching? At what point exactly did it suddenly become OK to question that teaching, and what happened to the infallibility of theologians for the first 1500 years of Church history.

As I've said, my battle is not with BoD per se (I disagree with it and reject it), but if someone wanted to believe in it, within its proper limits (aka Catechumens), I'm not going to argue with you too much. But those who start alleging that non-Catholics can be saved, then that's when the knives come out. It's heresy, pure and simple.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2022, 11:57:12 AM »

Citation is p. 241 of Grant's translation of Bellarmine's The Church Militant.

"It is said outside the Church no man is saved, and this
ought to be understood on those who are neither in fact nor
in desire within the Church, just as all the Theologians
commonly teach on Baptism"

This was the sixteenth century. The ink of Trent and its Catechism was still wet.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** January 23, 2022, 11:59:05 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on January 23, 2022, 11:57:12 AM

Citation is p. 241 of Grant's translation of Bellarmine's The Church Militant.

"It is said outside the Church no man is saved, and this
ought to be understood on those who are neither in fact nor
in desire within the Church, just as all the Theologians
commonly teach on Baptism"

This was the sixteenth century. The ink of Trent and its Catechism was still wet.

You're challenged with the English language and logic. This simply says that all theologians teach that those who are NEITHER in fact nor in desire cannot be saved. This does not say that all theologians held that all theologians held that desire by itself suffices. You've got your negatives crossed up here. This says that all theologians hold that you must be part of the Church at least by desire.

bodeens · « **Reply #12 on:** January 23, 2022, 12:00:29 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 23, 2022, 11:53:13 AM

[As an side, Abelard also rejected BoD.]

It's worth noting that in the condemnations he wasn't condemned for this position either. There's a letter of a Bishop to St. Bernard somewhere on what propositions would be condemned and they gloss over this.

And yes, this is the result of Cekadaism, you end up with no unity in the body.

If we're being 100% intellectually honest it would seem that there's the two goalposts of pro and anti-BoD and most people have moved out of what are the acceptable goalposts between those two positions in a historical context.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** January 23, 2022, 12:04:19 PM »

Excerpt from a letter by John Daley to a Feeneyite, making an argument of reason:

"I will bend over backwards in your favour, XXX, and admit that I might understand your wish to evade the natural and obvious sense of the teaching of Trent, if it were something completely unique and otherwise unheard of in Catholic theology. But it isn't, is it? I am sure you know as well as I do that the possibility of the salvation of one who has not been actually baptised is unmistakably taught by St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, all theologians of recent centuries, the Roman Breviary (St Emerentiana), St Bede (Hist. Eccl., Bk 1, ch. 7), St Augustine (the greatest of the Fathers (in at least two places), St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Fulgentius, Pope Innocent II, The Code of Canon Law, etc, etc.

(Note that I have deliberately omitted St Ambrose and any other text you might be tempted to try to explain away!) And of course theologians consider that it is impossible that there should be theological error in the Breviary, Canon Law, etc. And what is more it is as sure as eggs are eggs that between the time of St Thomas and the time of the Feeney brothers no one even called into doubt the "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire", while all theologians, catechisms and the rest taught it as a matter of course. Do you really think the whole Church can err in doctrine for 700 years without anyone raising his voice to protest, not even popes and saints, XXX? Do you?

To be honest, I think that your real problem lies elsewhere. I suspect that you can't see how this text of Trent (supported by the other authorities I have referred to) can possibly mean what it quite obviously does mean. Because you see difficulties in reconciling it with other doctrines. But if that is the case, the first step is to admit honestly that you have a difficulty; not use your will to compel your intellect to assent to what you don't and can't see. That is called obscurantism, and it never yet got anyone any nearer heaven."

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=115

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** January 23, 2022, 12:05:50 PM »

Quote from: bodeens on January 23, 2022, 12:00:29 PM

It's worth noting that in the condemnations he wasn't condemned for this position either. There's a letter of a Bishop to St. Bernard somewhere on what propositions would be condemned and they gloss over this.

And yes, this is the result of Cekadaism, you end up with no unity in the body.

Abelard (anti-BoD) was duking it out with Hugh of St. Victor (pro-BoD). Peter Lombard, unable to decide on his own, wrote to St. Bernard. St. Benard tentatively sided with the pro-BoD position, stating "whether in truth of in error" he'd rather be wrong with Augustine than right on his own. It was a tentative position. He was also evidently unaware that St. Augustine had retracted the position forcefully in his later years. Had he known that, he would have been in the position of having to side with early Augustine or late Augustine. Lombard then wrote that pro-BoD position into his Sentences. No work more influenced the early scholastics more than Lombard's, so St. Thomas picked it up, and then it spread like wildfire. Unfortunately, all BoD theory relies on the assumption that Augustine (and Ambrose) taught it, but both suppositions are factually incorrect, and the entire theological house of cards behind BoD, the "authority" of Augustine and Ambrose, collapses.

Author Topic: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis (Read 1314 times)

rowenwdse

Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

bodeens

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

Ladislaus

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

DigitalLogos

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

Mithrandylan

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

LeDeg

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

Mithrandylan

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

SeanJohnson

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

Ladislaus

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

Ladislaus

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

Mithrandylan

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

Ladislaus

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

bodeens

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

SeanJohnson

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis

Ladislaus

Re: Possible explanation of the Church Crisis