Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Ladislaus on March 18, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
-
One must realise that all attempts to understand the principles of Pope Francis’ pragmatism are not without trial and error. For example, some people thought they had found his principles of action in the teologia del pueblo, an Argentinean variation of liberation theology – but which is much more moderate. However, in reality, it seems to me that Pope Francis is beyond this system, and even beyond any known system. I believe that the ideas that direct his actions cannot be analysed and interpreted in a satisfactory way, if we limit ourselves to traditional theological criteria. He is not only beyond any known system, he is above them all!
...
Pope Francis has a very precise general vision of contemporary society and of today’s Church – and even of the whole of history. He seems to me to be affected by a kind of hyperrealism, a sort of “pastoral” hyperrealism. According to him, the Church must face the facts: it is impossible for it to continue to preach moral doctrine as it has done up to now. She must therefore resolve to capitulate to the demands of modern man, and consequently, to rethink her role as a mother.
I'm afraid that he totally misses the mark. Bergoglio's "system" is clearly SUBJECTIVISM, or SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM. What does he mean that he's "beyond any known system"? Bishop Williamson rightly traces the development of subjectivism from the Renaissance onward. It's not "historicism" or "pastoral hyperrealism" or "historicism".
-
Then with Pope Benedict XVI, we were dealing with a spirit that was attached to the roots of the Church. His considerable effort to square the circle, by reconciling Tradition with conciliar or post-conciliar teaching, though doomed to failure, nevertheless revealed a concern for fidelity to Tradition.
+Vigano was not so positive about Benedict XVI.
The points you have listed, albeit with some nuances, unfortunately find me in agreement, not without a vivid sorrow. Many acts of Benedict XVI's government are in line with the conciliar ideology, of which the theologian Ratzinger has always been a strenuous and convinced supporter. His Hegelian philosophical approach has led him to apply the thesis-antithesis-synthesis scheme in the Catholic sphere, for example by considering the docuмents of Vatican II (thesis) and the excesses of the post-Conciliar period (antithesis) composable in the famous "hermeneutics of continuity" (synthesis); nor is the invention of the Papacy Emeritus an exception, where between being Pope (thesis) and no longer being Pope (antithesis) the compromise of remaining Pope only in part (synthesis) was chosen. The same mens determined what happened with the liberalization of the traditional liturgy, placed side by side with its conciliar counterpart in an attempt not to displease either the advocates of the liturgical ʀɛʋօʟutιօn or the defenders of the venerable Tridentine rite.
The problem is therefore an intellectual, ideological one: it emerges every time the Bavarian theologian has wanted to provide a solution to the crisis afflicting the Church: on all these occasions his academic training influenced by Hegel's thought has believed he could put opposites together.
So the SSPX has swung to the left of +Vigano.
Of course, I'm to the right of both. I believe that Ratzinger was deliberately trying to reabsorb the Traditional movement (using said Hegelian dialectic) just so he could infuse into it the Conciliar mentality, and therefore poison it. When his efforts were torpedoed by Bishop Williamson's ɧơƖơcαųst comments, he was told by his handlers to step aside, because his main mission had failed.
No, suite-and-tie-wearing V2 Modernist Ratzinger, bosom buddies with all the chief Modernist heretics, himself a major Kantian phenomenologist, had not really changed, nor did he ever recant the heresies in his own books.
-
I believe that Ratzinger was deliberately trying to reabsorb the Traditional movement (using said Hegelian dialectic) just so he could infuse into it the Conciliar mentality, and therefore poison it.
He accomplished this, 100%. He introduced compromise, contradiction and confusion into the Trad movement, dividing the younger generations from the older, more knowledgeable generations. Look at all the neo-Trads (i.e. Xavier) who think they are Traditional but still accept V2 errors (i.e. watered-down EENS) and the new mass (i.e. directly or indirectly through the indult/"extraordinary form" lie). He appealed to the millennial generations's lack of historical knowledge, and their craving for novelty.
.
His motu which "freed the TLM" is a complete contradiction. While it is an (indirect) legal confirmation of Quo Primum, at the same time, it boldly ignores QP's regulations as if it doesn't exist. On the philosophical and moral fronts, the idea that you can have "two uses of the same rite" is as unorthodox and illogical as being validly married to 2 different people. There is no historical, doctrinal or theological basis for any of this.
.
When his efforts were torpedoed by Bishop Williamson's ɧơƖơcαųst comments, he was told by his handlers to step aside, because his main mission had failed.
Yes, he failed in only one of the specific goals - to ensnare the sspx into the vatican club. This was a short-term fail, because, as we've seen, the sspx was already prepared for such an agreement. In the long-term, they will eventually still be ensnared. They have already become an indult-community; it is only left to make it official.