CathInfo.com

Did you ever think

that maybe, JUST MAYBE, H.E. omitted any definition of the "truth"
to see --JUST TO SEE-- whether there is
one soul --JUST ONE SOUL-- on planet Earth
who dares to sit up straight and take notice of the conspicuous omission of same,
and raise the question, and, after having so raised it, whether there's perhaps
one other soul --JUST ONE-- on planet Earth
who might rise to the occasion of answering the question?



Dya think?

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote

And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

And how, exactly, does reality "tell" whether anyone is right?  

Is it ever possible that somehow someone might find reality to have been wrong?

Has reality ever testified in a courtroom?  Can reality be sworn in at the witness stand?

Which language does reality speak?  Is it verbal?

When reality tells something, does it make a sound?

Does reality require a person to interpret it?  If so, how does the interpreter of reality not become the entity that holds all the power?

(There are a LOT more questions.)

Before determining how to perceive reality, one must first determining that it really exists. The currently prevalent subjectivist philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of reality in the objective sense. Your questions boil down to asking what reality is.
[Very good! -- and there is more!]

The worldly man compiles his belief system by subconsciously absorbing subjective opinions on reality from his milieu. He usually forgets the origin these opinions to pridefully imagine they came from within himself. In reality, he acquires the default worldview of his surrounding community. A few individuals may think for themselves, but even these are highly influenced by their surroundings. The only sure means of consciously choosing a belief is to choose membership in a community where that belief prevails.
[Very good, again!]

Those who imagine they independently develop opinions are thereby blinded to the real origins of their own thinking.  [The effect of pride.] Modern propaganda takes advantage this blindness by sending subtle signals expertly designed to trigger what the targeted subject falsely imagines to be spontaneous ideas originating from within himself.  
[Astute and perceptive!  Excellent!]

Modern Catholics accept false teaching in the form of subjective opinion from apparent authority because they have lost connection with the principle of objective reality.  
[Yes!]

I am sure that your questions were provocatively written only to start conversation, but they could be taken as petulant whining in another context. "How can you expect me to believe in reality if you don't tell me how it communicates?" might be one interpretation of those questions.
[Interesting:  I have to admit, I didn't think of that!]

Reality simply is. It speaks through vectors like mother's intuition, empirical observation, Revelation, long-established folkways, and the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. Any subjective opinion in conflict with such things is most likely divergent from reality. Man can only perceive reality through the filter of subjectivity, but avoiding delusion requires persistent pruning one's opinion by drawing clear-eyed conclusions upon ongoing circuмstance.
[This one paragraph could be another thread!]

It was once understood by everybody that all opinions of any source differing from observable fact or infallible truth were certainly wrong and that, as a corollary, opinions ambiguous enough to be possibly interpreted as differing from reality were suspect. Modern rejection of this principle betrays disbelief in the existence of reality.

Neil Obstat,

Quote

Getting into specifics is what these threads are supposed to be for.  Maybe I'm expecting too much.  

For those who are warmed by any utterance of the good Bishop, generalizations suffice, but for those who look for strategic direction, they sometimes disappoint.

You will not get specifics when the author's intent is to nibble at the edges and avoid a conclusory inquiry.

Specifics lead to conclusions, and many times conclusions demand actions. H.E. has made clear that he has no desire to assume any role of command. And so his E.C.'s really are just reflections of his musings, and I would think that they are more in the way of excerpts of his lines of thought.

Thank you for a substantive response, Columba.

Quote from: Columba

Before determining how to perceive reality, one must first determining that it really exists. The currently prevalent subjectivist philosophy does not acknowledge the existence of reality in the objective sense. Your questions boil down to asking what reality is.
[Very good! -- and there's more!*]

You have touched on the fundamental platform upon which the whole of the Conciliar revolution is built.  The unclean spirit of Vatican II entirely relies on this false principle you have described in this last paragraph.  Thank you!  

.