Author Topic: Traditional Catholicism and cօռspιʀαcιҽs (Read 16697 times)

icterus · « **on:** December 01, 2013, 06:32:22 PM »

So, I am a weird sort of person. I am very interested in Catholic Tradition...the Mass...the theolgy...I very easily see how prevalent modernism is in the Church. I think the superiority (to say the least, I'm just trying to be broad here) of the Latin Mass is so very, very obvious. I think it's beyond obvious that the soteriology (salvation theology) taught in the modern Church is not really compatible with Catholic Tradition.

All of these things are easy for me. But.

I find that I can never really connect with my traditional Catholic brethren, because they all believe various cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and I seem incapable of it.

I could lie about it. I know *about* conspiracy theories. I can quote facts about WTC7. It's easy. But, I don't want to be dishonest. So, I admit it. I have no faith at all in conspiracy theories.

So, what I am wondering...is it possible to be a Traditional Catholic without believing in conspiracy theories? I'm not sure. Can I believe that VII went haywire without believing that it was because of a Masonic conspiracy? It seems to me that I can, but I'm not sure.

Can believe that JPII was kinda wacko, you know, naturally, without claiming he was serving some other organization in secret?

Or, is this illogical? Is conspiracy part of Traditionalism?

I have had people answer both yes and no to this. I'm unsure. I do think that a belief in cօռspιʀαcιҽs makes it easier to be Traditionalist. But, is it a logical requirement?

Your thoughts, please. Thank you.

Mabel · « **Reply #1 on:** December 01, 2013, 06:45:18 PM »

Nope. While I acknowledge that cօռspιʀαcιҽs are possible, I don't think I'm important enough to be in the know.

While I hold we are in a state of sede vacante, my basis for that is not what I don't know or could theorize. Rather, I just use the facts and evidence to make a determination about what to do because I know something is wrong.

I don't relate well to those who play the conspiracy card (Jews, Masons, etc) in order to justify whatever it is that they are saying. Again, I'm not saying there are not sinister people or forces in the world, I just don't have proof that I believe I can present. And there is nothing I can do about it, so it's better for me to focus living and practicing the Faith.

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** December 01, 2013, 06:49:22 PM »

The history of the Church since John XXIII is the history of the greatest and most important successful conspiracy in history. Do you think evil conquers without conspiring first?

Cera · « **Reply #3 on:** December 01, 2013, 06:50:59 PM »

As a recently-retired professor of sociology who often taught courses in social-psychology, and who researched and wrote on the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, I have found that what most people mean when they say "conspiracy theories" is anything which causes them to feel uncomfortable. This uncomfortable feeling is cognitive dissonance; it is the cause of people going into denial. Facts which make people uncomfortable are not "conspiracy theories." Facts which people refuse to research are not "conspiracy theories." Facts which do not fit in with the context with which a person is familiar are not "conspiracy theories." Those of us who deal with facts which cause people to feel uncomfortable are quite used to people who use the term "conspiracy theory" when we have only put forward facts. The truth of what is going on in this present darkness requires three things: courage to face the facts, a context with which to understand the facts, and the grace to overcome one's cognitive dissonance. Lacking these three, those who are not yet able to deal with reality often fall back on the media-generated term "conspiracy theory" in order to attack the messenger and to protect themselves emotionally.

For example, let's us 911 as an example. If someone points to such facts as building number 7, Larry Silverstein, William Rodriguez, the passport of one of the terrorists magically floating intact to the ground (as reported in the N.Y. Times), etc. . . None of these easily-researched facts are "conspiracy theory;" only if someone were to play a game somewhat like the children's game of Clue, by guessing "I think the crime was committed by _____ in the _______ using the _____. " Such speculation could be fairly labeled as "conspiracy theory."

However, if someone is not engaging in speculation; but is simply putting forward facts -- that is not "conspiracy theory." When I point out to friends that the government story simply does not make sense, they ask me what the explanation is. My response is that I deal only with facts; I do not engage in speculation.

My question to you is: are you really talking about people who are engaging in "conspiracy theory"?

icterus · « **Reply #4 on:** December 01, 2013, 06:57:18 PM »

Quote

My question to you is: are you really talking about people who are engaging in "conspiracy theory"?

Per your explanation, yes, it seems so.