I found this presentation by Roberto de Mattei which appears at the Remnant a very important analysis of our situation in this world which has thrown off the shackles of Christianity and has overshadowed the light of the Good with its absence of light; the darkness of evil. __ Scoop
A Shadow Moves About the Ruins by Roberto de Mattei
THE PANORAMA WE have before us is one of ruins: moral ruins, political ruins, economic ruins; the Church’s ruins, the ruins of the whole of society.
In this scene, a silent shadow moves about the ruins like a ghost: Josef Ratzinger, who after his resignation from the papacy, wished to keep the title of Pope (Emeritus) and the name of Benedict XVI.
I believe that the abdication of Benedict XVI, on February 28, 2013, will go down in history as an even more disastrous event than the pontificate of Pope Francis, to which it opened the doors.
The pontificate of Pope Francis certainly represents a leap forward in the process of the Church’s auto-demolition, following the Second Vatican Council. However, this is only a stage, the last one of this process: we could say that it represents its ripe fruit.
The essence of the Second Vatican Council was the triumph of pastoral theology over doctrine, the transformation of pastoral theology into a theology of praxis, the application of the philosophy of Marxist practice to the life of the Church. For the Communists, the true philosopher is not Karl Marx, the Revolution’s theorist, but Lenin who carried out the Revolution, proving Marx’s thought. For Neo-Modernists, the true theologian is not Karl Rahner, the principal ideologue of the revolution in the Church, but Pope Francis, who is fulfilling this revolution, putting Rahner’s thought into pastoral practice. There is no rupture, therefore, between the Second Vatican Council and Pope Francis, but historical continuity. Pope Francis represents Vatican II in action.
Benedict XVI’s renunciation of the papacy represents a historic rupture, but in another sense. For starters, it is the first papal resignation in history which has taken place without clear reasons, without valid motives. It is a gratuitous, arbitrary act, rendered contradictory by the way in which it took place. Today in the Church, there is a situation of apparent diarchy and of real confusion, in which many doubt that he who is the pope – Francis – is truly pope, and he who is not the pope – Benedict – is a non-pope. This is a historic novelty without precedent. Benedict XVI is the one responsible for it.
But the gesture of Benedict XVI also has a symbolic reach, which must be understood in its deepest sense.
There are symbolic gestures that express the metaphysical significance of a historic occurrence. Such is the example of the humiliation of Canossa, in January, 1077. Pope Saint Gregory VII refusing to receive Henry IV and leaving him for three days in the cold outside of the Canossa castle, affirmed the primacy of the Papacy over political power with this gesture, proclaiming the freedom of the Church before the world, and forcing the world to bow before the Church. It was an act of courage that gave glory to God, and honored the Church.
Benedict XVI’s act of papal resignation was not only an admission of impotence, but a gesture of surrender. It was an act that expressed the defeatist spirit of the churchmen of our time, whose main sin isn’t moral corruption but cowardice. I say this with all the respect due to the figure of Benedict XVI, and with a certain compassion for this elder, made to watch the historical consequences of his decision by Providence. But we must have the courage to say it, if we do not want to be accomplices to this spirit of resignation and lack of confidence in the supernatural aid of Grace, which sadly today has spread among many Catholics, faced with an advancing revolutionary course.
Every soul has a vocation, every man has a mission to carry out. Renouncing the carrying out of one’s mission carries a grave responsibility. Resignation as the Vicar of Christ entails an immense responsibility: it is forsaking the highest mission which a man can have on this earth: governing the Church of Christ. It is an escape from the wolves, on the part of he who in his homily on April 24, 2005, said: “Pray for me, that I will not flee for fear of the wolves.”
And yet, Benedict XVI during his pontificate, carried out a courageous gesture: the concession of the motu proprioSummorum Pontificum, on July 7, 2007. Thanks to this action, the number of priests who offer the old Mass multiplied throughout the world, and for this, we must be grateful to him. But what was important in that motu proprio was not so much the de factoaspect, or rather, the permission to celebrate Mass according to the ancient Roman rite for every priest, but the de jure recognition that that Rite had not been abrogated, and could never be abrogated.
With that act, Benedict XVI bowed to the Tradition of the Church, he admitted that no one – not even the Pope – could undermine it; that everyone – including the Pope – had to submit themselves to it.
Today, there is an open fight between two camps and two standards, that of Tradition and that of Revolution. The first, as Saint Ignatius recalled in his meditation on the two standards, is held by Christ, “our High Captain and Lord,” the second by “Lucifer, the mortal enemy of our human nature.” The standard of those who love the Truth of the Gospel, recognizing Jesus Christ as King of Heaven and earth, and the standard of he who claims to transform the Church and construct a new religion based on his own opinion.
“But,” affirms Pope Saint Pius X in the encyclical E supremi apostolato, “no one of sound mind can doubt the issue of this contest between man and the Most High. Man, abusing his liberty, can violate the right and the majesty of the Creator of the Universe; but the victory will ever be with God – nay, defeat is at hand at the moment when man, under the delusion of his triumph, rises up with most audacity.”[1]
We must have confidence in victory, but we need to be convinced that we cannot win without fighting. And today the battle is, first of all, that of words which break silence, defeat falsehood, and destroy hypocrisy, as Archbishop Carlo Mara Viganò did with his courageous testimony.
The Benedict Option
On September 11, 2018 in Rome, a presentation of Rod Dreher’s book The Benedict Option[2], was held at the Chamber of Deputies. Among the presenters was Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household.
Dreher is an ambiguous character, he presents himself as Catholic, but he left the Church to join the Orthodox religion. The title of his book is also ambiguous because the “Benedict option” of which he speaks is not that of Saint Benedict, but that of Benedict XVI. In a recent interview with the daily newspaper “Il Giornale,” a journalist asked him: “There are some who think that the ‘Benedict option,’ means ‘Ratzinger option.’” Dreher responded: “Well, I mean Saint Benedict but it is true that Benedict XVI is the second Benedict of the Benedict option”[3]
Archbishop Georg Gänswein, for his part praised the “marvelous inspiration of the book,” which would represent a confirmation of the prophethood of Benedict XVI. I hold that between the “seeds of renewal” and the post-modern world, a peaceful coexistence cannot exist, but only war, and I have defined Dreher’s exit strategy as ‘catacombist’: the illusion of saving one’s self, forming “arks of salvation,” of privileged islands, where one can live the Faith, renouncing to fight the modern world.
The Benedict option appears as a fruit of the refusal of the militant conception of Christianity, which spread after the Second Vatican Council. Walls must be substituted by bridges, so that opposed world visions will not exist, and the different religious confessions can unite based on a generic sentiment of transcendence. This exist strategy from the modern world is very different than that of the true Saint Benedict.
The Benedictine monks were conquerors. They left the world to conquer it. This is why Pius XII defined Saint Benedict as “the father of Europe,” affirming that “while the barbarian hordes flooded the provinces, he who was called the last of the Romans, reconciling Romanity and the Gospel, brought true aid to unite the peoples of Europe under the banner of the auspice of Christ and to give a happy structure to Christian society. In fact, from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Baltic, legions of Benedictines were dispersed, who with the Cross, books, and plow tamed those rough and uncivilized peoples.”[4].
The vocation of the monks was complimentary to that of the knights. Monks and knights constituted the Christian society of the medieval age. The highest expression of the medieval age was the monk-knights, like the Templars, whose rule was written by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. We need these men, but above all this spirit, today. The prospective of Rod Dreher and Archbishop Gänswein seems to be to the contrary: that of preparing Catholics to patiently put up with persecution, awaiting better times, to return in spirit to the era of the catacombs, because the possibility of an imminent triumph of the Church over the modern world cannot be seen. But is this truly so?
The Constantinian Shift and the Social Reign of Christ
Throughout the history of the Church, there has perhaps never been a more tragic moment than the dawn of the fourth century. A dawn red with blood when the age of the persecutions reached its culmination under the Emperor Diocletian.
From one end of the Roman Empire to the other, with the exception of Constantius Chlorus’ Britany, Christians were torn apart, crucified, decapitated. Christianity had to be extirpated from the face of the earth. Christians were defenseless, they had only the strength of their Faith and the help of the Holy Ghost, which fortified them. Who would have ever said that the hour of resurrection, known only to God, was so close? Who would have imagined that the blood of the martyrs would be transformed into the purple of the Christian empire of Constantine? And yet, that’s what happened.
On October 28, 312, the history of the Roman Empire and of the whole Church changed. A young leader, Constantine, battling with Maxentius to win the throne of Rome, had a vision. A blazing Cross appeared in the sky with the words In hoc signo vinces: in this sign, in the name of this sign – the Cross – you will conquer. And then, Eusebius and Lactantius recount, the Lord appeared to Constantine during the night, exhorting him to print this Cross on the standards of his legions. Under the sign of the Cross, Constantine faced Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, at the gates of Rome, annihilated the enemy army and ascended the imperial throne. This date signaled an epochal turning point, destined to go down in history as the “Constantinian shift.”
There is no historian who denies the weight of this event. It was the birth, following three centuries of Christianity, of Christian civilization. A civilization born from the sacrifice of Calvary, from the grace of Pentecost, from the mission which Jesus Christ entrusted to His disciples: that of converting not only individual souls, but peoples, nations, the masses. But this civilization, this triumph of the visible Church, has its origin in a battle which had at its front two armies: one which raised the symbols of paganism, the other which fought in the name of the Cross of Christ.
We can say that there has never been a deeper, or more profound or faster social metamorphosis in human history, than that brought about by the victory at the Milvian Bridge. A most profound change because paganism which had dominated mankind for millennia, was inexorably condemned to death, while a new civilization rose from its ruins, the social fruit of Christianity.
This change took place thanks to a battle which may be defined as the first holy war of the Christian era. A war fought for Christ, and in the Name of Christ, and the promise of victory was tied to the Christian character of this battle. The motto in hoc signo vinces joins the symbol of the Cross to victory: not only an interior victory over disordered passions and sin, but a historic victory which confirms how Christianity received from Christ the mission to plant the Cross in the public domain, of conquering not only souls but society, its institutions, and customs, in this way creating Christendom.
Starting in the fourth century, the Church made herself visible, she raised her banner – the banner of the Cross – she began a triumphant march through history, the goal being the social reign of Christ, the prefiguration of His eternal reign in Heaven. This reign was only partially brought about in the medieval age; we still await its fulfillment, because the Church exists in history, she fights and wins in history. The social reign of Christ will be a total upheaval. Evil – although it will not disappear because it is destined to accompany the history of the Church until the end times of the antichrist – will be reduced to a situation like that in which good is today: isolated, condemned, charged, abhorred.
Pius XII in the encyclical Summi Pontificatus[5] of October 20, 1939, sketching a plan for his pontificate, affirmed that only the acknowledgment of the social reign of Christ could allow man to return to that degree of civility which medieval Christian Europe enjoyed[6]. “In the recognition of the royal prerogatives of Christ and in the return of individuals and of society to the law of His truth and of His love lies the only way to salvation.”
The reign of Christ cannot be separated from that of His divine Mother, Mary, because as the theologians recall, Mary in Her role as Mother of God has been associated with the work of the Divine Redeemer. “Christ is King from all eternity, Mary became Queen at the moment in which She conceived the Father’s Only-Begotten Son. Christ is King because He is God and Man-God; Mary is Queen because She is His Mother and Associate.”[7].
The Marian theophany of the last two centuries, from Rue du Bac to Lourdes to Fatima, bears witness to the role which Our Lady must have in the establishment of the social reign of Christ, which is also the social reign of Mary, the triumph of the Church over the revolution it assails.
A Fluid Church in a Fluid Society
The modernists reject the social reign of Christ, accusing the “Constantinian shift” of having betrayed the Gospel’s ideals, as a compromise of Christians with power. This anti-Constantinian mythology developed in the radical schism of the Reformation, between the Anabaptists and the Theosophists who placed themselves at Luther’s left. These saw in the “Constantinian bond” of Church and state, a sacrilegious union which needed to be destroyed and substituted by the principle of religious liberty, intended as the right to profess any religion held to be true.
The ideas of the radical reformers were expressed in Holland in the 1600’s especially, and from there, spread to England where they constituted one of the intellectual foundations of Masonry which saw the light with the institution of the Grand Lodge in London in 1717. Masonry organized the French Revolution, that intended to break the Constantinian bond of altar and throne, in the name of the supreme ideals of absolute liberty, equality and fraternity. In the 1800’s, liberalism denied the public role of the Church in society, seeking to confine the Christian presence to the strict freedom of individual consciences, to bring it back to the catacombs. These texts were repeatedly condemned by the Papal Magisterium but the anti-Constantinian mythology penetrated the Catholic Church on the inside, through modernism.
“The end of the Constantinian era”[8] was announced by one of the fathers of the Nouvelle Théologie, the Dominican Marie-Dominique Chenu, in a famous conference held in 1961. Chenu aspired to free the Church from what he defined as the three decisive factors of her compromise with power: the primacy of Roman law, the Greek-Roman logos, and the liturgical language of Latin.[9] The Church no longer had to face the problem of Christianizing the world but accepting its secularist development, breaking every tie with Tradition, renewing her doctrine through (pastoral) praxis.
The modernists deny the social reign of Christ because they deny the visible dimension of the Church. They want to liquidate the structures of the Church, they want a fluid church in a fluid society, like a river which runs in a perpetual flow. According to Father Roger-Thomas Calmel: “Doctrines, rites, and the interior life are subjected to a process of such a radical and refined liquefaction which no longer allows for a distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics. Because ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ the definite and the definitive are considered outdated, the question arises as to what it is that impedes non-Christian religions to also be part of the new universal church, constantly updated by ecumenical interpretations.”[10].
The fluid church requires fluid Catholics without an identity, without a mission to carry out, incapable of fighting: because fighting means resistance, resistance means staying, staying means being: and Tradition is nothing else than being which opposes itself to becoming which flows toward the sea of nothingness. Tradition is that which is stable in the perennial becoming of things, and that which is unchangeable in a changing world, and it is such because it has in itself a reflection of eternity.
The anti-Christian revolution which spans history, hates being in all its expressions, and counteracts it with the denial of all that in reality is stable, permanent, and objective, beginning with human nature, dissolved by gender theory.
So, the ruinous horizon before us is an expression of this revolutionary process, it is the result of a process of liquefying society and the Church, carried out by agents of chaos, by societies which would like to recreate or destroy the world. This route, however, leads to an inevitable defeat of the revolution.
In fact, the revolution, like evil, does not have its own nature, but exists only insofar as it is the privation and a deficiency of good. “The being of evil,” – explains Saint Thomas – “consists precisely in being the privation of good.”[11]. Evil, which is the privation of being, can spread, like darkness in the night, following daylight. But the darkness does not have in itself the power to defeat the light in a total and definitive way, because it (darkness) draws its very existence from the light. Infinite light, which is God, exists. “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness,” says Saint John (1 John 1:5). Absolute darkness does not exist, because radical nothingness cannot exist. Our existence is the living negation of nothingness. Evil advances when good recedes. Error is affirmed only when the truth is extinguished. The revolution wins only when Tradition surrenders. All revolutions throughout history have taken place only when an authentic opposition is lacking. For this reason, every abdication is an act of surrender and retreat.
However, if there is an evil dynamic, there is a dynamic of goodness. A remnant – even a minimal one – of light cannot be extinguished, and this remnant has in itself the irresistible strength of daybreak, the possibility of a new day with the sunrise. This is the drama of evil: it cannot destroy the last remnant of good that survives, it is destined to be destroyed by this remnant. Evil cannot stand even the smallest surviving good, because it glimpses its defeat in the good which exists. The dynamism of evil is destined to shatter itself against that which stays, which remains solid in society’s liquefaction. Therefore, the final step in the process of today’s self-dissolution eroding the rock on which the Church was founded, is destined to witness the death of the revolution and the sprouting of the beginning of an opposed life: a mandatory itinerary of restoration of faith and morals, of truth and of the social order to which it corresponds: this principle is the Catholic counter-revolution.
Social philosophy has several laws which should be remembered. One of them is that history is made by minorities who fight to establish a project, an idea – right or malformed as the case may be. The strength of these minorities is proportionate to the strength of their passions, which can be ordered to good or can be disordered. These have an immense, propelling force, because they advance ideas, they put them into action. The strength of a warrior is proportionate to the breadth and intensity of his love; and there is no higher love than that which a man can have for the Church and Christian civilization, the love which drove the noblest of history’s ventures: the heroic deeds of the Crusades. In our dramatic, historic time we need to rediscover the perennial spirit of the Crusades, not that of the catacombs.
(Order a poster print of this original Remnant artwork from The Remnant’s Store )
The Spirit of Crusade
Please read the rest here: https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4286-church-in-crisis-the-final-act-of-vatican-ii
All Along the Watchtower 
Thanks for the link to the newspaper as spotted its editor’s ace article of New Years’ Eve on Donald Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Starting in the fourth century, the Church made herself visible, she raised her banner – the banner of the Cross – she began a triumphant march through history, the goal being the social reign of Christ
and the murderous Inquisition
LikeLike
To some degree, I think for the sake of sanity, I’m more and more checking out of Western secular society. It’s such a saturation that it’s been quite the process.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It is a great temptation and probably why so few soldiers can be found in the battlefields these days. The catacombs have their allure and lets face it; few of us have been tested in courage in our lives and feel inadequate to take the role of a crusader and fight to the death.
I know that it is easy to talk the talk and to have Peter’s zeal (I will never deny you Lord) only to find that we are scared to death of our own martyrdom, suffering, death, scorn, financial ruin, loss of friends and family and so much more. I suppose the ensuing battle, whether we try to hide from it or are visible will find us wherever we are eventually.
I pray for the courage of Baldwin the Leper King but Lord knows I am a coward and I will need the Holy Spirit to infuse me with His strength if I am to fight valiantly.
LikeLike
Good brother scoop, so you and other faithful catholics are going to grit your teeth and save the CC.Your church is built on a man and men will save it from its wickedness. Its all about men.
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He leadeth me to still waters.
Where I come from, this is how we dead with adversity……..
Be still, and behold the salvation of the Lord.
The Lord, strong and mighty will do battle for us.
LikeLike
deal with adversity
LikeLike
You think Christ was stupid to create a Church starting with His Apostles (men) and endowed with the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) which He promised to send them . . . and did, at Pentacost? Did Christ say that ‘upon this rock I will build my Church’ or not. Did he give the keys to bind and loose to men or not? Did Christ leave Christians as orphans? Christ said He wouldn’t. Did the Scriptures lie when they said that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth?
Your problem is that you only believe the parts of the Bible that agree with what you want your religious feelings to be. If it doesn’t agree with you then it must be wrong.
And without an authority that is protected by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit how do you decided what is right and what is wrong? For that matter, how did you decide to change the books of the NT and replace the OT with the Jewish Scriptures that were agreed to by the Jews after the destruction of the Temple? Why? Christ read from the Septuagint in the synagogue and did not say a word about what was circulating throughout the Jewish and Hellenistic world being wrong as the OT Canon.
And I’m glad God set up His Church the way he did or everybody would be trying to be whatever they are trying to make Christianity say by their own intellect . . . the intellect of men as well . . . only not eye witnesses or schooled by those witnesses.
LikeLike
Well good brother scoop, if you believe the ability to bind and loose given by Jesus could be somehow passed n to others, then you might have a case. Jesus gave those men to bind and loose. They are gone now. Jesus gave then, not the power, but the faith to heal, something good brother Peter could do. Let me ask you something….if all these gifts could be passed down, how come the supposed successors of Peter couldn’t heal anyone? Why doesn’t good brother Bergoglio go around healing everyone, when hes not giving jobs to bishops who are running from prosecution?
For the millionth time, I don’t interpret scripture.I take it at face value and even then it seems to bother you. And for the billionth time, the Rock the church is built on is the fact that Jesus is the son of god, the Christ, which was the subject of their little talk.Anyway, what blasphemous idolater would even begin to think Christs church is built on a filthy sinful man? Somehow every catholic does. Well, they also bow down befor the works of their own hands, so nothing is odd there.
LikeLike
Binding and loosing has nothing to do with healing or holiness Bozo . . . it is juridical. Seems you think you take things at face value but you can’t understand the face value either. You do your share of interpreting . . . and if you ever when to an English class you would know that Christ was speaking to Peter and that Christ said that you must eat His body and drink His blood to have life within you. This is my body and this is my blood is interpreted by you to mean that it is a symbol. That is not the face value of His words. I could go on and on Bosco. But all you do is show your ignorance. Sorry brother it is a waste of a mans time to try to reason with an unreasonable man.
LikeLike
Jesus said to do this and remember him. Break bread and give it to your fri4ends or who ever is eating with you. Your religion says only its costumed holymen can do this. You cant do it at home with family….and you believe that. You and good brother Chalcedon condemn me for not taking the blood of Christ because im not taking it from a costumed man , at your church. The very flower of false religion. And eating and drinking his blood means believing his every word….for man liveth not by bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of god. You believe that you belly up to the holy bar and get fed god, and even at that there rages a fight as to if you kneel or not and if its stuck in your open mouth or handed to you. Tell me this isn’t a true legalist works cult.
The Lord is my shepherd.
And who you callin BOZO (;-C
LikeLike
You conflate two bits of scripture as though they were one. One was with the satan to rebuff his temptation of turning stones in bread for his hunger. The other was had with his apostles in a religious ritual which you would not have any idea of what that meant or the idea of the pouring of blood which the apostles would have known was only the right of priests at the Temple. Make up your own Gospel and meanings as you wish but you are so far out of your element that it is useless to speak with you any more.
LikeLike
Only catholic costume holymen can do communion. Hahahahahahahahahahaha. You false religion people kill me.
LikeLike
I have mixed feelings about this post: some of it I agree with and other, anti-Protestant stuff, I do not, which is why I can’t give it a wholehearted like. But thank you for sharing it: there is certainly material to ponder in it, and it certainly is true that all Christians must fight the good fight against corruption in the Church and corruption in the world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not sure what you mean unless de Mattei’s portrayal of the Reformation (of I understood him to say) led inexorably to the ideas that spawned both the rise of Freemasonry and the French Revolution. One might have added that the “spirit of Protestantism” led man to ideas such as Universalism as well in the Christian era; much like “the spirit of Vatican II” has led us to much of the same except from within rather than from without. In the end, both seem to foster a reluctance to become Christian in the radical sense. Not at the beginning however but as their ultimate fruit. Europe has almost died completely to the Christian battle to bring the Kingdom of Christ to all the nations and the US is now thrashing about in the same upheaval that Europe has already experienced. Christ the King has become submerged in the Protestant world to exist only in small enclaves of Evangelicals and in the Catholic sphere to the Traditionalists. I don’t think that the outcome could have been any different as both broke from the Traditions they received and turned it into subjectivism. It is what the world now suffers from. And Christians are abandoning the faith far faster than even I would have imagined unless one wants to count the new Subjective Christianity (where anything goes and all faiths are equal) as being truly Christian. It seems that the new Christianity is far more concerned with politics and a new world order than it does to the conquering of a pagan world and replacing it with one that places Christ on the throne of this world as well as His throne in Heaven.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe the Reformation was a necessary condition of intellectual and spiritual re-orientation within its early modern/late medieval context. The authority structure of the Roman Catholic Church, as it existed at the time, necessitated secession in order to pursue the thinking and agendas of the Reformers. While I believe they were not perfect, they began a process that enabled subsequent growth. It certainly is unfortunate that secession from Rome was necessary, but remaining in Rome would have been the worse of the two choices. Since schism from the East had already happened, the argument that organisational unity was necessary had lost some of its appeal. Nowadays, I believe God is calling us to unity, but not the false irenicism of the ecumenical movement and not the “all must be in communion with X” approach of the Catholics and Orthodox where X represents a value other than Christ, our Living Head. How God will join us all back together again, I cannot say, but I believe the transactional cost of it will be painful. In my own experience, nothing good I have ever gained in Christ has come without some element of submission and pain.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I never see separation as an answer. It would be like advocating for those who flee their countries rather than stay and fight for their own freedom, democracy or elimination of corruption. I am Catholic and I have severely criticized what has happened to the Catholic Faith. I would be a hypocrite, had I remained a Protestant, if I did not lay the criticism at the feet of my previous denomination as well. We have all failed and it seems to me that the breaks with unity are (on the doctrinal side) cured by the reactionary forces and arguments spawned by those who put forward their ideas to be addressed. Protestantism brought about Trent; Arianism gave us Chalcedon etc. You don’t leave your family because they are always bickering. You stay and work for healing. I think the same can be said for the Christian faith. Unity happens when men of good will argue and fight to heal the Body of Christ so that it can then confront the world, the flesh and the devil in good health. United we stand and divided we fall. It is why a true Catholic will not break with the Church. The City of God may have been invaded and they may control much of the ground but I dare not leave when it is the inheritance that Christ bequeathed to mankind. I will not go silent into the night.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that, given your philosophical commitment, unless you can be persuaded to reject your presuppositions and other beliefs, you must, owing to the constraint of conscience, remain within Catholicism. I do not share your views, thus for me, Catholicism is identical to Christianity, but rather is a mode of Christianity (to borrow from medieval category theory). There are Christians in Catholicism, but Catholicism isn’t the totality of Christianity. Because I hold these views, I advocate secession from Rome to any who can lawfully do so in order that what is not of Christ be separated and so cease to hinder the Kingdom. Catholics tap into a living history descended from Christ via the Apostles, but they also suffer from cancers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just like any body, we have been ill before and we have recovered before. That the apostles abandoned Christ (except for 1) is enough assurance for me that with the help of the Holy Spirit, She will continue to live on and be here when Christ returns and that even if we are now ‘the few’ we can become ‘the many’ if we work for it. Christ came to the apostles in the upper room and the spirit came to all the Church at Pentecost. I need no more assurance than what has already occurred to tell me that it is not time to leave and go back to fishing. We were called to do the work that Christ gave to us. Trying to do that by leaving the company of the established Church seems to be a frighteningly perilous venture. Sure, there are cases similar to the one in scripture where an outsider was preaching the Good News and Christ indicated that it was fine . . . it is still rather precarious in my mind to think that diverse beliefs can work as effectively and retain their truths as faithfully as those who are bound to the protections of a faith that does not abandon its actual defined teachings. We may do that which is in opposition to such teachings but to declare them as Church teaching never seems to occur . . . which gives some light even when the darkness seems to be overcoming the light.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Therein lies the difference between us: I hold to the proposition that Catholics are part of the Body but I reject formal Catholicism as irreformable whereas traditionalists see formal Catholicism as instituted by Christ and thus destined to win out in the end. For them, the Catholic Church is the Body and the life of Christ within it means that the cancer of bad priests and VII cannot kill it. From my perspective, the people within it are part of the Body and the formal structure is the cancer that is trying to kill them. Our two views are mutually exclusive: either one is right or neither – but not both. In and of themselves, the propositions cannot tell us who is right – we must adduce further evidence to settle that question. If neither is right of course, then both have a problem.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You have made a mistake by thinking that the “cancer” is part of the body. The tumor is an intruder that needs to be cut out and killed so that the body may live. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.
LikeLike
Well, however, the metaphor is strained, it expresses my belief: the structure itself is at fault and is what the Reformers criticised. The essence of the Sola Scriptura claim was a criticism of the place of the Magisterium and the Pope in Catholicism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes all divisions usually come down to the desire to throw off the yoke of authority. And yet without authority there is nothing but the subjective which stands in its place. That people abuse authority is human. So it was with Core and Moses and so it is in the Church Christ founded. That such abuse is corrected manfully is also the character of truly courageous men. And when it is not we deserve that which we get for our lack of courage. Barnhardt has a piece today that is of interest: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/01/07/we-are-all-the-more-blameworthy-because-so-little-would-be-needed-on-our-part/
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem with analogies is that we must justify why one should be applied and then how each of the parts fits into it. From the Catholic perspective, the Magisterium would be Moses in your analogy and Luther et al Korah, leading the people away to destruction. But a Protestant sees the Apostles as Moses and the Popes of the later middle ages as Korah, placing their authority over that of Scripture. The question is not whether we will have authority, but what IS our lawful authority.
At the moment we are able to sympathise with each other: conservative Protestants and traditionalist Catholics both think that Pope Francis is bad for Christianity. But what happens when BXVI dies and is replaced by a traditionalist Pope? He is committed to affirming all the old Catholic doctrines and once again, whether he says so explicitly or implicitly, must affirm that Protestants are heretics, schismatics, etc. We (Protestants) just can’t work with formal Catholicism, no matter how much we agree with fighting abortion, etc. Your structure is not compatible with us. Herein lies the problem. We desperately want you to join us – but not at any price. For us, these claims about the Magisterium, etc are not trivial matters – they are grave. And they represent a constitutional problem for people who are scrupulous, as Martin Luther was: because Catholicism has a contractual aspect to it. We cannot sign up to your contract and your side will not repudiate it out of fear that to do so is to be outside of Christ: “nulla salus extra ecclesiam”. We understand we are asking you to take a risk, but we believe it is a risk worth taking. We’re not talking about abandoning liturgies or that sort of thing: we’re talking about freeing yourselves from a structure that interposes itself. Yes, it has acted for good – but it represents a danger, a danger of being bound by an oath contrary to the Faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I were to apply this analogy with the specificity that you desire I would say that Moses is the OT Pope of the Church, that the other Apostles represent the heads of the 12 tribes which Moses appointed to help him govern the people. Only Moses was given access to God to retrieve the Decalogue and only Peter received the Keys. Together (in unity with Moses or Peter) the rest of the Bishops have authority as a group. If they break with Moses or the 10 Commandments they break with their core beliefs. The same is applicable to Apostles or even a Pope. Even Moses failed (striking Christ twice) and did not get to the Promised Land but only got within sight of it.
Moses was given mediate authority from God who has immediate authority. Peter was given mediate authority from Christ who also had immediate authority. As to the other apostles; they were to be molded as it were by Peter once he turned; and we know that he did. And even then, like Moses. he also had to be corrected like at the meeting in Jerusalem over circumcision.
So the ordering is not poor; it is the way God ordered his followers from the beginning: giving certain men mediate authority so that the faith would not be changed.
I could much easier accept your point about the governance if you were to talk about the cultural rules and laws that have developed as being Pharisaical. But even that charge would be quite different since such things have neither the weightiness of those written by the ancient Pharisee’s nor are they supposed to be given by these men who are hypocrites and do not follow the same laws they set forth for the people to follow. That being said, it is a fact that we have a lot of hypocrites turning up their heads. But might we just follow the advice of our Lord and do what they tell you but do not do what they do?
It seems to me that we are now facing two types of hypocrisy. Those who do not believe that which they teach and others that teach that which is contrary to what the Church has always taught. Both must be destroyed or driven from the House of God like the money changers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not dispute the need for pastors, elders, teachers, etc – but I am concerned about the power your corporate structure wields and the reasons why I reject Catholicism are analogous to the reasons why I reject the EU: too much power in too few hands allows for tyranny when those hands are bad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, I think that both have been orchestrated by those who seek power, privilege and license. We have bishops that have dioceses that are far too large for them to govern and their excuse (wait for it) is that we don’t have enough priests and therefore we have not enough men to pick from to make more bishops and rule over smaller areas of the Church. And we don’t have enough priests because they are not teaching the same faith since VII and/or living that faith. It is a foregone conclusion that we would find ourselves in this Catch 22 scenario. Until the counter-revolution drives out the corrupt, we will not have the men we need nor the quality of the men we need. And even then we have set up ourselves for a period of suffering and perhaps another schism (or in the secular world a civil war). Better that than the alternative to let them destroy national sovereignty or the teachings of Christ. So to fight on we must.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard raises an excellent point that we are devolving into “cricket” again – for which I am to blame. I apologise to you, brother. I am so desperate for unity that I am letting my zeal get the better of my charity. I must try to exercise my discipline and keep posts and comments to matters we can agree on and let God do the rest. I would, however, like to raise to administrative issues, namely Bosco and Philip.
It seems to me we must have a common policy on Bosco: I take the line that it is better to starve him into repentance than feed him, which is why I refuse to speak to him. I have occasionally broken my rule in the hope that some kindness will soften him, but to no avail. My recommendation is that you, NEO, and I and any other party not talk to him until we are agreed that he demonstrates genuine repentance. He is free to speak, but we should not let our passions compel us to answer him.
Regarding Philip, I am troubled by some small signs that he is not all right and also by signs earlier in the year that he is having doubts of some kind. Of course, I cannot speak to any private communications that may pass between the two of you. I am not sure how I should speak to him if he re-emerges. On the one hand, I am conscious of attempts to “poach” him; on the other, it seems to me he has genuine doubts and at times speaks more like a Protestant than like a Catholic – this troubles me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no problem with discussing differences in belief with any Protestant as that was the faith I was born into. How could I? There are reasons why we think as we do and I am always curious to see how Protestant faiths react to Catholic beliefs and why we believe them. So I do not see these as something you need to be careful of in your writing. I am happy to tell you why I think you might be wrong as you should be happy to tell me the same. As to Bosco, I usually do the same although I at times I like to throw a barb his way for my amusement.
Not sure what is going on with Phillip. I assume that he is working on his ebook and not doing much in the way of blogging. I might email him and see what he tells me since I haven’t heard from him in a while.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would appreciate you contacting him, because a comment he made in December sounded bad, as in something frightening rather than simply him being overworked.
LikeLike
OK.
LikeLike
I also sent you an email just now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“nulla salus extra ecclesiam”.
Some lingo from the Caesars that killed the first Christians. Catholics love the language of Satan. Catholics love their master satan.
LikeLike
Scoop, Nicholas – may I interject your profound ‘pontifications’ and ask, what does Jesus Himself think of all this – and how’s Holy Spirit moving to implement Father’s will today?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Depends on intentions it seems to me. Are we trying to defend Christ and His Bride or are we simply throwing bombs like Bosco does? Neither Nicholas or I have that problem or lack of love for one another as Christians although Nicholas might be moved to repent as he just did for his post . . . which was not only fine but very good. Our back and forths should be seen and looked at the same way folks used to discuss religion in the pubs of England; GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, Tolkien and the like. I prefer that to silence on issues that have, perhaps, not been thoroughly given a rational treatment from both sides. But thanks for the comment and we are glad that you have joined us here. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Scoop, but my dislike for these differences is because this was exactly what made me despise Christians 50 years ago and drove me into the occult, from which I was blessed to be personally rescued by our good Lord 30 years ago. (Hence, my appreciating the ‘bozo’ perspective!)
It just so happens I’ve been re-visiting my testimony which begins along those lines. So I’d suggest it would be good to act upon my question and await the Lord’s reply…
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s fine Richard. And 50 years ago I was very much into Tibetan Buddhism which appealed to the fact that if our reason on earth was directed toward God most people should dedicate their entire life to the endeavor. So I like the monasteries and self sacrificing of individuals who live like that which they believe. But it was books on Tibetan Buddhism that led me to St. John of the Cross and he led me to those who did exactly the things I expected except in the Christian tradition and belief structure. Over time, and a few ‘minor’ urgings from God, I found myself once again embracing Christ and the Gospels . . . but was convinced that Christ founded 1 Church and that it still existed . . . for if it didn’t then what can be made of the promises of Christ not to leave us as orphans etc. So here I am and at my age disagreements among Christians is 2000 years old. So should I shuck it again because we have had disagreements since the apostles walked the earth? I ca appreciate them as an effort to refine and to unify our thoughts on Christ. I doubt that will happen in our lifetime but this is a good means to understand the reasons for division and what is reconcilable and that which is not.
I hope the Lord gives you the reply that you await.
LikeLike
I should clarify: my suggested question isn’t for me but you and Nicholas to sort out differences, ie presuming you hear do Him clearly, as we don’t need to be prophetically gifted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I see. But Richard, even though Nicholas and I see eye to eye in most things, there are theological differences that most likely will not ever be sorted out without the conversion of one or the other of us. So should these differences be a bone of contention or a way to understand the other person far better than we do at the moment? We find out who each of us are, how we think, why they hold to what we do and why we are loath to hold what the opposing side holds. To me that is like having a heart to heart in the family about differences that divide us. At least we come to a better understanding of whom they are. I have great admiration for constancy in one’s principles and beliefs provided that they have rational reasons for those things. It is good to know people on such a basic level.
LikeLiked by 1 person