Author Topic: TRUSTFUL SURRENDER TO AMBIGUITY (Read 11629 times)

cantatedomino · « **on:** December 28, 2013, 01:03:08 PM »

The purpose of this thread is to continue the discussion occurring simultaneously on other threads. It has for its express purposes:

a) defining the nature, the essence, the agency, and the effects of ambiguity, under the aspect of it being one of the most deadly weapons ever (in the whole history of the world) employed by God's enemies;

b) determining how best to defend the Faith and the Church against this masterstroke of the devil;

c) analyzing current trad positions, such as R&R, in order to make ultimate determinations about their propriety in this context.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2013, 01:07:02 PM »

AMBIGUITY:

- doubtfulness or uncertainty as regards interpretation;

- something of doubtful meaning;

- the possibility of interpreting an expression in two or more distinct ways;-

- vagueness or uncertainty of meaning.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambiguity

JPaul · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2013, 01:49:21 PM »

I might humbly suggest that the scope of discussion be kept rigidly and narrowly to the terms and topic as you have proposed here.

Lest it too be dissolved into the Conciliar sea as many of the others have.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2013, 02:03:40 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

I might humbly suggest that the scope of discussion be kept rigidly and narrowly to the terms and topic as you have proposed here.

Lest it too be dissolved into the Conciliar sea as many of the others have.

I'm sure it won't avoid that fate, but there's always the "new topic" button. That often tends to work like a bilge propulsion or colon cleanse - take your pick. :wink:

Domitilla · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2013, 02:24:00 PM »

Ambiguity or lack of Catholic precision has been the most paralyzing factor in the diabolically disoriented Catholic Clergy today. Ambiguity has also been the high speed train in which modernism travels.

How many prelates with the responsibility to speak out against the errors have refrained from doing so because of their fear of reprisal from their modernist superiors? Those who occupy these positions have chosen to hide behind the ambiguity card and keep their privileged positions within the revolution. Never affirm; never deny! And yet, our Lord cautioned us to let our yes be yes and our no be no. Kyrie Eleison!

JPaul · « **Reply #5 on:** December 28, 2013, 02:27:29 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: J.Paul
I might humbly suggest that the scope of discussion be kept rigidly and narrowly to the terms and topic as you have proposed here.

Lest it too be dissolved into the Conciliar sea as many of the others have.

I'm sure it won't avoid that fate, but there's always the "new topic" button. That often tends to work like a bilge propulsion or colon cleanse - take your pick. :wink:

Evacuants at the ready Ma'am. You may proceed.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #6 on:** December 28, 2013, 02:28:03 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

Ambiguity or lack of Catholic precision has been the most paralyzing factor in the diabolically disoriented Catholic Clergy today. Ambiguity has also been the high speed train in which modernism travels.

How many prelates with the responsibility to speak out against the errors have refrained from doing so because of their fear of reprisal from their modernist superiors? Those who occupy these positions have chosen to hide behind the ambiguity card and keep their privileged positions within the revolution. Never affirm; never deny! And yet, our Lord cautioned us to let our yes be yes and our no be no. Kyrie Eleison!

I am beginning to think that addressing the hemorrhage in Tradition caused by full scale surrender to ambiguity is the crucial starting point of our reconquista.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2013, 02:29:10 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: cantatedomino
Quote from: J.Paul
I might humbly suggest that the scope of discussion be kept rigidly and narrowly to the terms and topic as you have proposed here.

Lest it too be dissolved into the Conciliar sea as many of the others have.

I'm sure it won't avoid that fate, but there's always the "new topic" button. That often tends to work like a bilge propulsion or colon cleanse - take your pick. :wink:

Evacuants at the ready Ma'am. You may proceed.

Recent eating skirmishes in my house have called forth a veritable charge to the fiber aisle!

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2013, 02:38:05 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: cantatedomino
Quote from: J.Paul
I might humbly suggest that the scope of discussion be kept rigidly and narrowly to the terms and topic as you have proposed here.

Lest it too be dissolved into the Conciliar sea as many of the others have.

I'm sure it won't avoid that fate, but there's always the "new topic" button. That often tends to work like a bilge propulsion or colon cleanse - take your pick. :wink:

Evacuants at the ready Ma'am. You may proceed.

Recent eating skirmishes in my house have called forth a veritable charge to the fiber aisle!

I have no reply that would rise to the level of decency, but I am flush with such ideas...... :furtive:

Domitilla · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2013, 02:49:57 PM »

While I am truly getting a kick out of the exchanges between J Paul and Cantatedomino, I hope this thread does not get derailed ...

cantatedomino · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2013, 03:03:22 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

While I am truly getting a kick out of the exchanges between J Paul and Cantatedomino, I hope this thread does not get derailed ...

You mean by J. Paul and cantatedomino? :rolleyes:

Don't worry. Miss OCD is on it!

cantatedomino · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2013, 03:04:44 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: cantatedomino
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: cantatedomino
Quote from: J.Paul
I might humbly suggest that the scope of discussion be kept rigidly and narrowly to the terms and topic as you have proposed here.

Lest it too be dissolved into the Conciliar sea as many of the others have.

I'm sure it won't avoid that fate, but there's always the "new topic" button. That often tends to work like a bilge propulsion or colon cleanse - take your pick. :wink:

Evacuants at the ready Ma'am. You may proceed.

Recent eating skirmishes in my house have called forth a veritable charge to the fiber aisle!

I have no reply that would rise to the level of decency, but I am flush with such ideas...... :furtive:

:guitar:

cantatedomino · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2013, 03:25:23 PM »

Thus far Sean Johnson has provided the best overall model of R&R in practice. I appreciate everything he has written on this subject because it has helped me to understand that the essential relation of the R&R position to the modernist revolution is its lack of appropriate response to the deployment of ambiguity as the devil's ultimate doomsday weapon.

Here are a few quotes from Sean that I can use to demonstrate that R&R's futility is entirely due to its failure to effectively defend against ambiguity as war machine:

SEAN: Yes: [A man cannot be judged a heretic except by his words.]

Yes: [Heresy cannot be judged as such except by the written or spoken word.]

SEAN: The new Mass may be invalid and/or blasphemous, but cannot be heretical, since it makes no profession of doctrine denying an article of faith (even if the heretics who concocted it wanted to deny articles of faith, like transubstantiation, or if the underlying reasons the various changes were made were heretical).

SEAN: Again, to say something like "the old covenant remains valid," without further elaboration is ambiguous. In what sense does it remain valid? Certainly the historical accounts of the OT remain valid. The miracles and precursors of Christ remain valid. On the other hand, to say something like "The old covenant remains salvific for the Jєωs" would be an heretical statement (i.e., there is no possible duplicitous meaning a can concoct to justify it). So for this one, I just say please show me the actual quote.

SEAN: Certainly the intent behind such statements is to destroy the missionary character of the Church, to blot out the true Faith. Yet the manner in which they say it always seems to leave some duplicitous wiggle-room to avoid the charge of heresy, and like the previous example, keep it at the level of scandalous ambiguity. Please go back and review the examples you have in mind (i.e., I won't "work you" and ask you to post them, unless you want to), and decide whether the statements you are reading are ambiguous, which is the diabolical genius of the modernist (i.e., to tear down the faith without ever actually being heretical). Ambiguity is the language of the modernist (Pius X, Pascendi).

SEAN: Certainly, biblical inerrancy is an article of the Faith, but can you produce a quote from the Pope which necessarily denies it? You are probably sitting there thinking, "Sean is excusing heresy!" On the contrary, I am trying to get you to understand that the wording (not the intent) is what matters, and distinguishes between heresy and ambiguity. Some people get so worked up about the bad intent, they aren't willing to see ambiguity (e.g., Bishop Fellay's AFD). Despite the thorough modernism of all the V2 docs, only DH arguable contained a heresy; the rest being ambiguous (e.g., Lumen Gentium's "subsistit").

magdalena · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2013, 03:47:37 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

Ambiguity or lack of Catholic precision has been the most paralyzing factor in the diabolically disoriented Catholic Clergy today. Ambiguity has also been the high speed train in which modernism travels.

How many prelates with the responsibility to speak out against the errors have refrained from doing so because of their fear of reprisal from their modernist superiors? Those who occupy these positions have chosen to hide behind the ambiguity card and keep their privileged positions within the revolution. Never affirm; never deny! And yet, our Lord cautioned us to let our yes be yes and our no be no. Kyrie Eleison!

Thank you for that, Domitilla. The VII docuмents are rife with ambiguity. Ambiguity is the hallmark of Modernism. Modernism is a heresy according to Pope St. Pius X.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #14 on:** December 28, 2013, 03:52:37 PM »

PASCENDI: It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ.

CANTATE: Pope Pius X teaches that the modernist revolution uses a new type of warfare against the Church. He qualifies it as an "art entirely new and full of deceit."

He further teaches that those who make war on the Church and employ this new type of warfare have the specific intention of destroying the Church and utterly subverting the very Kingdom of Christ.

Now the metaphysical constitution of those who would intentionally strive to subvert the very kingdom of Christ, and who would employ the art of deception in furtherance of this objective, is not Catholic. It is something entirely other than Catholic. It is impossible for a Catholic to have such an intention.

Pope St. Pius X bequeathed to the Church a testimony that has for its sole purpose to fully expose an anti-Catholic conspiracy of anti-Catholic men who pose as Catholics in order to simultaneously destroy the Faith of the Church and avoid being condemned as heretics.

We Catholics of 2013 know full well that this art of deception is none other than ambiguity. What we Catholics of 2013 still seem not to know, is what to do about it.