Feeding the Marriage Memory Hole: Evidence Mounts

bookburn-1

By Steve Skojec at OnePeterFive:

The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) — the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

— George Orwell, 1984 


In yesterday’s piece about Cardinal Kasper and Amoris Laetitia, I noted that the German Cardinal had made a blatant attempt to co-opt Pope John Paul II’s gradualism in Familiaris Consortio as a stepping stone for the much more subversive approach in AL. I then concluded:

It seems that we have at last come full circle. In February, 2014, when Cardinal Kasper gave the consistory keynote that introduced us to the idea of a push for Communion for the Divorced and Remarried, we could see that it wasn’t just talk. Time after time, Francis made clear that he supported the agenda, at first by silence, then by action, and finally by words.

The coup is complete. They got what they wanted. And just like every other doctrinal perversion that has come along in the past 50 years, they will try to shove every understanding but this one down the memory hole and call it “development.”

Today, I spent some time connecting dots, and I realized that this assault is already well underway.

We saw evidence of this reality first with the appointment of the Kasperite Cardinal Paglia and his appointment as the new head of the Pontifical Academy for Life and the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. Shortly thereafter, Paglia gave an interview to Vatican Radio — with a very distinct message:

With these new appointments, in Paglia’s eyes the pope clearly wants to continue the new course which emanates from the Synod of Bishops [on Marriage and the Family]  and his encyclical [sic]  Amoris Laetitia. [my emphasis added]

What I hadn’t realized is that at the same time as we were hearing of Paglia’s appointment, Monsignor Pierangelo Sequeri was tapped to be the head of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Rome. Sequeri, according to LifeSiteNews,

was consultor for both the extraordinary and ordinary Synod of Bishops and took part in the working groups who helped draftAmoris Laetitia. It seems that the implementation of such documents would be in his field of interest. Yet only time and further developments in the Institute will tell if the nominations are in contrast to its mission.

Then earlier this month, it was announced that Cardinal Robert Sarah — who continuously makes waves in the Church by simple statements of basic orthodoxy — would be replaced at the last minute as the keynote speaker at the Roman Institute’s commencement of the academic year. His replacement? Pope Francis himself. That speech took place earlier today. In it, the Holy Father returned to a familiar theme — that the Catholic concept of marriage is an unattainable ideal that requires pastoral innovation and compromise:

“At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. This excessive idealization, especially when we have failed to inspire trust in God’s grace, has not helped to make marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite.”

“Theology and pastoral solicitude go hand-in-hand,” said Pope Francis. “A theological doctrine that does not let itself be guided and shaped by the evangelizing purpose and the pastoral concern of the Church is just as unthinkable as a pastoral plan for the Church that does not know how to make a treasure of revelation and tradition with a view to the better understanding and transmission of the faith.”

In yet another story that broke just this morning, it was learned that Archbishop Denis Hart of Melbourne, Australia, “shocked students and staff” by announcing that the John Paul II Institute in his diocese, would be closed at the end of 2018:

The archbishop yesterday sent a letter to faculty and staff of the institute notifying them of the decision citing concerns about low student numbers.

The Catholic Weekly understands that student numbers had increased in recent years.

The institute was founded in 2001 to “promote marriage and the family for the good of the whole Church and the wider community, within the context of higher education in Australia and education in theology”, according to its website.

I couldn’t find any statements made by Archbishop Hart on Amoris Laetitia, but I did pull up a news story from January of this year in which this shepherd of over a million Catholics (as of 2013) “urged schools to be sensitive and respectful to students who wanted to invite a same-sex date to the biggest night of the year.”

“These are quite often emotional situations and it’s very important that we always have respect for the dignity of the human being involved,” he said.

[…]

“Students in a secondary school are growing up and in developmental stages where relationships are more like strong friendships and are not usually permanent, they are not in a situation where they are committing,” Archbishop Hart said in a statement to Fairfax Media.

“The Catholic Church respects any relationship but always sticks quite firmly with its teaching that a relationship in the eyes of the church is heterosexual, between a male and female, and that is something we would always stand by.”

Archbishop Hart was criticised last year for allegedly burying Jesuit Social Services’s Not So Straight report, which had found widespread bullying and homophobic abuse of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students in Catholic schools, leading to high-levels of self harm, and even suicide.

[…]

Academy principal Sister Mary Moloney said it was a progressive and modern Catholic school that dealt with any issue or concern with an open mind.

“The philosophy of allowing students to choose whomever they wish to accompany them to our school formal will continue into the future,” Sister Moloney said.

You can reach your own conclusions about such moral leadership. Joseph Sciambra (whom I interviewed this summer about his formerly “gay” lifestyle and his conversion to Catholicism) has his own take here.

This is systematic. Cardinal Schönborn as official interpreter saying that AL is “binding”. The Buenos Aires letter. The capitulation of various bishops conferences (which Francis and his cabal have sought to empower from the earliest days of his pontificate). The Cardinal Vicar of Rome — who reports directly to the pope as “bishop of Rome” — allowing communion for the “remarried” in his diocese. Cardinal Farrell, new head of the Vatican division for Laity and Family, saying that AL “is the Holy Spirit Speaking”. Countless other examples, if you want to start digging.

And it is amazing to see that as progressive as Pope John Paul II was capable of being — even on marriage — he was a bastion of orthodoxy compared to these revolutionaries. This is why they have been attacking his work on marriage and family from the get go. Familiaris Consortio is simply an impediment to Amoris Laetitia. As are, no doubt, some of JPII’s other writings on the matter.

The rapidity with which AL is becoming the de facto law of the Church by diktat is breathtaking. I return again to the words of Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, close friend of Francis and ghostwriter of most of the major documents of this pontificate — particularly Amoris Laetitia. You will perhaps recall that he told us to expect this:

“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back.” The interviewer then proceeded to ask him whether it does not help his adversaries when they know that Pope Francis says that his papacy might be short. Fernández answered: “The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at reform that is irreversibleIf one day he should sense that he’s running out of time and doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.” [emphasis added]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Feeding the Marriage Memory Hole: Evidence Mounts

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    Conspiracy theories are structurally all alike — they constitute an interconnected network of self-sustaining narrative, all centred around one over-riding fundamentally paranoid notion shared by the conspiracists.

    Meanwhile, neither the Catechism, nor the Canon Law, nor the Sacraments, nor the Dogma have shifted in the slightest ; and the Pope’s own Vicar, Cardinal Vallini, has made it abundantly clear in his pastoral guidelines to the Roman Diocese that the only means for the divorced-remarried to gain access to the Sacraments, apart from an Annulment or the death of their spouse, is to make a commitment to continence.

    Exactly as the Catechism, the Canon Law, the Sacraments, and the Dogma require.

  2. mmvc says:

    From La Croix International, by Robert Mickens:
    October 28, 2016

    These are interesting times for the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies in Marriage and Family. In the thirty-five years since the now-sainted Polish pope established the specialized faculty at Rome’s Lateran University in 1981, bishops in a further eleven countries (in the Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania) have set-up affiliated sections of this academic centre. And during these three-and-a-half decades these pontifical faculties have been the training ground of some of the staunchest and most inflexible proponents of the Church’s traditional (and some would say, outdated) teaching on marriage and human sexuality.

    One wonders what is fuelling this wide-spread hope that the recently revamped Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies in Marriage and Family will ‘update’ the Church’s teaching on marriage and human sexuality. And why are those who long for ‘outdated liturgies’ to be scrapped filled with renewed hope?

    Again from La Croix:

    Pope replaces all members of Congregation for Divine Worship

    In what is viewed as a major slapdown for Congregation for Divine Worship Prefect Cardinal Robert Sarah, Pope Francis has appointed 27 new members to the body.

    and this:

    Pope Francis today appointed a raft of new members to Cardinal Robert Sarah’s liturgy department, choosing a series of pastoral moderates to replace more conservative-minded figures.

    The move will be read as the Pope’s attempt to rein in the cardinal who has consistently called for priests to celebrate Mass facing East, something the Pope reprimanded him for earlier this year.

    Among the new members of the department – formally known as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments – are Piero Marini, a long-serving master of papal ceremonies and a key proponent of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

    Others named as members, who will effectively oversee Cardinal Sarah’s work and vote on decisions, include Cardinal Pietro Parolin (Vatican Secretary of State) and New Zealand Cardinal John Dew.

    Tablet writer Christopher Lamb helpfully reminds us that “Cardinal Sarah, from Guinea, has consistently called for priests to turn their backs on the congregation while celebrating Mass and has struck a very different tone to the Pope’s merciful approach to families in difficult circumstances.”

    Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

  3. Toad says:

    “Conspiracy theories are structurally all alike — they constitute an interconnected network of self-sustaining narrative, all centred around one over-riding fundamentally paranoid notion shared by the conspiracists.”
    True, but remember Jabba – just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
    Some conspiracies are real. Such as Guy Fawkes, or the Kennedy assassination. (the latter, in my opinion. I might be wrong)

  4. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 08:25

    Well, dear Jabba, one could earnestly hope and pray that your optimistic “move-along-please,-nothing-new-to-see-here” outlook, were true. However, with a slightly closer look at the evidence provided by the Pope’s own actions and words, without even having to go any further to see what his buddies and aides are announcing, I would say that Steve Skojec’s conclusions (and those of the immense majority of orthodox Catholics) are very, very different.

    “Conspiracy theories” are mostly based on certain indications, unconnected clues, rumours, and finally conjecture. But here we have it from the horse’s own mouth, so to speak!

    “If one day he [Pope Francis]should sense that he’s running out of time and doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up.”

    Well, the Holy Spirit is hardly going to say 2.000 years of His divinely-imparted teaching to the Church was wrong, is He?
    Must be some other type of “spirit” prompting PF to wreck that which the Church has always held as holy, unchangeable Dogma…. Ho-hum.

  5. GC says:

    Now here’s something interesting. The day before the Bisher of Rome’s address to the John Paul II Institute in Rome (whose senior management the Rome bisher has recently “reformed”), the Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, announces the closure of the Melbourne “session” of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage & Family because of “low enrolments” (hint-hint). Some are wondering if Rome’s Bisher ever read the memo from Melbourne.

    The Melbourne institute was set up by Cardinal Pell in 2001 before he was moved to Sydney. And the founding head of the institute was Dr Anthony Fisher OP, a moral theologian and now the Archbishop of Sydney. Mmmmm …

  6. JabbaPapa says:

    However, with a slightly closer look at the evidence provided by the Pope’s own actions and words

    Again — forceful interpretations of these things are NOT “evidence” of anything, except of the fact that some people have decided for reasons of their own that the Pope’s words and actions might somehow constitute some sort of “authorisation” for heterodoxy.

    The Catechism, the Canon Law, the Sacraments, and the Dogma are not “changed” by such things, nor by such objectively heterodox interpretations.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    PF to wreck that which the Church has always held as holy, unchangeable Dogma

    Sorry, but this is pure fantasy.

  8. kathleen says:

    Okay Jabba, I get it. According to your interpretation of the mountain of visible events, declarations from reliable witnesses, proclaimed papal testaments (oral and in writing) and current widespread confusion and dissent in the Church that prove the contrary, Pope Francis is doing things just fine. Everything is ticking along nicely and all the problems that exist are down to erroneous translations of the Pope’s speeches, a few bad bishops – not the Pope himself; impossible! – and those traditionalist “nutters” whose eyes, ears and brains are deceiving them – right?

    Who now is spouting “pure fantasy”?

    How someone as smart as you should choose to live in denial of the truth – that this Pontificate is largely responsible for the worsening of the crisis in the Church these last three and a half years – is something that completely baffles me. It’s disappointing too!
    With your scholarship and strong faith you could have been a rock of sanity and a pillar of wisdom on how to tackle and override all these shocks and constant attacks on Tradition, Magisterial teaching, and faithful Catholics, coming from a Pontiff who, whilst constantly sending insults our way, kow-tows to dissenters and heretics. Instead, with evident annoyance and impatience, you bang on about illusory misunderstandings and faulty translations, as well as accusing the most outspoken traditionalists as being “fools” and “factionalists” (thus avoiding tacking the issues they raise), and refuse to see the “evidence” for what it is.

    No true Catholic enjoys criticising the Pope; as I have said before, it goes very much against the grain of our inbred loyalty to the Vicar of Chrst. But at the same time as we pray fervently for our Pontiff, we can not – nor should we – fail to speak up to defend that which is above him, the Church’s sacred Deposit of Faith.

  9. mmvc says:

    Well said, Kathleen.

    I too find Jabba’s attitude somewhat baffling. Rather like Michael Voris whose ‘whatever you do, don’t criticise the pope’ approach continues to puzzle and frustrate many a Catholic!

    It did occur to me that by relying too much on scholarliness, ‘close reading’, linguistics etc., Jabba may be missing the bigger picture that is unfolding during this disastrous pontificate. Ignoring the pope’s questionable actions (such as frequently replacing traditional clergy and staff with liberal leaning we-want-the-church-to-come-into-the-21st-century types) whilst homing in on details such as perceived mistranslations/misinterpretations even of single words, isn’t helpful at all.

    ‘No true Catholic enjoys criticising the Pope; as I have said before, it goes very much against the grain of our inbred loyalty to the Vicar of Chrst. But at the same time as we pray fervently for our Pontiff, we can not – nor should we – fail to speak up to defend that which is above him, the Church’s sacred Deposit of Faith.’

    Amen!

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    According to your interpretation of the mountain of visible events, declarations from reliable witnesses, proclaimed papal testaments (oral and in writing) and current widespread confusion and dissent in the Church that prove the contrary, Pope Francis is doing things just fine.

    Nice attempt to try and turn the tables, but the FACTS are that the Catechism, the Canon Law, the Sacraments, and the Dogma are not “changed” by the conjectures of anyone ; and that the Vicar of Rome, who’s job it is to implement this in the Pope’s own Diocese, made it abundantly clear in his pastoral guidelines to the Roman Diocese that the only means for the divorced-remarried to gain access to the Sacraments is to make a commitment to continence.

    those traditionalist “nutters” whose eyes, ears and brains are deceiving them

    Please do not try and pretend that I’m attacking every traditionalist under the Sun by pointing out that one particular group of activist Pope-bashers has been writing a pile of heterodox rubbish about one single topic.

    How someone as smart as you should choose to live in denial of the truth – that this Pontificate is largely responsible for the worsening of the crisis in the Church these last three and a half years

    “the truth”, oh come on !!!!

    And these so-called “Remnant” who have fabricated non-stop ideological propaganda based on disinformation are supposed to be entirely blameless ???

    The following is somewhat flawed, including in its historical perspectives — http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/10/disease-modernity-cause-cure-thaddeus-kozinski.html — but it does very clearly illustrate the intrinsic flaw of considering that the “truth” is one particular ideological position within the Catholicity.

    While – Of course, the existence of a pluralism of “truths” is not a good thing, for there is only one truth, and error is the result of sin. Pluralism, in short, must be seen, per se, as a grave defect of spiritual, intellectual, social, and political order. Pace neoconservatism, religious pluralism is not the ideal for politics, not the “best we can hope for this side of paradise,” not “the most prudent accommodation to the real world.” The Church’s perennial political ideal of the reign of Christ the King simply does not permit such resignation to sin and worldliness.

    … nevertheless … By encountering the partial truths in other traditions, we are more able to recognize partial truths as partial, both within other traditions and our own tradition, and in our mind’s appropriation and understanding of our own tradition. The tradition of which we are a member may indeed be the true tradition, providing supreme access to the whole truth, yet it can be perceived and grasped by us in a partial, tendentious, or distorted way. Encountering the truths in other traditions can serve to expose that false dichotomy in our mind that leads us to interpret other positions as nothing more than full-fledged errors, and our own position as nothing less than the whole truth. Our position might very well be the closest to the whole truth, but as finite, fallible, sinful creatures, our grasp of it is partial. (caveat – his use of “tradition” here is erroneous, what he’s really talking about, clearly, is ideologies and world-views and factions ; for example, “traditionalism”, “conservatism”, “liberalism”, etc.)

    As Pieper suggests in the quote above, the modern tendency to liquidate the other is far from being a sign of loyalty and devotion to the truth. Rather, it indicates a totalitarian solipsism of the self, an intellectual narcissism or self-inflicted, epistemological violence that translates all one’s experience of the other into the same. When this occurs, any part of the truth that one had genuinely recognized and possessed loses its healing properties as truth, becoming deadly. Instead of a part of truth, it functions now as a full-fledged error, and one becomes blind to precisely those other parts of the truth that could render him whole again. In other words, truth, when embraced partially but interpreted holistically, becomes error, becomes a lie.

    — Here is why the extremists of every stripe dislike the Pope ; he has been resolute in his condemnations of such ideologies.

    In fact, this extract from the article, regardless of its flaws, is an illustration of the nature of Modernism as a Heresy, and of the very source of Heresy itself – which is to consider that one’s own flawed perceptions might somehow constitute what you call “the truth”.

    But there is only One Truth — the Revelation in our Lord Jesus Christ.

    If we fail to understand that any confusions that we may suffer from are from our own Sin, including our Original Sin, rather than from some supposedly blameworthy actions of persons to be designated as scapegoats, then we will remain in confusion.

    Impeninent or habitual adulterers have no access to the Sacraments. This is a FACT, that cannot be “changed” on the “basis” of whatever forcible and dubious interpretations otherwise, including when men such as Kasper overtly promote them, or when some so-called “Remnant” engage in massive efforts to try and reinterpret texts and statements in a tendentious, forcible, and ideologically-motivated manner that, frankly, belongs to the very Modernism that they ostensibly condemn.

  11. Toad says:

    In other words, there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

    “Encountering the truths in other traditions can serve to expose that false dichotomy in our mind that leads us to interpret other positions as nothing more than full-fledged errors, and our own position as nothing less than the whole truth. “
    This is the bit that ought to be set in bold (I suggest.)

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    More :

    None of this is meant to suggest that there aren’t full-fledged, pernicious errors in the world, as distinct from merely partial truths—indeed, there more and worse ones than ever before. Nor am I suggesting that Catholicism is not the whole truth, objectively speaking. But often what we perceive to be absolute error is only a partial truth distorted by being removed from the whole; and often what we perceive to be the whole-truth is only an exaggeration of a partial truth. Finally, the partial truths we often reject as unworthy of our consideration are precisely those we need to embrace for the completion and correction of our thinking. In short, strategic and prudent, intellectual immersions in our pluralistic milieu, always preceded and followed by extensive and intensive periods of nursing at the bosom of the Holy Mother Church, as it were, is, I think, a necessary program to enable us to recognize the partialness of our own and others’ appropriation of the truth, effectively to help end the reign of relativistic pluralism and bring about a new Christendom, and to transcend whatever in modernity that holds us back from union with God.

    As Catholics, of course, we do have “the whole truth,” so why risk plunging ourselves into pluralism, into alien traditions that we know to be fundamentally in error? We must recognize that the Church alone sees and possesses the whole truth (at least implicitly and latently; the expression and recognition of the whole truth by the Magisterium is time-bound and discursive, being historically mediated and occasioned, as Cardinal Newman has taught us). We the Church’s members, however, are always, subjectively speaking, approaching this whole truth, but—and this is the peculiar evil of modernity and pluralism—what we often think to be the whole truth is only our own partial appropriation of it, and, even worse, a part pretending to be the whole. This is the spiritual disease of modernity, and Catholicism is, as always, the cure of all spiritual maladies

  13. Toad says:

    ” Nor am I suggesting that Catholicism is not the whole truth, objectively speaking.”
    I must suppose it all depends on what each one of us means by, “Objectively.”
    1 a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
    b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical *
    2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices:

    Those definitions will do well enough for me.
    How any of them can apply to any religion, is beyond me. Certainly any of those thousands which rely on revelation.

    *Empirical definition: derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

  14. JabbaPapa says:

    Those definitions will do well enough for me

    Not me.

    I prefer OED (the real one, not sundry internet ersatz versions) 2nd Edition, 2009.

    †1.1 a.1.a In relation to its object; as to the object of the action.

    †b.1.b By means of, or in the way of, an ‘objective cause’; by the attraction of some object or end.

    †2.2 As an object of consciousness, as presented to or perceived by the mind (not as it is in itself).

    3.3 As an object of consciousness, in distinction from the mind or conscious subject; in relation to what is external to the mind; externally, really, in actual outward fact.

    †4.4 By way of objection or adverse reason.

    5.5 Gram. In the objective case or relation.

    In this case, probably 2.2 is the easiest one to grasp.

    Please do, Toad, try and limit your admiration of the brilliant Montaigne within the bounds of his devout Catholicism, and perhaps more importantly for your sanity within the Form of 16th Century pro et contra rhetorical norms …

  15. kathleen says:

    What an enormous amount of irrelevant and off topic cut ‘n pastes from you here, Jabba!

    But there is only One Truth – the Revelation in our Lord Jesus Christ

    Exactly! And no one – not even the Pope – has the right to compromise that Truth laid out in the magisterial teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.

    With these above responses to me (discussing “partial” truths, albeit on unconnected matters) you have played right into Toad’s little green hands!
    As he noticed.
    Immediately!

  16. JabbaPapa says:

    you have played right into Toad’s little green hands

    No I haven’t.

  17. mmvc says:

    No I haven’t.

    Can I play too? ;o)

    Oh yes you have!

  18. JabbaPapa says:

    What an enormous amount of irrelevant and off topic cut ‘n pastes from you here, Jabba!

    kathleen, attempts to try and defuse toad’s stubborn relativism that he bases on an overly superficial reading of Montaigne, who was a very devout Catholic, are never really “off-topic” when he tries to spread it about.

    But furthermore, as related to certain comments and blog posts claiming that forcible interpretations of footnotes mentioning neither adultery nor divorce nor remarriage might somehow concern these things exclusively, to point out the common sources of such erroneous readings in the confusions of modernity, viz. toad passim, and in its various hermeneutics of rupture and radical individualism, insofar as all who live in these modern times are exposed to such destructive ideologies and ideas and ways of thinking and understanding non-stop — including in the very action to try and seek refuge from them in some particular exclusivist ideology, as both the radical “progressives” and the “rad trads” have done — is hardly “off-topic”, given that it constitutes part and parcel of my argument against these sectarianist and factionalist extremes that are contrary to the Catholicity as such.

    I do understand that it is natural to want to seek certainties and order in the face of these confusions, but the excess of either of these things is destructive. More importantly, the radicality of Christ’s Teaching is elsewhere, most certainly not in hair-splitting accusations founded upon wrongful interpretations of pastoral generalities re-stated in particular texts.

    It is one thing to complain that a footnote could be willfully misinterpreted by those who already entertain heteredox ideologies — this is a reasonable complaint. BUT it requires that this interpretation MUST be wrongful. It requires rejecting any hermeneutic of rupture, and remaining within the hermeneutic of continuity that is a basic and inalienably constituent part of orthodox interpretation.

    To move on from that to claim that this heterodox interpretation is “what the Pope intended” is only possible within a hermeneutic of rupture, and so it is already objectively incorrect to make such a claim, because it is incompatible with the basics of orthodox interpretation. It is also directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Church as given to us in the Ecumenical Councils of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II that the Pope, when exercising his ordinary or extraordinary Magisterial Authority, could “intend” a heterodox interpretation of his teachings. That suggestion is, in fact, formally and materially heretical.

    To go on from there even further, and to start thinking “ooh, that’s what the Pope intended, so therefore he’s a heretic” is OTOH just plain uncatholic in both scope and intent.

    But to then go out and to start teaching these utter absurdities to others, as those fools at the so-called “Remnant” have done, is to cross the line between entertaining some heretical notion or other (which is not in itself sufficient to be a heretic, because we are all of us very capable of mistaken thinking) to actually start promoting false understandings as if they were “the truth”, is quite simply to cross the line into the direct promotion of heresies when it is done in such a case as this one.

    It is NOT “off-topic” nor “playing into toad’s hands” to point these things out.

  19. Toad says:

    Yes, Jabba – I’m very fond of Montaigne, and don’t care how devout he was, or wasn’t.
    It’s worth noting though, that he never quotes from the Bible, but extensively from the pagan Greeks and Romans.
    And he never once mentions Christ. What do those details prove? Nothing.
    I read him to understand myself better.
    And I wouldn’t care if he mentioned Christ twice on every page, But he doesn’t.
    He’s like a friend to me.

    .”.toad’s stubborn relativism that he bases on an overly superficial reading of Montaigne, “
    I only came across Montaigne some 20 years ago. I was a “stubborn relativist” long before that. And how accurately can you gauge the “superficiality” of my reading – or of anybody else’s come to that?
    Divine Revelation, I suppose.
    A fantastically silly and pompous comment for you to make, anyway.

    …But I forgive you. Because I love you… as I am instructed to.

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s worth noting though, that he never quotes from the Bible, but extensively from the pagan Greeks and Romans.

    Le contraire est vrai.

    http://www.philo5.com/Textes-references/Montaigne_SentencesLibrairie.htm

    De ses 59 citations favorites, Montaigne cite 21 fois la Bible dont 13 fois l’Ecclésiaste et 5 fois Paul de Tarse. Ensuite, par fréquence décroissante, il cite 5 fois Sextus Empiricus, 4 fois Lucrèce, 4 fois Euripide, 3 fois Horace, 3 fois Sophocle, 2 fois Théogonis, 2 fois Socrate, 2 fois Ménandre etc.

    His Bible quotes greatly outnumber those from pagan sources.

    And that’s not even to get started on his extensive reliance on Saint Augustine’s City of God !!!

    Montaigne : Toi qui ignores comment l’âme épouse le corps, tu ne sais rien des ouvrages de Dieu. (Ecclesiastes)

    Excellent advice for you, dear toad …

  21. Toad says:

    OK Jabba.
    Montaigne was as crazy and blinkered Catholic as anyone else in the Inquisition.
    That’s why people over the centuries are so fond of him.
    And, thanks to your information, I will never read another word of him – even as superficially as I did before.
    Will that you?
    (Does your source say how many times he mentions Christ?)

  22. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 08:23

    You were replying to me in your comment at 11:32 and 12:56 on 30th October, not Toad, so to now say your earlier lengthy ‘cut and pastes’ were to diffuse Toad’s “stubborn relativism” and talk of Montaigne is not true, and that is what makes them totally “off topic” to what I was saying in my comments.

    The assault on the Catholic Faith is coming primarily from the enemy within the very gates of the Church, encouraged and abetted (if not directed) by the Pope himself!
    You disagree with Steve Skojek’s analysis that such “an assault” exists, claiming that it is all a “conspiracy theory” and that there is no attempt at a Hermeneutic of Rupture with Traditional Catholic teaching of past papal documents; whereas I (and many, many others) agree with him. Bishop Schneider (re today’s post) does too, it appears, but reminds us that none of these, er, shaky papal and modernist cardinals’ pronouncements are binding on us, DG. Meanwhile though, good and holy cardinals like Burke and Sarah are being squeezed out.

    What is all this talk of yours of “radical progressives” and “rad Trads”? There is only one way to be truly ‘Catholic’ and that is to be faithful to what the Church has always taught for nearly 2,000 years. It is the infiltrated Modernists among the hierarchy (that we have been warned about by Our Lady at Quito, La Salette, Fatima and Akita) who in their cunning way are trying to change doctrine. They are the ones giving the “wrongful” interpretations each and every time, and that we denounce, but you turn it into an accusation against us!

    I no longer understand most of what you say, Jabba. That’s sad.

  23. JabbaPapa says:

    Montaigne, Journal de Voyage :

    Au partir de là, nous alames voir l’egliƒe de Sainte-Croix qui eƒt fort belle. Ils font là grand feƒte du miracle qui avint il y a près de cent ans, qu’une fame n’aïant voulu avaler le corps de Notre Seigneur, & l’ayant oƒté de ƒa bouche & mis dans une boîte, enveloppé de cire, ƒe confeƒƒa, & trouva-t-on le tout changé en cher (a): à quoy ils alleguent force teƒmoingnages, & eƒt ce miracle eƒcrit en pluƒieurs lieus en latin & en alemant.

    This narrative about a local Eucharistic Miracle is just one example …

  24. JabbaPapa says:

    Essays, Book 3, Capter X, De ménager sa volonté illustrates perhaps most clearly Montaigne’s devout Catholicism :

    Et le sainct Esprit de mesme: ne nos inducas in tentationem. Nous ne prions pas que nostre raison ne soit combattue et surmontée par la concupiscence, mais qu’elle n’en soit pas seulement essayée, que nous ne soyons conduits en estat où nous ayons seulement à souffrir les approches, solicitations et tentations du peché; et supplions nostre seigneur de maintenir nostre conscience tranquille, plainement et parfectement delivrée du commerce du mal. Ceux qui disent avoir raison de leur passion vindicative ou de quelqu’autre espece de passion penible, disent souvent vray comme les choses sont, mais non pas comme elles furent. Ils parlent à nous lors que les causes de leur erreur sont nourries et avancées par eux mesmes. Mais reculez plus arriere, r’appelez ces causes à leur principe: là, vous les prendrez sans vert. Veulent ils que leur faute soit moindre pour estre plus vieille, et que d’un injuste commencement la suitte soit juste?

    And likewise the Holy-Ghost saith, ne nos inducas in tentationem: (Matth. vi. 13.) ‘and lead us not into temptation.’ We pray not that our reason be not encountred, and vanquished by concupiscence, but that it be not so much as assayed therewith; That we bee not reduced to an estate, where we should but suffer the approaches, sollicitations and temptations of sinne: and we entreat our Lord to keepe our conscience quiet, fully perfectly free from all commerce of evill. Such as say they have reason for their revenging passion, or any other minde-troubling perturbation, say often truth, as things are, but not as they were. They speake to us when the causes of their error are by themselves fostred and advanced. But retire further backeward, recall their causes to their beginning: there you surprise and put them to a non-plus. Would they have their fault be lesse because it is more ancient; and that of an unjust beginning, the progresse be just?

  25. Toad says:

    Continue to read,savour, and enjoy The Man, Jabba – he’s in a class of his own, as we agree.
    But I fear you are going off your head a bit, these days.
    I pray that I’m wrong on this, but you constantly employ verbal steam-rollers to crack very small nuts

    However, here’s a couple of comments nobody can disagree about:
    “Combien de choses nous servoyent hier d’articles de foy, qui nous sont fables aujourd’huy?
    (How many things served us yesterday for articles of faith, which today are fables for us?)”

    …or…
    “Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he makes gods by the dozens.”

    That’s enough Michel – Ed, (yeah, right.)

  26. JabbaPapa says:

    That’s enough Michel

    Never.

    However, here’s a couple of comments nobody can disagree about:
    “Combien de choses nous servoyent hier d’articles de foy, qui nous sont fables aujourd’huy?
    (How many things served us yesterday for articles of faith, which today are fables for us?)”
    …or…
    “Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he makes gods by the dozens.”

    The first is one of THE most frequently misinterpreted of his questions, not only because so many insist on interpreting it as a denunciation of Dogma instead of as a denunciation of fickleness, but more profoundly because they confuse Classical Pro et Contra for relativism.

    As for the second, it’s simply a straightforward condemnation of paganism, and of failure to accept our One God as Source of All.

  27. Toad says:

    Jabba, nobody’s arguing with you on this.
    Believe whatever you choose about Montaigne, and so will I. and so will everyone else.
    That’s the reason I suggested giving it a rest.
    …Which I will do, anyway.

    You are cracking walnuts with a sledge hammer again

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s