Author Topic: ERROR OF MENZINGEN - II (COMMENT ELEISON DXXII (522) - July 15, 2017)  (Read 916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Incredulous

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3097
  • Reputation: +4285/-146
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile


Saturday, July 15, 2017

COMMENT ELEISON DXXII (522) - July 15, 2017



ERROR OF MENZINGEN - II
[size][font]

Rome says, the crisis of the Church is not such.
Menzingen now lives in fantasy alike .

[/font][/size]
The problem of the June 13 letter of the Headquarters of the St. Pius X Fraternity in Menzingen, Switzerland, which wanted to "make things clear on marriage" after the April 4 Rome proposal to facilitate the integration of The marriages of the Fraternity in the Conciliar structure, is not a small problem of this or that argument or this or that detail.

The problem is the total Conciliar mentality of the clerics who make the proposition . 


In the immortal words of one of the three theologians of the Fraternity who, led by Mons. De Galarreta, confronted four Roman "theologians" in the "Theological Discussions" from 2009 to 2011, the four Romans were "mentally ill but they Have authority. " Such is the (objective) "mental illness" that many believing Catholics are tempted to conclude that they have lost all the authority of the Church. Unfortunately, they still at least seem to have it, so in the name of "obedience" they are destroying the Church, whatever God knows, their good subjective intentions.


So the first important part of Menzingen's Marriage Letter (see last week's "Commentaries") argued that the April 4 Rome proposition was simply to re-align the Fraternity marriages with the old Reasonable practice of the Church since the Council of Trent. Yes, Menzingen, but what is reasonable law worth when applied by "mentally ill" administrators? 


A deep scholastic axiom says, "That which is received is received in the manner of the receiver." The Tradition, which is in its right mind, in the hands of (objectively) insane clerics, is exposed to become insane. For example, in the third part of the Letter , Menzingen states that making the marriages of the Fraternity official will make them safer. Did they say insurance? When are current Church officials virtually turning official cancellations into "Catholic divorce"?


The second main part of the Charter raises eight main objections to the Rome proposal in order to refute them. The essence of most objections is that, in context , accepting the proposition of Rome means to agree with the Conciliar betrayal of the Faith: with the Conciliar theory and practice of marriage (1, 2), with the Conciliar condemnation of The previous FSSP marriages (3), with the new Code of Canon Law (8), etc. Menzingen's response is that simply taken by itself , abstracted from its context, the Roman proposition only makes available to the couples of the Fraternity an additional form of marriage in harmony with the official Church. Yes, Menzingen, but how can a marriage be celebrated in real life without a context? And how can any context of the official Church be conciliatory today?



The fifth objection is a classic example of the reasoning of the city of clouds and cucus that separates the inseparable: to the objection that when Rome is facilitating access to the official marriages of the Fraternity, it is only the cheese of the Personal prelature mousetrap, Menzingen replies that " in itself " cheese is just cheese! Menzingen even acknowledges that the same Rome proposition mentions that it is a step forward for the eventual "institutional regularization" of the Fraternity, in other words, that cheese is objectively part of a trap. Menzingen's answer is that in order to evade such traps, the Fraternity would have to cut off all contact with Roman officials, which Monsignor Lefebvre said in 1975 he would never do.


Yes, Menzingen, but that was before another 13 years of contacts and negotiations with the Romans proved to the Archbishop that they had no real intentions to take care of the Tradition. Then and only then did he consecrate four bishops to take care of the Tradition (as they did until 2012), but he never refused to have future contacts with the Romans. He only said that henceforth , doctrine should precede diplomacy, so contacts could be resumed when the Romans returned to the great papal condemnations of liberalism and modernism. And since 1988? Menzingen claims that Rome has changed for the better, so the trap is no longer a trap! Oh Menzingen! 


You have contracted the mental illness of the Romans!



Kyrie eleison.
[size][font]



published by Non Possumus en 11:51[/font][/size]
"Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

Offline Incredulous

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3097
  • Reputation: +4285/-146
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0

  • If the root cause of the Crisis in the Church is "mental illness"...



    Does it mean Catholic tradition would be restored with a little Prozac and and a few thousand rounds of shock therapy?

    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Online JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3183
    • Reputation: +3273/-148
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    •  Errors of Analysis. III
    • Wickedness and departure from the truth are just what they are.

    What they are not, is a mental sickness. The ongoing denial of reality must stop.

    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1789
    • Reputation: +1887/-59
    • Gender: Female
      • View Profile
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

  • I very much doubt +Williamson means mental illness in the same scapegoat way as the world does. There is mental illness that is based in physical disease/malfunction -- a trial sent/allowed by God; and there is mental illness for which we are culpable, -- brought upon ourselves as the effect of sin and a disorderly life. I suspect he means the latter.  

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 20520
    • Reputation: +18133/-53
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Number DXXIII (523)
    July 22, 2017
    Menzingen’s Mistake – III
    Beautiful principles are not enough –
    Practical application can be tough!

    Another Society of St Pius X priest (Fr. PR, for public relations) has descended into the arena to defend his Superiors’ pursuit of official recognition of the Society by Rome. Fr. PR’s defence is also well presented, but again it suffers from the same essential fault as does the pursuit of the recognition which he is defending – a lack of realism. Principle is one thing, practice is another, even if it is governed by principles. To be a master of principles is not to be a master of practice, and vice versa. It is noteworthy how Fr. PR’s defence of his Superiors’ pursuit of recognition starts out by saying that in this defence he, Fr PR, is only interested in the principles: firstly, whether one can in principle accept recognition from a modernist, and secondly, just how far one can in principle collaborate with a modernist.
    To prove that one can accept recognition from a modernist Pope, he argues that Archbishop Lefebvre sought it from Paul VI until the latter’s death in 1978, and in 1988 he only refused collaboration with John-Paul II in practice, but not in principle. Nor did the Society’s General Chapter of 2012 demand of Benedict XVI a profession of Catholic Faith, to do which betrays at any time a schismatic spirit. But, one replies, the clash between the Archbishop and Paul VI from 1974 onwards is well-known, and behind the Archbishop’s refusal in practice of the Protocol of 1988 were the principles of his Faith. 2012 was just the moment when the Society abandoned the Archbishop by abandoning his stand on the Faith in principle, and as for a schismatic spirit, who was in reality in schism? – the Archbishop or the modernists? As for Pope Francis, Fr PR argues that he is the Pope; that the Church is what not he, but what Our Lord, made it; that collaboration with him is with him only as Catholic Pope. But, one replies, in real life, as the rot of an apple is and is not apple, so the Conciliar Church is and is not the Church. In real life, the Society is not dealing only with the Catholic Church or a Catholic Pope, but directly with Conciliar rot.
    Thus when Fr PR, examining secondly how far one can collaborate with a modernist, answers that one can do so insofar it is for the good of the Church, he constantly abstracts from today’s reality. Thus:—
    * The Church is indefectible – Sure, but Conciliar churchmen are defecting all the time.
    * The Society is serving the Church, not churchmen – Sure, but it has to go through false churchmen.
    * A Catholic prelature could not be refused – Sure, but not if it is managed by false churchmen.
    * The Pope need only stick to its terms – Sure, but what protects a piece of paper from such managers?
    * The Pope’s authority is from God – Sure, but not in order to destroy the Church (II Cor. XIII, 10).
    * T he Society was right to accept jurisdiction for confessions and marriages – Fr. PR, are you so sure? What if that was just the cheese on a mousetrap?
    * Such a practical question as this last question on our situation right now “is not in the power of this article to judge,” replies Fr. PR, but the very possibility that it might not be a trap proves for him that accepting or not Rome’s canonical recognition “should not be judged only on the basis of one’s unity with the Pope’s faith.” And so he concludes that “canonical recognition should be accepted if it is for the good of the Church and rejected if it is not, regardless of the Pope’s faith.”
    But, Father, ask yourself – this Pope’s “faith” being what it is, would or would not a canonical recognition bring the Society under mainstream, i.e., modernist, Superiors? Yes, or no? In real life, do you really think that this Pope would grant a prelature which would not bring the S ociety under Rome’s control? In other words, under the control of people who no longer believe in objective truth? There is much beauty in Catholic principles, but they have to be applied in a real, often all too real, world.
    Kyrie eleison.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase! It costs you nothing extra.

    - Matthew


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12724
    • Reputation: +6921/-63
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the root cause of the Crisis in the Church is "mental illness"...



    Does it mean Catholic tradition would be restored with a little Prozac
    and and a few thousand rounds of shock therapy?

    The treatment arsenal could be expanded a bit.......
    Maybe some medical THC would provide some TLC.
    On the other hand, mind-expanding drugs might not be a good idea, since an expanded sick mind isn't necessarily an improvement.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
    Powered by SMFPacks WYSIWYG Editor