Orthodoxy In Heterodoxy.
Already a couple of times I had comments on my blog – and many more I have read on other blogs – on the lines of “do you realise that what you write goes against the teaching of V II?”, or the variant “what you write has been superseded by the Vatican II documents”.
The writer of such comments has often the obvious aim to instruct the writer of this blog – or, say, some other commenter on another blog – about his mistake; a mistake due to him not knowing that things have, in the meantime, changed.
Religious freedom, ecumenism & interreligious “dialogue”, and the “pastoral” attitude after V II are, from what I could observe, the issues about which such comments are most likely to be made.
A strange inversion of reality has taken place here. What was right, the commenter says, has now been declared wrong. Therefore, people must be informed about the “new right”, in order for them to comply with V II.
This is far, far more absurd than if anyone were to say that 2+2 is now actually 5, white in fact black, and the sun – as thought by V II documents – a satellite of the Earth.
The idea that the Truths of Faith belong to a supernatural order that, by its own nature, refuses the very idea of change escapes such commenters. Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council states – in a more or less confused and contradictory manner – principles that are, or appear to be, or are understood to be in conflict with 2,000 years of Church teaching, such commenters do not conclude that the Council Fathers were wrong, or confused, or misleading, but that what is right has now changed. And these people are, when you ask me, very often the same who worry about the “traumatic change” demanded of “old people” to say “and with your spirit” rather than “and with you too”, or whatever childish nonsense it was that was said until a couple of years ago (blessedly, I have forgotten already. Please don’t remind me).
There is here a defence of the orthodoxy of heterodoxy, a method in illogical thinking that leaves one quite speechless. Something strangely between “1984” and Lewis-Carroll’s Mad Hatter.
Truth is Truth. If it can change, then no Truth has ever existed, because if Truth can change it is evidently… not true.
Mind, we are not talking here about matters of discipline. Truth does not change if Friday penance can be done in ways different from abstaining from meat (which did not work, btw), or if it is decided that the fast before communion should be reduced to, say, three and a half minutes (I am sure Francis is thinking of that). The rules can be questionable, unfitting, even disgraceful; but they are nevertheless expression of the same Truth.
Quite different is the matter if we look at what pertains directly to the Truths of the faith: say, in the matter of the communion for adulterers and public concubines. Here, there are principles at stake that are at the very core of how Christianity understands itself, or better said how the Church defends the Truth of Christ. These Truths are the reality of Christianity exactly as 2+2 represents the reality of mathematical addition. On a logical plane it is not possible to tamper with the ones more than with the others.
To play with such Truths is, however prudently made – not talking of the Kasperites here, rather of Cardinal Ratzinger – always a very dangerous exercise. It is dangerous, because whilst the one or other exception might even make half sense in a way – or not, as the case may be – every exception will unavoidably cause the call for more exceptions; general confusion, and watering down of the way the Truth is presented and, in time, defended, will be the result.
The modern representatives of “V II orthodoxy” are the embodiment of this confusion as it breathes and types. They notice that in most countries there is no obligation of Friday abstinence anymore, and in their ignorance and confusion they conclude from this that, “evidently”, Truth changes. The same reasoning they apply to the Conciliar documents, which leads them to conclude what the Church has said now must be, well, “the Truth for our times”, or some sort of “even newer Testament”. The consequence of this is, again, the dogmatisation and unofficial proclamation of the infallibility of V II, because if Truth has changed, then the Holy Ghost must have backed it. As this man-made edifice shows huge cracks, its walls must be supported with… the beatification or canonisation of past Popes. A rather North Korean approach to an obvious failure, if you ask me.
This “new Truth” approach has the same logic as if a Math teacher were to come in class one fine morning and say “after three years of discussion with 300 other pious fellow teachers, we now think that in the new “age of merciful math” two and two should be, in some exceptional cases and after due introspection, five”, and the class to a man should get up and say “what inspired teachers you are! Indeed, a New Springtime of Mathematics has erupted! Praise the Lord! Santo Subito!”
Obviously, Truths of mathematics are better protected from Kasperite manipulation than Catholic Truth; if anything, because every child can tell you that 5 minus 2 is not 2 and there must, therefore, be a mistake there. But again, this is nothing to do with the intrinsic immutability of Truth, which is and remains in nothing more mutable than mathematics.
It is a sign of the times that we should have these “orthodox heterodox commenters” infesting the blogs, perhaps (and this is a biggish “perhaps”) even thinking they are actually helping someone.
Perhaps, I was saying.
Or perhaps not.
My opinion is that, more often than not, there is some skeleton in the cellar. I remember the “Homo Smoke” types, where I had to aggressively question some of these “merciful” people without rest, before they finally admitted they were homosexual; a circumstance they had thought fitting not to disclose to their audience as they expounded their apparently disinterested view of “mercy” and “tolerance” towards “gays”. **
The same is true today. What are the sexual tendencies of the Jesuit priests so noted for their “merciful” approach to sodomites? An approach which brings them in constant, near contact with a multitude of people clearly looking for, well, male ass, and almost always behaving and dressing in a way that would cause repulsion and disgust in every sane person? Why has the one or other bishop or archbishop suddenly discovered “pastoral” duties that, in his own time in the seminary, might have had them kicked out without even the benefit of a “good day”? And what about the many “charitable” commenters infesting the co boxes of Catholic Blogs like Patheos, of Catholic Answers, or of newspapers? Who is the man or woman (or both; at least genetically) that is writing for the “Daily Homograph” about Francis’ new and “modern” approach? Do they live in sin? Are they straight? Are their loved ones straight? Or have they “gone native” in one way or the other, and are now invested in some heterodox or even perverted agenda we know nothing about, and now tell you how good it is that Francis is, so to speak, so “native-friendly?”.
Beware of the orthodoxy in heterodoxy. And beware of the heterodox, whenever they talk about “charitee”.
** nota bene: the fag has great problems in saying “I am straight”, so big is the ego investment in his perversion. Once put constantly under pressure many will, in time, crack, throwing away the mask and showing their true face. It won’t be a pretty sight.
Posted on May 5, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged communion for adulterers, Kasperites, V II. Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.
That anyone has to write this is depressing. What was sinful yesterday is sinful today and tomorrow. The laity may have an excuse for believing that vice can become virtue merely by decree but apparently there exists Cardinals (and a Pope?) who believe the same thing.
Dear Paul H
yes, you can.
Make all the copies you want, provided you mention the source.
Thank you for the kind words.
Absolutely, Mundabor! I think I’ll just sit here for a while smelling the logic before moving on to the “down the rabbit hole” atmosphere of the mainstream Catholic publications’ comboxes. The number of times I have tried to explain a similar point to this and found myself banging my head against a wall is beyond belief. I don’t get why people don’t get the concept that Truth doesn’t change….because in the nature of things if it changes it’s not Truth. You can change the wrapping paper and the ribbon…..you can’t change what’s inside the box. I don’t understand why people find this difficult.
Because they think if they pretend they did not get it they will get away with it when they die.
“hey, but this is what Francis said”, they will say before discovering, terrified, who the chap sitting near them is.
Pope Francis is democratic when it comes to striking out the lower case and the upper case “T’s” when it comes to tradition in Church teaching and practice.
On that same point:
La Chiesa italiana vuole ancora preti o cerca assistenti sociali? Il “caso” don Ciotti
Con il cuore sempre più angosciato per la sorte del Clero, nel nostro caso dei Sacerdoti italiani, che rappresentano il futuro per la salute di milioni di anime , pubblichiamo le considerazioni di un Sacerdote, certamente scevro da tentazioni pelagiane, ma giustamente preoccupato anzi preoccupatissimo.
Maria Mater Ecclesiae ora pro nobis .
” Oggi vado un po’ controcorrente.
Leggo che don Ciotti è intervenuto, perché regolarmente invitato, all’Incontro di preparazione della visita del Papa a Cassano all’Jonio.
Non deve dare conto a me!
E non deve dare neppure conto del suo essere diventato, in pochi mesi, l’icona della Chiesa italiana e del suo presbiterio. In tutti posso ravvisarmi, tranne che in don Ciotti.
Si dirà che è questione di gusti.
E siccome tutti invocano la libertà dei figli di Dio (che significa tutt’altra cosa), me la prendo pure io: don Ciotti non rappresenta affatto i preti italiani!
Leggo anche questa sua affermazione: “Abbiamo solo questa vita per amare, amarci, per saldare la terra con il cielo e vivere la profezia del tempo che è vivere questo nostro tempo con responsabilità civile”.
Ecco, di questo chiedo conto.
E con me migliaia di preti italiani.
Lasciamo stare la bufala della profezia, tirata in ballo ad ogni occasione.
Lasciamo stare anche la logica, e il tempo presente (cronolatria pura!).
Ma dà proprio tanto fastidio ricordare che Cristo è morto per salvare anime e non per dare cittadini migliori al mondo?
La salvezza non è disincarnata e il cristiano non è un uomo scisso.
Questo lo sappiamo!
Ma non sappiamo più se ancora derivi tutto dalla salvezza.
La Chiesa italiana vuole ancora preti o cerca assistenti sociali?
I don’t usually include long quotes in comments, but this was too good not to share.
“Orthodoxy in Heterodoxy” is an unfortunate outcome of Vatican II. That Council defined no dogma and remained at a modest level as a pastoral. None of its documents have any binding authority.
In retrospect, it can be seen as a waste of time and effort, but sadly, it was utilised by neo-Modernist forces in the Church and this has resulted in prolonged chaos.
St Jean Paul II and Benedict XVI started a process of correction, neither, terribly effectively. Let’s wait and see what Pope Francis I does.
The suggestion by Bishop Schneider that we have a syllabus of erroneous teachings attributed to Vatican II is the answer.
But it will betake another Council and probably 3 or 4 Popes before we get round to that.
I agree with you Mundabor. I stick with Pre-VII teaching and ignore Vatican II. One thing though: You said it was absurd that the Sun goes around the Earth. I disagree. I am firmly convinced that the Earth is stationary, and that the Sun orbits Earth. I believe that the heliocentric model conflicts with Sacred Scripture, specifically the Books of Isaiah and Job.
But let me be clear: I am not writing to correct you, but rather to open a new discussion. I have a great deal of respect both for you and your blog, which was actually the inspiration for mine.
I do not think such discussions are in the remit of this blog, but I publish your comment nevertheless.
“My opinion is that, more often than not, there is some skeleton in the cellar”. Only too true it seems, for laymen and priests, where compromises in the Faith have been accepted / justified.
I heard an interesting aphorism once (albeit from an inveterate VII company-man): All heresy begins below the belt. In most cases, entirely apt.
Very interesting saying.
You know what? I want some mercy from them. I am a regular traditional straight Catholic married mother. Do they care that I suffer willingly for Gods Will? Their talk kills me!
Donna, good point. In all their “mercy” they seem to forget those who cling to Traditional teachings and those who have done so throughout the years. What about the old ladies and old men who were divorced donkeys years ago and, faithful to the Church, never remarried? When they see the younger generations pandered to in all their “lifestyles” what are they to think? I am divorced and a convert…I came to the Church for all the Traditional teachings I thought She stood for…..I came for a reason….because I know what life is like out there outside the Church….and I recognised the Truth in Church teachings….only by the time I got here they had changed something. Same thing with VII….I have heard stories about broken hearted old priests put out to pasture because they took their Mass away, some died from broken heartedness, some went mad, some continued saying the old Mass in private for a few faithful who wanted it. In all their “tolerance” for everyone and mercy for everything, it seems only the Traditionalists are forgotten, intolerable.
With all due respect, how do you suggest we approach examples where it appears we have some notion of change in magisterial teaching completely apart from Second Vatican and the last 50 years?
Examples might be the teaching regarding the proper matter for the sacrament of holy orders [altered/corrected I believe by Pope Pius XII], and, if I may, realizing it has already been touched upon here, doctrine regarding geocentrism.
Also, would Pope Pius XII allowing for the study and consideration of evolutionary theory regarding possible pre-human origins of the human body [though not the human soul] possibly represent a shift of doctrinal perspective from Lateran IV, Trent, and the consensus of the Church Fathers?
Ask the SSPX.
My answer: Darwinism is blasphemy, the theory of evolution isn’t if properly understood (most people say “evolution”, they mean “Darwinism”, but the two are separated).
I am not sold on the theory of evolution, but I did never find it blasphemous, either. I actually never understood how the very theory would not be taken as a further example of God’s lavish, wonderful tapestry of Creation. As we are – blessedly – not Protestants, we do not need to sink into the pits of Literalism, and can take the Biblical message as inspired to be what a God needed it to be to be understood.
It never ceases to amaze me that even in times of dominant Eliocentrism people would still say “the sun goes down”, but it would be wrong from God to use the same language those same people persuaded of Eliocentrism use.
If you search this blog accurately, you will find beautiful – and very orthodox – words of Pope Pius XII about the different way we read the Old and the New Testament. They sound perfectly natural to Italians;,much less so, I think, to Anglos grown up in a “more Biblical than Thou” atmosphere.