I like the cool logic of the SVs but am too drawn to the drama of Bp. W and Fr. Pfeiffer.
WHILE I appreciate your honesty, Wessex, I hope it has not escaped your attention that when we allow emotionalism or our "feelings" take over our thinking, we are falling into the trap that Modernism has lain for us, and against which the antidote already exists, for great writers of the 20th century gave it to us. Are you aware of their works? Have you read them? Have you studied them? Have you applied them? I suspect not (one or more of these) because if you had, you would not have written the sentence, above.
You would never hear Pope St. Pius X, Cardinal Merry del Val, Fr. Lemius, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M., Fr. Gommar de Pauw, Fr. Hector Bolduc, Fr. Charles Coughlin, Fr. Denis Fahey C.S.Sp., Fr. Frederick Schell or Fr. James Wathen
pronounce that sentence or anything substantively like it.
Unfortunately, the latter (still) cling to the Society's 'philosophy of doubt' that would grind our world to a halt while very erudite points of theology are endlessly argued over the heads of ordinary folk. After many decades I feel we are entitled to some [certainty] either one way or the other.
We are provided certainty by papal condemnation of error. Since we have not had any of that in the past 63 years (since 1950) we have to hang on to what we already had before that time. Don't hold your breath with the sedes, because they probably won't recognize the recovery when it happens (they'll deny the pope then, too).
But you really ought to be more careful, Wessex. Are you ignorant of "philosophy of doubt?"
That was what Rene Descartes started us on and what Auguste Comte, F. Nietzsche, Alfred North Whitehead and the demigods Charlie picked up on. As bad as the Society has grown to be, they haven't quite descended to that abominable level just yet. We ought to check back in a year or two, though, at this rate!
THIS (above), I can agree with somewhat, but I wouldn't use the same vocabulary. But if Fr. Themann is correct, "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand," maybe he would say we're both saying the same thing. That would make the GREC folks pretty happy, and they'd perhaps just say we're both sedes. And then, truth would be a question of the ideas, while words stand for the ideas -- like the ideas they question along with their subjective truth, for example. Apparently truth became a question of ideas only recently, though, because the Apostles and the Doctors of the Church never said that truth is a question of ideas, regardless of whether "the words stand for" them, or not.
While it might seem that theological discussions are over the heads of the rank and file, that is only BECAUSE they haven't done the groundwork. Nobody does the groundwork for fun, because fun
it is not
. Nobody reads Pascendi
as if it were a dime store novel. And no one passes the test, answering all the questions of Fr. Lemius' A Catechism [of / on] Modernism,
without some reflection and study of either the answers he provides or the actual text of the encyclical to which it refers.
Did the world "grind to a halt" under the theological discussions of long ago, many of which ran on and on FAR longer than our mere 50 or 60 year present stint (65 if you say it really "started" in 1949)? How long did the top theologians in the Church battle the Arians, or the Pelagians, or the Manicheans? But Modernism is all of these combined, and then even more: it is the synthesis of ALL heresies. How does the devil top that?
No, the world isn't going to grind to a halt "while very erudite points of theology are endlessly argued," because it's not "over the heads of ordinary folk" if the ordinary folk would just roll up their sleeves and get their fingernails dirty for a change. (Metaphorically speaking, obviously.)
An important point Fr. Cekada kept repeating during his last radio show was how far traditionalists would 'cover up' Rome's latest application of her new philosophy and still pretend the institution as it was endures regardless. To be honest, no excusses are needed. We are now on a different planet; we could very much be talking about how Hindus or Muslims honour their dead saints in waiting. Conciliarism will be defining our role in heaven as well as on earth.
The problem with Fr. Cekada and the "cool logic" of other sedes is, they don't really take the trouble to apply the existing knowledge of what Modernism is, and what it does to your thinking. In fact, it seems to me that they deliberately steer their followers (an perhaps themselves) away from a solid recognition of the dangers of Modernism IN ORDER THAT the less informed audience would therefore be vulnerable to Modernism itself, all to the would-be 'benefit' of their common cause: sedevacantism.
It might be a hard pill to swallow, but that doesn't mean it's not good for you.
It seems there is a contest going on to determine how far the Roman entity (i.e. those in possession of the real estate) can be excused for her actions and still be regarded as a legitimate authority of sorts. Bergoglio is sertainly [sic] testing/confirming the convictions of conservatives, traditionalists (both solftline and hardline) and independents alike. Rome-friendly folk for their part will certainly have to devote more tedious words to explaining away yet another departure from Mother Church. But they will do it because one can prove anything with words!
Like Wessex, here, 'proving' how 'wrong' it can be to identify Modernism, using words!
Did St. John "prove anything" with his "words" in Jn. vi.?
Excused for her actions? Explaining away another departure? Is that all it is? Too bad you weren't here 107 years ago to tell Pope St. Pius X and Cardinal Merry del Val that Pascendi was just "expalining it away" and that it was just "more tedious words." They would have assigned to you the same ID as Friedrick Nietzsche and his ideological progeny.
Conciliar saints give more depth to the new theology and are in danger of taking over the heavens and sorting out problems there, too! Good Pope John and Santo Subito will now charm the white socks off thise [these?] crusty old reactionary devils! Because they possess the imprimatur of modern man! Well, yes, these pioneer saints are braving a paradise which is alien to them and one which they may have some difficulty believing in. John will try and convene a celestial council and Karol will pen more inspirational verses.
I suppose one cannot completely set aside the deliberations of an authority one recognises. This is easy for the SVs and why the bishop is having to fit an understanding of current events inside his (and ABL's) ideas about the V2 milestone. Modernism as merely a temporary sickness is of course at odds with the plausibility of it being a great development in history and one which will equal other civilisations in length. Not many now believe in the return of that old civilisation in which the Church prospered and not may [many?] will be aware of the fact that canonisation today is another exercise in putting new wine into old jars.
Move over sedes, you have a new convert.
This is the time, when they're dropping like flies.
Hopefully you don't really see a fair analogy between our current situation and this E.C. and the situation in the early 20th Century with Pascendi?
Excuse me if I'm not understanding your meaning, because the words literally are vague, and so, I'll have to interpret them. Let me know if I interpreted them incorrectly.
I see more than a fair 'analogy' between these two things: the relationship between our current situation and this EC -CCCLI, and the relationship between the endemic Modernism of 100 years ago and the great encyclical that defined it, Pascendi domenici gregis
of the great Pope St. Pius X.
While, I would not say it is any More than an analogy, it is nonetheless more than a "fair analogy," however. The reason for this is twofold:
Firstly, the analogy is soundly fair, because
we are dealing today in "our situation" with the same Modernism that Pope St. Pius X was dealing with in his day. And he prophesied to this effect, saying that his work would drive the beast underground, but in the future, its head would slowly rise again to resume its erstwhile corruption of the thinking of men, even into the highest offices of the Church. Note well, in all of this, even in his prophesy, nowhere did he say that therefore the Pope would not be the Pope, or the bishops would not be the bishops, or the priests would not be the priests.
Note it well.
And secondly, the analogy is soundly fair because
even though the author of this E.C. may not enjoy the same astounding radiance as the author who died 100 years ago, the former stands on the shoulders of the giant who preceded him, and does not forget his doctrine as so many others are wont to do, if you know what I mean.
It seems evident to me that the problem Wessex is driving at is the identification of Francis (and his predecessors) with the Roman Papacy and his actions (as well as his predecessors) on behalf of the institution he heads as being the actions, laws, edicts, etc. of the Catholic Church.
He is not complaining that +W is picking apart those very motives and actions-- an analysis in which he arrives at the right conclusion (JPII and JXXIII are not saints), by the way. It's everything leading up to the conclusion which is becoming less and less believable and appearing more and more political as time rolls on.
So then the doctrine of the last REAL Pope-saint is becoming less and less believable? By whom? Are the Scriptures becoming less and less believable, too? Or, what about everything else ever once solemnly condemned by one pope in the history of the Church? Are the proscriptions against those condemned propositions or teachings any less believable today, in light of the recent 'papacies'?
Is the condemned heresy laid out in lavender in Pascendi
somehow becoming more and more 'political' as time rolls on? If so, is that the fault of the encyclical or is it rather the fault of our corrupted perception and intellection?
A conclusion which as [has?], to date, included believing the Pope can authorize an impious liturgy for use of the universal Church (this is ASIDE from promulgation-- whether or not the proper legal formula was used, the reality is that the N.O.M. was APPROVED for use and imposed on the faithful), codify a canon law which teaches and lauds mortal sin, a catechism which teaches heresy, etc.
Wait. You just said it was "everything LEADING UP TO the conclusion" that is not to be found believable while the conclusion is "right," and now you're saying the conclusion itself is the problem.
Are you confused?
And now we are to the point where canonizations require a particular formula to be valid.
Who's saying that? Or, rather, why would it matter what words these Modernists use, since (in case you've forgotten) they have re-defined many words to mean something other than what they have always meant before. Maybe you'd never heard of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or his "clandestines" and his manipluation of the very words of language so as to sow his bad seed in fulfillment of the parable of the wheat and the cockle in Scripture.
He is a man who is literally found in the Apocalype, it seems to me.
There is a reason those who would have us believe canonizations can be wrong never quote any theologians, saints or popes to support their view. The very idea is repulsive. They will tell us that it's "the process" that matters... but they can't tell us what exactly is required in "the process" which makes canonizations infallible. Some might claim the removal of the Devil's Advocate has removed any certainty we have about canonizations; except that the Devil's Advocate was only around for about five hundred years to begin with.
While I'll admit what you say has good points, and I have no question whatsoever in regards to your motives, Mithrandylan, I have to defer (not "differ") on the following:
Some of those who would have us believe cononizations can be wrong ARE theologians, so why do they need to quote others in this regard? The theologians of history were not living under the yoke of the Grand Sewer of all heresies, either, in case you've forgotten about that factoid. Recall Our Lord's words in Matthew xxiv. 24: "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if it were possible) even the elect."
And just in case we would have any doubts that He had meant what he said, He followed that up with this, in verse 25:"Behold I have told it to you, beforehand."
Nowhere else in all of Scripture are those words of verse 25 to be found.
Now, maybe to you, the Pope's portrait on the cover of Time
Mag and "Person of the Year" award might not seem like any "great" sign and wonder, but neither would you likely see it as one when a flaming liberal radio broadcaster would quote the Pope and then say, "Go, Francis." Of course, that was when he had said "Who am I to judge" regarding those who are consumed with the sin against nature, who are subject body and soul to the unnatural vice, the sin of Sodom that cries to heaven for vengeance.
That looks glaringly to me like a "great sign and wonder." Think about it that way and see what YOU come up with.
But those who take this (these) position(s) don't seem to shed any doubt on St. Pius X or St. John Eudes or [pick your saint]. Nor do they cast doubt on the validity of Trent, Vatican I, [pick your council].
Can I pick Vatican II? Or how about the Synod of Pistoia? How about the Robber Council
) -- can I pick that council?
Are we to be pilloried for shedding doubt on the canonization of Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of the iniquitous Opus Dei?
Should we ignore Our Lord when He said, "By their fruits you shall know them?"
Yet the logical implication is that one would be allowed to. It's not like any of these touch on faith and morals or have the protection of infallibility, right? Let the proof-texting begin!
Once again (I know: you don't want to hear this!), when the pope fails to condemn the error against which he is pronouncing a truth, the truth falls flat. Popes can go around pronouncing truths day in and day out, until the cows come home, and without an attached anathema
that applies to any human creature who denies it, the truth
he spouts is about as good as a Get Out Of Jail card --- which expired last year.
Ever since Jonn XXIII uttered the words he spoke in his M.R.S. given on the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1962, the Church has given up on solemn dogmatic condemnations. Just given up. So now, there is no more note of infallibility to be found, try as you may.
When the pope canonized Padre Pio, we didn't need to have any proof of it. We had it already. But some reliable confirmation would have been wonderful. I sometimes wonder if Padre Pio had known that would happen, that his memory would be infringed upon by association with others of dubious qualifications. If so, it must have been a truly heavy cross for him to bear.
Padre Pio, ora pro nobis.