“Kojo No Tsuki” (Rentaro Taki), performed by Yo-Yo Ma, Michio Mamiya, & Patricia Zander, from the album “Japanese Melodies” (1990)
And, two thousand years on, Abraham’s descendants murdered God’s Son. So much for keeping the covenant. A couple of thousand years more and schoolyard bullying in the Vatican seems pretty small potatoes compared to murdering God’s Son. So what about our trials, pains, and insults?
This is Christ’s Church. No “Ifs”, “Ands”, or “Buts”. Claims to the direct inspiration of “the Holy Spirit”, unverifiable by objective constraints and controls, easily lure us into the servitude of a religion manufactured by man. We have plenty of those around already and proliferating like Topsy, these heterodox social clubs are almost as popular, and profitable, as golf and country clubs.
Father Hunwicke again: (I love that man)
The old Liberal Protestant superstition, such a comfort to the anti-Catholic mind, was that the Eucharist started as a simple fellowship meal which, probably under the influence of Hellenistic Mystery cults, was perverted into the Catholic Mass. (ed. bigotry by any name smells the same)
Rabbi Professor Dr Jacob Neusner, on the other hand, was free to follow the obvious track which leads from the ‘Cleansing of the Temple’ (in which Christ emptied the Temple of those who, by changing money or supplying certified animals, enabled the Temple cult to be fulfilled) to the conclusion, documented from his profound knowledge of first century Judaism, that Jesus of Nazareth saw himself as abolishing that sacrificial cult on the Temple Mount because of His intention, on Maundy Thursday, to erect in its place the new sacrificial system of His Eucharistic self-oblation in His Body and Blood.
And, during this Holy Week, let us continually bring back to our memories the self-identification the Lord made of himself with the Temple. “Destroy this Temple, and in three days …”. But he had made this identification during his Galilaean ministry. He forgave sins! Who indeed, as the watchers absolutely correctly asked themselves, can forgive sins but God alone? And where does God do so, if not in the Place of Sacrifice, the Temple?
So … who … what … is this Man?
What about our own Fears, Uncertainties, and Doubts? What about our doctrinal controversies? These trials and pains seem, at times, to be tailored to exactly those aspects of our life which we are most attached to, like our opinions, of subjects arcane and common, of other’s opinions, and ourselves, always larger than life.
A couple of weeks ago, on the EWTN network, Raymond Arroyo incurred the wrath of the “Borgoglionistas” for running his Papal Posse over some shenanigans from some Vatican representatives.
How dare Raymond and his team question the “Hypersuperueberpapalist” team when they have been ordained directly by the Holy Spirit to change church doctrine … or so they claim.
So what? Well, that claim is sort of a big deal in theological circles … Others have written:
“At Chalcedon, the Fathers greeted the Tome of Saint Leo, not with cries of “Christ himself has spoken” or “This is the utterance of the Holy Spirit”, but (after carefully examining its text) Peter has spoken through Leo.
This is profoundly in accordance with an Irenaean ecclesiology, whereby orthodoxy is witnessed by the identity of the teaching handed down from generation to generation in the particular churches, more especially in those of Apostolic foundation, and most normatively in the Roman Church. … Does this matter?
I think it does matter, and does make a great deal of difference … claims to the inspiration of “the Holy Spirit”, unverifiable by objective constraints and controls, can lure us into the servitude of a religion manufactured by man, a cult of “Let’s Make It Up For Ourselves”.
This cult is ultimately fashioned upon the model of the old religion of the Gnostics, who created their own fake alternatives to the Tradition received from the Apostles because they felt they knew with such certainty that the Church’s Tradition was wrong. … (read the rest at: Madmen – it is worth the time)
So, again, the Bergoglio clique keep on about the Holy Spirit; how He desires us to accept constant surprises; how He speaks to us through the very lips of the Roman Pontiff … particularly the present one.
So what? Well, it would seem that this is not going to go away quietly and discretely …
Now, on March 17th, the latest FLASH news: Apparently someone called Paglia is going around shouting at people that the time has come to stop discussing Amoris and just to receive it.
“like Edgar Alan Poe’s nocturnally silent dog, the Holy Spirit seems absent from places one might expect Him to be. Vatican I tells us that the Holy Spirit does not inspire the Roman Pontiff with new teaching but simply helps him to plug the old stuff.
Ecumenical Councils do not routinely suggest that the Spirit is guiding them in their new articulations of doctrine. Anti-Gnostic polemicists such as Irenaeus find guarantees of pure Teaching in the historical succession of orthodox bishops from the time of the Apostles, not in the activity of the Spirit … In Saint John’s Gospel, the Lord says, indeed, that the Holy Spirit will lead his disciples into all truth: but I discern no evidence that this refers to anything beyond the ambit of the Gospel Narratives themselves.” (read the rest here)
But, “... for the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Vatican I).
This would seem to overrule any notions of a “New Paradigm”, regardless of the perambulations of the Vatican Secretary of State in his “dialogue” with the secular media and other interested parties.
At times, these times, in 21st century Rome, its as if, after 500 years of watching the rebels, the followers of Luther’s “New Paradigm”, enjoy themselves, the 60’s “Me” generation dressed up in clerical collars and cassocks and dove into an orgy of “Me Too!” in the name of ecumenicalism. What’s next? Let’s see … married clergy … women-priests … a necrotic transition from orthodoxy to a heterodox social club? Looking more and more like a duck from here.
I wonder what’s in it, this “Me Too”, for the real Roman Catholic Church, the traditional Roman Church, not the progressive heterodox social club in Rome?
Of course, anyone who doesn’t agree with the social club, The Faction, is an idiot. As I have posted before, I believe that the rise of Bulverism in any group is a sure sign of the decay, the rot, within said group.
I have referenced Bulverism in a couple of previous posts but Bulverism is indeed THE sure sign of a weak and immoral argument and a failed entity, whichever and wherever they are found.
Progressives, Communists, Clerical Socialists, Liberation Theologians, all cut from the same cloth, dyed black or red or denim, whatever, and all serving the same master, shoveling coal for Satan.
The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error”. So too the Liberal wing of the Catholic Church … their opponents are “obviously” wrong and “out of touch with the times”. The Bulverist assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive.
The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates. Similar to Antony Flew‘s “Subject/Motive Shift”, Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer’s identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument’s validity or truth. But it is also a fallacy of circular reasoning, since it assumes, rather than argues, that one’s opponent is wrong.
I find myself wishing with Frodo: ““I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. ” All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. (Gandalf, “Lord of The Rings”)
The modi operandi of the Modernist camp after Vatican II was to behave as if they had won the battle against the past, the past of tradition, doctrine and dogma, against the heritage of the magisterium, and that the outcomes of V II were what they wanted.
They ignored the intentions and actual documents rising out of the council and moved forward implementing “reforms” and “fundamental changes”, “in the Spirit of Vatican II”.
By the “spirit of Vatican II” is meant the teaching and intentions of the Second Vatican Council but interpreted in a way that is not limited to a literal reading of its documents, or even going so far as interpreting in a way that contradicts the “letter” of the Council.
So, these days, these wretched days, in the first decades of the 21st century, one might be tempted to despair.
Paraphrasing Kipling, in these later days there is a real premium on keeping your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you; on trusting yourself when all men doubt you, but making allowance for their doubting too; waiting and not being tired by waiting, or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies, or, being hated, don’t give way to hating, on “being Christ”, being a real member of the body of Christ.
It seems, in hindsight, that the “Spirit of Vatican II” is still alive and well in the church bureaucracy despite 30 years of the best efforts of Pope Saint John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI to cure the cancerous heresy of modernism in the 20th century Catholic Church.
After Vatican II Traditionalist Catholics such as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre distinguished between “Catholic Rome” and the actually existing Rome, as he declared in 1974 that, while he and his followers are faithful to “Catholic Rome”, they refuse to follow “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it” (in the Spirit of Vatican II).
A priest of the Lefebvre-founded Society of St. Pius X similarly declared in 1982 that “Rome is now the headquarters, not only of the Catholic Church, but of the Modernist Mafia which has invaded and subjected it”, and that “the multitudes of ex-Catholic shepherds and their sheep who have either defected or drifted into a new religion” might well be called “Roman Protestants”. (the Spirit of Vatican II in action – ecumenical catholicism or small c catholicism).
But all is not lost … stiff upper lip and all that … and after the darkest night, the Son rises … we always have to remember that “All God’s creatures got a place in the choir” …