It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:47 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
 Orwellian? Or Pistoian? 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Orwellian? Or Pistoian?
From Rorate, a fascinating article: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/1 ... .html#more

Quote:
Saying and Unsaying: The Synod’s Orwellian Atmosphere

It surprises me how often Catholics grasp at straws when it comes to the situation in Rome and in much of the Church’s episcopacy these days. It’s as if they are working as hard as they can to deny the evidence of their senses and to find absurdly far-fetched explanations that will prevent them from having to draw the obvious conclusions.

Let’s consider three facts.

1. To leave something unsaid is often to unsay it.

Many commentators on the interim relatio and the final relatio noted that these documents were rather inadequate (in varying degrees) when it came to articulating the beauty and blessings of marriage as instituted by God and elevated by Christ and defending its truth and goodness. The documents included this or that true statement, but they did not give the lion’s share of attention to the sacrament of marriage itself and its nobility, permanent validity, and abundant graces for the world, nor did they condemn the sins and structures of sin aligned against Christian marriage.

The problem is this: when we purposefully leave something unsaid, and in a context where it ought to be said, we are effectively unsaying it. To neglect to say something when every circumstance demands that it be said is not merely absent-mindedness, a want of affirmation, but a destructive omission that undermines the truth, a black hole that sucks the light into itself.

This is one of the many lessons we have learned from “the Synod experience”—that experience which Pope Francis declared to be a good one, but which was good only in the sense that God the Almighty can bring forth good out of evil. One impressive good that has come forth is the worldwide exposure of the serious lack of orthodoxy and virtue in many members of the hiearchy, as well as a renewed admiration for those heroes of the Faith who are willing to suffer calumny and exile. This is a good thing because it chips away at that dreadful, uncatholic and altogether untraditional ultramontanism and subservience to whatever the shepherds dish out to the longsuffering faithful. It is a wake-up call to abandon sheepish passivity and to stand valiantly for the faith of our fathers, as the laity did during the Arian crisis of the fourth century.

2. To frame an impossible question can be a form of mental abuse.

Other commentators thought that it was “good” that the Pope encouraged the asking of tough questions and open debate on their answers.

The problem is this: many of the questions discussed by the Synod were questions to which the Catholic Faith, not to mention natural law, already has determinate, unequivocal, and immutable answers. Raising these questions is nothing less than a form of mental abuse, a manipulation of feelings and an effort to sow confusion, doubt, and denial. To ask, as if seriously wondering, whether there can be such a thing as homosexual marriage is already to have surrendered to the enemy of human nature; to ask whether active bigamists can receive Holy Communion is already to do violence to the consciences of Catholics and to blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament. There are certain questions it is not possible to raise as if they were still open questions or as if they were healthy intellectual exercises. This kind of question, if it is not an empty show or flatus vocis, implies an epistemological stance, an existential commitment.

3. To follow neologisms or to avoid traditional language is a kind of exploitation and deception.

There are words that signify realities as they are, and there are words that deliberately obscure them. “Living in sin” clearly states that an unmarried man and woman who sleep together are guilty of offending God and harming one another; “cohabitation” is a neutral description that passes no judgment and seems to imply that no judgment can be made. “Concubine” or “paramour” tells us frankly what we are dealing with; “marriage partner” does not. “Adulterous union” calls a spade a spade; with its legal sound, “civil remarriage” decorously papers over the serial polygamy. That Vatican documents should have been besmirched with such “value-neutral” language is a powerful sign of the triumph of factions over fidelity, power over truth, Orwellian thought-control over the liberty of the sons of God.

Should we be surprised? The same thing has happened in the liturgical sphere: instead of the “celebrant,” we speak of the “presider”; instead of the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,” we call it “Eucharist”; instead of “Introit” there is “the opening song.” The novel terms are not false in themselves, but they stem from an ideology that wishes to avoid the traditional language. There are many such examples, all tending in the same direction. Now, more than ever, we must heed the warning of Josef Pieper, who in his little book Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power reminds us that whoever controls language controls reality—a lesson also understood by George Orwell, even if his intuition did not lead him to adore the Logos who alone gives meaning to human speech and reason.

The common denominator between the liturgical reform and the Synod is accommodationism: the view that it is the Church’s business to adapt herself—her worship, her doctrine, her discipline—to “modern man.” That’s exactly what Church leaders today are endeavoring to do, with results that all can see.

The social crisis we are seeing in regard to marriage and sexuality is bound up with the spiritual crisis of no longer recognizing who is the bride and who is the Bridegroom, what is sacred and deserving of total reverence, and what is the purity demanded of the one who would dare approach the altar. Generations of Catholics have experienced a liturgy freed from traditions and marked by casual intimacies, just like their sexual morality. Which came first: relaxation and experimentation with the liturgy, or the slackening and abandonment of moral restraints? In any case, we are alive to see the last stage of the revolution: even as the worship of God was redefined according to the purported exigencies of modern man, so today, the same exigencies are driving the redefinition of man as such—an unsurprising outcome that underlines the connection between liturgy and anthropology.

In a world going increasingly mad, Catholics must bring a healing sanity by saying what needs to be said (especially when authorities are unsaying it), exposing and refuting false questions and false conundrums, and using traditional language to call realities by their names.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Orwellian? Or Pistoian?
Rorate wrote:
It surprises me how often Catholics grasp at straws when it comes to the situation in Rome and in much of the Church’s episcopacy these days. It’s as if they are working as hard as they can to deny the evidence of their senses and to find absurdly far-fetched explanations that will prevent them from having to draw the obvious conclusions.


Amen! But it surprises many of the rest of us how often it is that somebody finally wakes up, even if only partially, and then begins immediately to comment on how sleepy his confreres remain!

Rorate wrote:
The problem is this: when we purposefully leave something unsaid, and in a context where it ought to be said, we are effectively unsaying it. To neglect to say something when every circumstance demands that it be said is not merely absent-mindedness, a want of affirmation, but a destructive omission that undermines the truth, a black hole that sucks the light into itself.

This is one of the many lessons we have learned from “the Synod experience”...


One can find this principle enunciated repeatedly throughout the writings of the Fathers of the Church. He says that they learned it from observing the Synod! Good, but, well, wow!

Calling it "Orwellian" is like crediting Hitler with inventing tyranny. This doesn't matter, of course, it's merely amusing, except that behind it we have a more serious problem - that the writer does not seem to have noticed that the Synod was exactly like Vatican II in this and several other key respects. And, in turn, another synod preceded Vatican II and established its key features so clearly that it stands forth as a kind of template of Vatican II - I refer, of course, to Pistoia, over 200 years ago. In the decrees of Pistoia, things were deliberately not said in contexts where they needed to be; technical terms were not employed where they were the mot juste, the consecrated, unambiguous, perfectly clear terms expressing perfectly settled Catholic doctrine - novelties were preferred instead; and the very ideas that Vatican II favoured were already clearly expressed by Pistoia, such as collegiality (a central aim of the reforms of Pistoia was "to restore to the bishops their native rights abusively usurped by the Roman Court").

Bishop de’ Ricci of Pistoia condemned devotion to the Sacred Heart, discouraged the use of relics and images, played down the value of indulgences, wrecked the liturgy (a vernacular liturgy with but one altar in each church!), founded a press for propagating his errors, and invited from outside of his diocese experts who were notorious for their heterodox ideas. Vatican II ought to be known as Pistoia II.

Rorate wrote:
This is a good thing because it chips away at that dreadful, uncatholic and altogether untraditional ultramontanism and subservience to whatever the shepherds dish out to the longsuffering faithful.


"Ultramontane" is a term which really only ever had one meaning, and that was as an appellation for Roman, as opposed to Gallican, theology, and by extension to those who were faithful to Rome as opposed to those who sought by a hundred means to undermine orthodox and clear doctrine.

The answer to heresy is not to adopt another heresy. The answer is to penetrate into the Church's teaching, discover why and how the heresy is wrong, and then to reject it and attach oneself to the truth ever more fiercely.

The reason that Catholics cannot adopt novelties which are incompatible with the faith is because we are obliged, by the divinely guaranteed authority of the Church, to hold fast to what we have received (i.e. received subserviently by we sheep from our shepherds!).

This true Catholic attitude is respect for, and obedience to, authority. It is in no sense the abandonment of "ultramontanism". Indeed, it has been the constant accusation of the Robbers in Rome from the time of the Council that traditionalists are "disobedient," which was and remains a lie of the first water. They carefully formally commanded nothing, and instead imposed their revolution by tyranny, arbitrary and violent. The disobedient revelled in the new atmosphere, the obedient were horrified.

Rorate wrote:
The problem is this: many of the questions discussed by the Synod were questions to which the Catholic Faith, not to mention natural law, already has determinate, unequivocal, and immutable answers. Raising these questions is nothing less than a form of mental abuse, a manipulation of feelings and an effort to sow confusion, doubt, and denial.

With all due respect to this writer, he's guilty here of exactly what he complains about immediately afterwards, "To follow neologisms or to avoid traditional language is a kind of exploitation and deception." To raise questions against the faith is heresy, not merely "mental abuse." It is heresy to doubt or deny anything which must be believed with divine and catholic faith. It is heretical to ask whether Our Lord is truly present in the Holy Eucharist; it is heresy to ponder whether He truly arose from the dead; it is heresy to ask whether perhaps there is a fire for purifying imperfect souls before they enter heaven. It is heretical to question whether marriage is indissoluble.

Rorate wrote:
That Vatican documents should have been besmirched with such “value-neutral” language is a powerful sign of the triumph of factions over fidelity, power over truth, Orwellian thought-control over the liberty of the sons of God.

This already happened at Vatican II. "People of God" as the name of the Church, for example? That was a way of avoiding the "legalistic" theological terms of the schools, terms which indicated that the Church was a visible unity which had visible walls outside of which most men unfortunately live.

Rorate wrote:
The novel terms are not false in themselves, but they stem from an ideology that wishes to avoid the traditional language. There are many such examples, all tending in the same direction. Now, more than ever, we must heed the warning of Josef Pieper, who in his little book Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power reminds us that whoever controls language controls reality—a lesson also understood by George Orwell, even if his intuition did not lead him to adore the Logos who alone gives meaning to human speech and reason.

Go read about Pistoia, which made this an art form. Here's the condemnation of one of its errors (by Pope Pius VI):

Quote:
29. The doctrine of the synod, in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith [see n. 877, 884], and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith [see n. 997]; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question, — dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics.

There were no fewer than 85 errors of Pistoia condemned by the Church.

Rorate wrote:
The common denominator between the liturgical reform and the Synod is accommodationism: the view that it is the Church’s business to adapt herself—her worship, her doctrine, her discipline—to “modern man.” That’s exactly what Church leaders today are endeavoring to do, with results that all can see.

This was the spirit of Pistoia, and it was explicitly condemned by Pius IX and other popes in the nineteenth century.

Rorate wrote:
In a world going increasingly mad, Catholics must bring a healing sanity by saying what needs to be said (especially when authorities are unsaying it), exposing and refuting false questions and false conundrums, and using traditional language to call realities by their names.


Amen. How about dusting off the word "heresy"?

And to answer the inevitable objection, don't stress over the injustice of accusing somebody of heresy when he might "only" be guilty of grave error. Men who publish what purports to be Catholic teaching have a most serious obligation to get it right. If they don't, then it's their own fault if people become suspicious of their orthodoxy. Let such men stand accused, and let them defend themselves, and by their retractions of error let them make reparation for the scandal they have, at the very least irresponsibly, caused. This is the traditional attitude, so how about traditionalists returning to it?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Orwellian? Or Pistoian?
John that was put wonderfully, I have often told that to my Dad and many others in private. Vatican II is indeed Pistoia II, in fact it was precisely the condemnation of Pistoia that led me to Sedevacantism in the first place. For I had rejected for a good 18 months Vatican II as totally incompatible with the Catholic faith, precisely because of of the way in which Pistoia was condemned word for word it applied to both Robber Councils. If it was true for Pistoia it must indeed be true for Vatican II, for it would be absurd to think that simply because a couple of hundred years will make a difference in a condemnation. If it applies explicitly, then we must by that very fact follow the conclusions.

I wanted to ask you John (or anyone else for that matter), maybe another thread might be better. Whichever you think is better. I have my own answer, but this was the one objection that kept in me sedeplenism for quite a bit. I still think that it is the best objection... I believe I have given a partial response elsewhere in the forum, but not fully (maybe I never did in this forum).

Annas and Caiphas were considered the successors of the Chair of Moses. Despite them being appointed by the state (this was going on for 150 years previous to the birth of Christ) they were recognized by Our Lord as the High priests of the time, which had very specific liturgical/spiritual/jurisdictional functions. You even have Saint John, mention how he spoke through his office when he gave his famous prophetic speech.

DRBO:
Quote:
John 11: 49But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. 50Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. 52And not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God, that were dispersed.


The problem is that Annas and Caiphas were heretics regarding the resurrection of the body, we know this because they were Sadducees. They also did not believe in the immortality of the soul, and this is evident from Our Lord's response to them.

Quote:
DRB: Matthew 12: 18 And there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying: 19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, that if any man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. 20Now there were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no issue. 21And the second took her, and died: and neither did he leave any issue. And the third in like manner. 22And the seven all took her in like manner; and did not leave issue. Last of all the woman also died. 23In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? 25For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven. 26And as concerning the dead that they rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.


So how is it that Our Lord did not spiritually depose them right then and there, declared them anathema. Again I have an excellent response to this question, and every single possible way to look at it, but it was this question that I felt was a strong enough objection for a while to keep me as a sedeplenist.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:08 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Orwellian? Or Pistoian?
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
The problem is that Annas and Caiphas were heretics regarding the resurrection of the body, we know this because they were Sadducees. They also did not believe in the immortality of the soul, and this is evident from Our Lord's response to them.


Was it heresy or was it a different theological opinion? To be heresy, it would have had to be authoritatively and settled declared doctrine of the Jews, no? Was this a new doctrine? It seems to me that the doctrines pretty much lived hand-in-hand over the centuries but, because they did not have the Holy Ghost to guide them they were unable to come to the Truth of the matter.

I've never heard anyone use the term, heretic, to describe the Sadducees before.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Orwellian? Or Pistoian?
TKGS wrote:
Jorge Armendariz wrote:
The problem is that Annas and Caiphas were heretics regarding the resurrection of the body, we know this because they were Sadducees. They also did not believe in the immortality of the soul, and this is evident from Our Lord's response to them.


Was it heresy or was it a different theological opinion? To be heresy, it would have had to be authoritatively and settled declared doctrine of the Jews, no? Was this a new doctrine? It seems to me that the doctrines pretty much lived hand-in-hand over the centuries but, because they did not have the Holy Ghost to guide them they were unable to come to the Truth of the matter.

I've never heard anyone use the term, heretic, to describe the Sadducees before.


Well we know Our Lord says that they greatly erred, haven't checked to see the Greek. It was a teaching from the prophets and mainstream teaching in Judaism. Even the modern Orthodox Jews accept that teaching, and it is pretty much undisputed that they definitely erred about key doctrines dealing with salvation. Especially given all the prophets that had already come and taught that specific doctrine. The concept of Sheol did develop more specifically over time, and so it is understandable that some time must be given to give the jews the benefit of the doubt.

Doubting the immortality of the soul, really makes for a complete naturalist religion. This is why Our Lord condemned them so vehemently for it naturally leads to that. The true God is the God of the living, not the dead. It is truly and absolutely heretical according to the teachings of the Law and the prophets. However, the sect of the Sadduccees gained their power through the hand of the state and they did all of these things before the birth of Our Lord. So I guess it could be compared to Simony in some ways, because the state is pretty much choosing the winner (high priest), based on the highest bidder. Not necessarily always money, but there are many other forms of capital that the state was basing its appointments. Which is why when Our Lord arrived the whole situation was just pure filth, a total violation of the Mosaic Law. The Pentateuch makes it very clear how the High priest is to be appointed etc...

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:22 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.