Author Topic: CONTEXT UPENDED (Read 4021 times)

Adolphus · « **on:** September 20, 2014, 03:53:50 PM »

CONTEXT UPENDED

Starting out from arguments against sedevacantism as being a short-sighted error in a wholly abnormal situation, an Italian friend (C.C.) takes a longer view of that situation. Without being a priest or theologian, he ventures the opinion that sedevacantism is merely one of several attempts in the Church to fit the crisis of today into the categories of yesterday. There is no question of Catholic theology changing, but the real situation to which that theology has to be applied underwent a sea-change with Vatican II. Here is a key paragraph of his on that upended reality:—

“By its refusal of the objective reality of God’s existence and of the need to submit to his Law, today’s world is not normal, and the present Catholic unity is not normal either which has put man instead of God at the centre of things. Nor is it by a sudden swerve that the Church has arrived at this abnormal state of things, but following on a long and complex process of moving away from God, the disruptive effects of which showed up at Vatican II. For hundreds of years the germs of dissolution have been fostered within the Church, as have the men harbouring these germs, and they have beeen allowed to occupy all ranks of the hierarchy, up to and including the See of Peter.”

My friend goes on that if one fails to take into consideration this overall abnormality of the present state of the Church, which is unbelievably, yet truly, worse than ever, one runs the risk of dealing with a reality that no longer exists, in terms of reference that no longer apply. Thus for example the sedevacantists will say that today’s churchmen must know what they are doing, because they are intelligent and educated men. Not so, says C.C.: their preaching and practice may well no longer be Catholic, but they are convinced that they are wholly orthodox. The whole world has gone mad. They have merely gone mad with it, not by a loss of reason but by having given up the use of it, and as their Catholic faith grows weaker, so there is less and less to stop them from losing it altogether.

But then, one might object, God must have abandoned his Church. To reply, CC resorts to three quotations from Scripture. Firstly, Lk.XVIII, 8, where Our Lord wonders if he will even find the Faith on earth when he comes back. Obviously a small remainder of priests and laity (with perhaps some bishops) will be enough to ensure the indefectibility of the Church until the end of the world (one thinks of the present difficulties of the “Resistance” in taking shape). Likewise, secondly, Mt.XXIV, 11–14, where it is foreseen that many false prophets will deceive many souls, and charity will grow cold. And thirdly, Lk.XXII, 31–32, where Our Lord instructs Peter to confirm his brethren in the faith after he has converted, strongly suggesting that his faith will first have failed. So almost the w hole hierarchy can fail, including Peter, without the Church ceasing to be indefectible, somewhat like when the Apostles all ran away in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt.XXVI, 56).

In conclusion, CC’s vision for the Church of tomorrow or the day after strongly resembles that of Fr Calmel: let each of us do his duty according to his state of life, and take part in building a network of little forts of the Faith, each with a priest to ensure the sacraments, but with no henceforth inapplicable theology of the Church, nor unobtainable canonical approval, nor with any out-dated dividing-walls over the top of which the Faith will have flowed. The forts will be united by the Truth and will have mutual contacts of charity. The rest is in God’s hands.

Kyrie eleison.

Frances · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2014, 05:15:40 PM »

:dancing-banana:
I agree wholeheartedly with Bp. W.'s friend. The frame of reference has been upended, not only in matters of Faith, but with the very structure of society that once, but no longer has a Foundation upon which to stand.
:applause:

hollingsworth · « **Reply #2 on:** September 20, 2014, 05:54:01 PM »

W:

Quote

let each of us do his duty according to his state of life, and take part in building a network of little forts of the Faith, each with a priest to ensure the sacraments, but with no henceforth inapplicable theology of the Church, nor unobtainable canonical approval, nor with any out-dated dividing-walls over the top of which the Faith will have flowed.

I have no problem with "a network of little forts of the Faith." But quite obviously few of these perceived "forts" have been assigned to or manned by a priest to ensure the sacraments. What I see here in the U.S. are several "little forts," presided over by a few "Resistance" priest 'circuit riders, much like the itinerant Methodist preachers of our early history, who come through on occasion, when they can break away from such far flung regions as India and Australia. What is more, we are told, these little outposts are called "parishes," and, oddly enough, a number of them bear the name 'Our Lady of Good Success.' Is this what the good bishop has in mind? :scratchchin

curioustrad · « **Reply #3 on:** September 20, 2014, 06:39:11 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

W:
Quote
let each of us do his duty according to his state of life, and take part in building a network of little forts of the Faith, each with a priest to ensure the sacraments, but with no henceforth inapplicable theology of the Church, nor unobtainable canonical approval, nor with any out-dated dividing-walls over the top of which the Faith will have flowed.

I have no problem with "a network of little forts of the Faith." But quite obviously few of these perceived "forts" have been assigned to or manned by a priest to ensure the sacraments. What I see here in the U.S. are several "little forts," presided over by a few "Resistance" priest 'circuit riders, much like the itinerant Methodist preachers of our early history, who come through on occasion, when they can break away from such far flung regions as India and Australia. What is more, we are told, these little outposts are called "parishes," and, oddly enough, a number of them bear the name 'Our Lady of Good Success.' Is this what the good bishop has in mind? :scratchchin

I am glad you singled this out for quotation because I missed it the first time I skimmed it.

Perhaps he has something bigger in mind which I bolded for your further reflection.

Let me add that the Bishop was hesitant to start an "Opus" - but earlier this year in France one putatively began - the only other (major) thing for which one would need canonical approval would be....

Adolphus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 20, 2014, 10:11:20 PM »

Quote

Starting out from arguments against sedevacantism as being a short-sighted error in a wholly abnormal situation

The bishop has dedicated several numbers of his Eleison Comments to attack sedevacantism. However, he has failed in proving sedevacantism is "a show-sighted error".

Francisco · « **Reply #5 on:** September 21, 2014, 12:35:14 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

W:
Quote
let each of us do his duty according to his state of life, and take part in building a network of little forts of the Faith, each with a priest to ensure the sacraments, but with no henceforth inapplicable theology of the Church, nor unobtainable canonical approval, nor with any out-dated dividing-walls over the top of which the Faith will have flowed.

I have no problem with "a network of little forts of the Faith." But quite obviously few of these perceived "forts" have been assigned to or manned by a priest to ensure the sacraments. What I see here in the U.S. are several "little forts," presided over by a few "Resistance" priest 'circuit riders, much like the itinerant Methodist preachers of our early history, who come through on occasion, when they can break away from such far flung regions as India and Australia. What is more, we are told, these little outposts are called "parishes," and, oddly enough, a number of them bear the name 'Our Lady of Good Success.' Is this what the good bishop has in mind? :scratchchin

Why Frs Pfeiffer and Chazal ( and even Bishop Williamson) come at intervals to India is a mystery. There are hardly any Traditional Catholics, there let alone Resistance people there. Fr R.Valan SSPX-MC is based in India and I believe that there is a diocesan priest also helping out. Much more than enough. What amazes me is that money donated by fervent Resistant people in the West is squandered by these unnecessary jaunts to India. From one of Fr Pfeiffer's videos I heard that an International Resistance Pilgrim is planned for India

towards the end of this year.

claudel · « **Reply #6 on:** September 21, 2014, 06:32:08 AM »

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote
Starting out from arguments against sedevacantism as being a short-sighted error in a wholly abnormal situation

The bishop has dedicated several numbers of his Eleison Comments to attack[ing] sedevacantism. However, he has failed in proving sedevacantism is "a show[sic]-sighted error".

Can it any longer be doubted that if the good Lord Himself appeared to tell you that sedevacantism was a shortsighted error, you'd mutter in response that He had failed to prove it to your satisfaction?

As sedevacantism is a marked departure from the Catholic norm, it is not its erroneous nature that requires proof. This is a rudimentary principle in formal logic. Rather, sedevacantism itself, ipso facto, is what requires proof. That is, it is up to you and the other self-appointed popes and theologians of the sedevacantist outlook to demonstrate to ordinary everyday Catholics that you and like-minded others are not mere fools, heretics, or both.

Even were you able to briefly shelve your own shortsightedness and presumption and amend your ignorance of the Faith, it is hardly likely that you would ever be up to the task of demonstrating the soundness of the sedevacantist thesis.

Adolphus · « **Reply #7 on:** September 21, 2014, 12:14:41 PM »

Quote from: claudel

Can it any longer be doubted that if the good Lord Himself appeared to tell you that sedevacantism was a shortsighted error, you'd mutter in response that He had failed to prove it to your satisfaction?

Our Lord is the Truth and therefore He cannot be wrong and therefore He does not need to prove whatever He says.

That is not the case for us, humans and imperfect creatures.

Quote from: claudel

As sedevacantism is a marked departure from the Catholic norm

Will you please elaborate more on this? As far as I know, sedevacantim is nothing but an opinion theologically supported.

Quote from: claudel

it is not its erroneous nature that requires proof. This is a rudimentary principle in formal logic.

If you affirm sedevacantism is an error, you must have a reason to do so. What is such reason?

Quote from: claudel

Rather, sedevacantism itself, ipso facto, is what requires proof. That is, it is up to you and the other self-appointed popes and theologians of the sedevacantist outlook to demonstrate to ordinary everyday Catholics that you and like-minded others are not mere fools, heretics, or both.

Sedevacantism is an opinion, and as such, does not need a proof. If there were a proof, it wouldn't be an opinion, but a proved fact.

Of course, an opinion may be wrong, but to say so one needs to present valid arguments.

Quote from: claudel

Even were you able to briefly shelve your own shortsightedness and presumption and amend your ignorance of the Faith, it is hardly likely that you would ever be up to the task of demonstrating the soundness of the sedevacantist thesis.

It is well known that when a person runs out of arguments responds with insults and offenses...

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** September 21, 2014, 01:14:36 PM »

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: Adolphus
Quote
Starting out from arguments against sedevacantism as being a short-sighted error in a wholly abnormal situation

The bishop has dedicated several numbers of his Eleison Comments to attack[ing] sedevacantism. However, he has failed in proving sedevacantism is "a show[sic]-sighted error".

Can it any longer be doubted that if the good Lord Himself appeared to tell you that sedevacantism was a shortsighted error, you'd mutter in response that He had failed to prove it to your satisfaction?

As sedevacantism is a marked departure from the Catholic norm, it is not its erroneous nature that requires proof. This is a rudimentary principle in formal logic. Rather, sedevacantism itself, ipso facto, is what requires proof. That is, it is up to you and the other self-appointed popes and theologians of the sedevacantist outlook to demonstrate to ordinary everyday Catholics that you and like-minded others are not mere fools, heretics, or both.

Even were you able to briefly shelve your own shortsightedness and presumption and amend your ignorance of the Faith, it is hardly likely that you would ever be up to the task of demonstrating the soundness of the sedevacantist thesis.

The Great Western Schism was also a marked departure from Catholic norm.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #9 on:** September 21, 2014, 02:41:10 PM »

Like hollingsworth, I have no problem with "a network of little forts of the Faith". In fact I would welcome them.

The only problem is that the soldiers of one little fort are just as likely to be shooting at the soldiers of another little fort as they are to be keeping guard against the real enemy.

Adolphus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 21, 2014, 04:34:26 PM »

Quote from: claudel

As sedevacantism is a marked departure from the Catholic norm, it is not its erroneous nature that requires proof. This is a rudimentary principle in formal logic. Rather, sedevacantism itself, ipso facto, is what requires proof. That is, it is up to you and the other self-appointed popes and theologians of the sedevacantist outlook to demonstrate to ordinary everyday Catholics that you and like-minded others are not mere fools, heretics, or both.

Abp. Lefebvre publicly admitted that it was possible that the conciliar popes were not true popes. Id est, His Excellency considered sedevacantism as a possible explanation of the Church's situation. Certainly he did not embrace it (at least publicly), but he never retracted of what he said regarding the possibility of conciliar popes being antipopes and therefore the Holy See being vacant (or usurped).

abl · « **Reply #11 on:** September 22, 2014, 12:18:20 PM »

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: hollingsworth
W:
Quote
let each of us do his duty according to his state of life, and take part in building a network of little forts of the Faith, each with a priest to ensure the sacraments, but with no henceforth inapplicable theology of the Church, nor unobtainable canonical approval, nor with any out-dated dividing-walls over the top of which the Faith will have flowed.

I have no problem with "a network of little forts of the Faith." But quite obviously few of these perceived "forts" have been assigned to or manned by a priest to ensure the sacraments. What I see here in the U.S. are several "little forts," presided over by a few "Resistance" priest 'circuit riders, much like the itinerant Methodist preachers of our early history, who come through on occasion, when they can break away from such far flung regions as India and Australia. What is more, we are told, these little outposts are called "parishes," and, oddly enough, a number of them bear the name 'Our Lady of Good Success.' Is this what the good bishop has in mind? :scratchchin

Why Frs Pfeiffer and Chazal ( and even Bishop Williamson) come at intervals to India is a mystery. There are hardly any Traditional Catholics, there let alone Resistance people there. Fr R.Valan SSPX-MC is based in India and I believe that there is a diocesan priest also helping out. Much more than enough. What amazes me is that money donated by fervent Resistant people in the West is squandered by these unnecessary jaunts to India. From one of Fr Pfeiffer's videos I heard that an International Resistance Pilgrim is planned for India towards the end of this year.

abl · « **Reply #12 on:** September 22, 2014, 12:27:43 PM »

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: hollingsworth
W:
Quote
let each of us do his duty according to his state of life, and take part in building a network of little forts of the Faith, each with a priest to ensure the sacraments, but with no henceforth inapplicable theology of the Church, nor unobtainable canonical approval, nor with any out-dated dividing-walls over the top of which the Faith will have flowed.

I have no problem with "a network of little forts of the Faith." But quite obviously few of these perceived "forts" have been assigned to or manned by a priest to ensure the sacraments. What I see here in the U.S. are several "little forts," presided over by a few "Resistance" priest 'circuit riders, much like the itinerant Methodist preachers of our early history, who come through on occasion, when they can break away from such far flung regions as India and Australia. What is more, we are told, these little outposts are called "parishes," and, oddly enough, a number of them bear the name 'Our Lady of Good Success.' Is this what the good bishop has in mind? :scratchchin

Why Frs Pfeiffer and Chazal ( and even Bishop Williamson) come at intervals to India is a mystery. There are hardly any Traditional Catholics, there let alone Resistance people there. Fr R.Valan SSPX-MC is based in India and I believe that there is a diocesan priest also helping out. Much more than enough. What amazes me is that money donated by fervent Resistant people in the West is squandered by these unnecessary jaunts to India. From one of Fr Pfeiffer's videos I heard that an International Resistance Pilgrim is planned for India towards the end of this year.

Why did Bishop De Galeretta come? Why should Frs. Couture, Stehlin etc come? Whose money did they spend? Pls ask why neosspx has to spend money for the education of 35 non - Traditional school children.

Adolphus · « **Reply #13 on:** September 22, 2014, 06:14:10 PM »

Quote from: abl

Quote from: Francisco
Quote from: hollingsworth
W:
Quote
let each of us do his duty according to his state of life, and take part in building a network of little forts of the Faith, each with a priest to ensure the sacraments, but with no henceforth inapplicable theology of the Church, nor unobtainable canonical approval, nor with any out-dated dividing-walls over the top of which the Faith will have flowed.

I have no problem with "a network of little forts of the Faith." But quite obviously few of these perceived "forts" have been assigned to or manned by a priest to ensure the sacraments. What I see here in the U.S. are several "little forts," presided over by a few "Resistance" priest 'circuit riders, much like the itinerant Methodist preachers of our early history, who come through on occasion, when they can break away from such far flung regions as India and Australia. What is more, we are told, these little outposts are called "parishes," and, oddly enough, a number of them bear the name 'Our Lady of Good Success.' Is this what the good bishop has in mind? :scratchchin

Why Frs Pfeiffer and Chazal ( and even Bishop Williamson) come at intervals to India is a mystery. There are hardly any Traditional Catholics, there let alone Resistance people there. Fr R.Valan SSPX-MC is based in India and I believe that there is a diocesan priest also helping out. Much more than enough. What amazes me is that money donated by fervent Resistant people in the West is squandered by these unnecessary jaunts to India. From one of Fr Pfeiffer's videos I heard that an International Resistance Pilgrim is planned for India towards the end of this year.

Why did Bishop De Galeretta come? Why should Frs. Couture, Stehlin etc come? Whose money did they spend? Pls ask why neosspx has to spend money for the education of 35 non - Traditional school children.

Probably because the SSPX has a lot of money…

Francisco · « **Reply #14 on:** September 23, 2014, 12:28:20 AM »

Quote from: abl

Quote from: Francisco
Quote from: hollingsworth
W:
Quote
let each of us do his duty according to his state of life, and take part in building a network of little forts of the Faith, each with a priest to ensure the sacraments, but with no henceforth inapplicable theology of the Church, nor unobtainable canonical approval, nor with any out-dated dividing-walls over the top of which the Faith will have flowed.

I have no problem with "a network of little forts of the Faith." But quite obviously few of these perceived "forts" have been assigned to or manned by a priest to ensure the sacraments. What I see here in the U.S. are several "little forts," presided over by a few "Resistance" priest 'circuit riders, much like the itinerant Methodist preachers of our early history, who come through on occasion, when they can break away from such far flung regions as India and Australia. What is more, we are told, these little outposts are called "parishes," and, oddly enough, a number of them bear the name 'Our Lady of Good Success.' Is this what the good bishop has in mind? :scratchchin

Why Frs Pfeiffer and Chazal ( and even Bishop Williamson) come at intervals to India is a mystery. There are hardly any Traditional Catholics, there let alone Resistance people there. Fr R.Valan SSPX-MC is based in India and I believe that there is a diocesan priest also helping out. Much more than enough. What amazes me is that money donated by fervent Resistant people in the West is squandered by these unnecessary jaunts to India. From one of Fr Pfeiffer's videos I heard that an International Resistance Pilgrim is planned for India towards the end of this year.

Why did Bishop De Galeretta come? Why should Frs. Couture, Stehlin etc come? Whose money did they spend? Pls ask why neosspx has to spend money for the education of 35 non - Traditional school children.

Hello ABL. I was talking about the Resistance and it's (presumably) scarce resources.Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyway, here goes:

Why did Bp Galaretta come? For Confirmations?.
Why did Fr Couture come? If anyone, anywhere, can tell us why this man goes anywhere at all, it would be a new revelation indeed!.
Why did Stehlin come? Who can say?. To listen to that same old broken record - that India must have more of the same?
WHY NEOSSPX HAS TO SPEND MONEY FOR THE EDUCATION OF 35 NON-TRADITIONAL SCHOOL CHILDREN? Why indeed? Another mystery.
(ABL - you left out that orphanage, and the "volunteers" that come - sometimes at SSPX expense ).

I once had a quote of Fr Valan to someone about what the purpose of the Indian Mission should be. Only last night I searched for it, but in vain. I remember that it concerned maintaining and spreading the faith. Nothing about "schools", "orphanages" or mini-bars.
:smoke-pot: