So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15). Guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards faith (1 Tim. 6:21-22).

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Fisking the language of rebellion and revisionism; exposing the drones (minions, stooges) of heterodoxy.

Cafeteria Catholic newspeak is a distinct subset of the slippery language used by revisionists to obfuscate, distract, confuse and lobby faithful Catholics while attempting to impose a (skewed) narrative which typically cites the 'spirit of Vatican 2' that fits neatly into the progressivist hermeneutic of discontinuity.

Exposing the revisionist world-church agenda. What we can learn from our Anglican friends in the alternative-Anglican movements.

The progressive or incremental emptying of the Faith by the revisionists, i.e., those who would divide practice from doctrine, a practice well known among our evangelical Anglican friends, can be exposed by identifying specific tactics which are little more than sophistic sleight of hand techniques in the war on orthodoxy. Those Anglicans who left for ACNA or the Anglican Ordinariate are very much aware of the snakes in the grass who routinely attempt to conceal yet another damaging element of the sexual revolution under the guise of mercy.

The struggle of our Anglican friends who have removed themselves from or have been pushed out of the Canterbury-based Anglican Communion and who refer to themselves as biblical Christians, Anglicans who are attempting to preserve authentic Christian mores (even while permitting certain unbiblical and unChristian doctrines, e.g., divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, etc.), should be a cautionary tale for Catholics who are plagued by the anti-marriage agenda some prelates have attempted to inject into the Synod process.

Catholics can ill afford to ignore the implications of the attempts to divide doctrine from pastoral practice. More than a few orthodox cardinals have noted that no such divide between Christ's teaching and pastoral practice can exist. Any attempt to empty Christ's teaching of its truth would be to deny Catholics reason for change to better conform their lives to Jesus' life saving Gospel. Catholics who live under the illusion they can be in an adulterous relationship and also be in a state of grace are not on the road to heaven. Their actions seriously imperil their souls.

Media Mogul of False Mercy?

So then, what are the tactics of incremental change in which revisionists engage to conceal their true intentions? Let us examine the words of a well known Canadian religious media personality speaking about the first meeting of the bishops on marriage and the family which occurred during the month of October of 2014.
Ex. 1—Identify yourself or your group as mainstream.
"The recent Extraordinary Synod of Bishops has invited us to mature, honest dialogue and conversation and to find new ways and a new language to communicate the ancient story of the Church and our beautiful, unchanging doctrine to future generations."
Sounds good so far. Who could object to using "new language to communicate the ancient story of the Church and our... unchanging doctrine of the Church"? The paragraph cited above is preceded by an abbreviated apologia. Is the author attempting to lend weight to his mission by name dropping the Holy Father?
Ex. 2—Self canonize.
"I fully support the teaching of the Church and welcome Pope Francis’ invitation to the whole Church to reflect seriously on the foundations of our faith."
The author of the preceding citations, in an interview with the dissident theologian and former Augustinian priest Gregory Baum which aired October 7, 2012 (S+L TV), stated his agreement with the "spirit of Vatican II" agenda, i.e., the revisionist agenda which has led to confusion and open dissent.
Ex. 3—Canonize one's friends and allies.
"Gregory, we've known each other for a long time. We knew each other when you were a professor here at the University of Saint Michael's College in Toronto. I've certainly admired very much your theology, your writings, but also your love of the Church, your love of Christ and you help to keep alive not only the spirit of the Second Vatican Council but the authentic teaching of the Council."
That paragraph would be amusing were it not for the fact it practically canonizes a dissident theologian who has done considerable damage to the Faith in Canada. One would better find the authentic teaching of the Council by reading Benedict XVI, Pope St. John Paul II and Blessed Paul VI, not the Canadian iconoclasts Baum, Remi De Roo and former religious Mary Jo Leddy.

In the interview, Baum does heap rightly deserved praise upon Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), one of the truly great theological minds of the 20th Century. Baum's cheers in the same interview are, it would seem, more of a back handed compliment to a man Baum appears to consider a backslider of sorts. One who, to his mind, has abandoned the Spirit of Vatican II agenda to which so many misguided individuals still cling.

Perhaps showing signs of age or a well entrenched negative bias, Baum once waxed poetically about a subject he appears to not understand: orthodoxy. Pay attention to the careless attempt to define orthodoxy by creating a false dichotomy between head and heart.
Ex. 4—Revise the norm. 
Baum: "I've never heard this ‘positive orthodoxy’. I mean to be orthodox is all right, but by itself it doesn't give you any life. I mean you have to be a believer, you have to be inspired by the Gospel, you have to read the Scriptures and be addressed again, you have to go to the liturgy and be spoken to, you have to meet other people and work with them and experience love and friendship, to be alive. I mean orthodoxy is in the head, but it doesn't necessarily give you any life, any joy, and energize you. I don't think that we need this enormous unanimity about everything in the Church, I think that in the future we have to, if you go into your parish to find out what people really believe you'll find there's a great variety of beliefs, and I think we are united in the Creed, we are united in the kind of vision that we have of the world and we work together, but this kind of unanimity regarding elements, doctrines that are quite removed from the Scriptures, I don't really think this is such a good formula."
Contra Baum

Orthodoxy is much more than mere head knowledge. Orthodoxy is illumination by truth (illumination by the Gospel), life giving knowledge, the embodied truth of Jesus Christ and His Holy Gospel. The will can only conform to the truth (of the Gospel) discerned in or by the intellect. God the Father provides to those who ask the grace to lead the mind toward accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Illuminated by grace and moved to conversion from sin, the person enters into intimate communion with Jesus Christ and His Church.

Jesus considered right knowledge to be essential to the salvation of man. Should we not also?
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”—St. Matthew 16:13-20
To rob the intellect of right knowledge by diminishing the fundamental importance of orthodox theology for formation in the Faith is to rob the person of soul-saving knowledge. To state that orthodoxy "doesn't necessarily give you any life, any joy, and energize you" is a glaring misrepresentation of orthodoxy and the purpose of orthodox theology. Is it any wonder that Baum has strayed into many a dead end heterodox avenue and taken far too many Catholics with him into dissent? Like so many dissenting theologians of his vintage, Baum appears to be stuck in a narrow rationalistic framework undoubtedly complicated by his revisionist understanding of history and orthodoxy.

Half right is half wrong.

For more than a generation, Catholics have been fed half-truths regarding so very many aspects of the Faith once delivered through the Apostles. The phrase "to find new ways and a new language to communicate the ancient story of the Church...)," etc., offers little protection from the intrusion of heresy into the Church if not accompanied by a firm affirmation of the orthodox Faith. There is little emphasis in the above paragraph from the complete citation (Click HERE) on maintaining the practices which conform to and protect said unchanging doctrine. In other words, there is a necessity to defend the connection between doctrine and practice. Kasper, Forte, Cupich, Baldisseri and others rightly assert a call for mercy. However, they also appear to be intentionally manufacturing wiggle room (that compromises doctrine) where none should exist.

What concerns many faithful Catholics is the inability of certain prelates to understand that to change practice, especially with regards to who may share in Holy Communion, is to change doctrine. Those people who have divorced and remarried without benefit of a decree of nullity regarding a prior union are committing adultery. Can the Church bless adulterous relationships and call herself faithful to the teaching of Jesus Christ? The answer to that question should be an obvious 'no'.

Birds of a feather?

Repeat any thought enough times and people will accept it as Gospel.
Ex. 5—Reinforce the new normal.
"Gregory as you look back over fifty years now since those historic moments in St. Peter's Basilica, October 1962, you've seen a lot, some would say you've seen it all. You remain a faithful, deeply devoted Catholic, you love Jesus, the Church, the Eucharist. What sustains you in the Roman Catholic Church fifty years later after this great moment of hope in the 1960’s?"
Is the interviewer really calling Gregory Baum a 'faithful, deeply devoted Catholic'? Clearly, the definition of 'faithful' is not a good fit for Mr. Gregory Baum who in no uncertain terms advocated opposition to Blessed Paul VI's Humane Vitae, for one. The interviewer's hallowing of Baum is a hollowing of the term 'faithful'. Baum's litany of dissent can be read HERE.

Pot calling the kettle black?
Ex. 6—Demonize opponents and sanctify oneself.
"Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have taught clearly that the Internet and blogs can be of tremendous service to the up-building of the Church and of humanity. They have never taught that blogs and social media should be used, in the name of fidelity, to engender slander, hatred, reviling and destroying."
The author of the above paragraph is right to condemn the use of the blogosphere to disseminate calumny and cruel insults. His argument might be more persuasive if he didn't use the internet to issue his own unkind and inaccurate statements against sites that promote and defend the dignity of man.
"We have an agency in Canada functioning called LifeSite. It purports itself to be a news service for the areas and issues of life. I will say very publicly to those listening - it is not credible, it does not speak for the Church, it is not ethical, it is not honest." (Readers of LifeSiteNews, at least those with whom this blogger is directly acquainted, are entirely capable of determining the accuracy of its content. LifeSiteNews has a strong record of journalistic integrity and, truth be told, has a much, much better record of upholding Catholic teaching than its detractors, among whom are stone-slinging priests who live in glass houses. One cannot help but be amused by the accusation of unethical conduct coming from an individual who threatened to sue into submission a Canadian blogger who merely reported the individual's errant activities, which included exposing his questionable comments, in said individual's own words.)

[N], who spoke of the need for "civility, charity, kindness and humanity" in the pro-life movement, at the same time said of LSN: "I encourage people to know that this is not an authentic instrument at the service of unity and at the service of the Church. It is causing division." (1. So then, speaking the truth, challenging dissent and rejecting anti-life practices does not serve the mission of the Church? 2. Was Jesus causing division when he taught that for man to have eternal life one must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, i.e., Jesus Himself? Apparently, many disciples rejected Jesus' teaching about the Eucharist and walked away. Jesus did not stop them from leaving.—St. John 6:52-59)
[N] continued: "For the one-tenth of kernel of truth that they purport to uncover (and there is truth in what they do) nine-tenths is exaggeration. It is bombastic, it is derisive and it is divisive." (Ah, the casual use of vague statistics. Very convincing.)
He concluded the assault on LSN saying: "I think we have to be very clear and say that part of the work of Satan is to divide - to pit people against each other and they are succeeding quite well." (LifeSiteNews is doing the work of Satan? Who knew? Given his recent shenanigans which aim to demean tradition-minded Catholics, i.e., faithful Catholics, [N] should point his finger at the man in the mirror: Link1; Link2.)
[N] was reacting to LifeSiteNews' coverage of a post on his blog, in which (he) expressed similar anger and frustration against North American pro-life leadership generally and by unmistakable implication, EWTN News Director Raymond Arroyo.
Is the author/interviewer [N] cited above confusing his version of Canadian niceness with authentic charity, a niceness closely allied with a form of tolerance which only permits opinions that agree with the politically correct status quo? If he is, he wouldn't be the first Canadian priest to do so.

This rose by any other name is still a ruse.

By now, having followed links to articles or simply recalling the tone and content of the citations, you know who that media personality is, especially if you have been perusing the Canadian blogosphere during the preceding year or so. His name has been avoided for the reason that his approach to Catholicism is replicated so many times over by likeminded liberal-religionist drones that you cannot swing a thurible in the pews without hitting one of his clones. His behaviour is more important to the critique of liberal-religion, or heterodoxy as it is better known, than is his name. Besides, he receives plenty of name recognition, and this blogger is not about to turn his name into a brain worm by repeating it in every paragraph.

Conclusion

Many bloggers are exposing the language of rebellion and revisionism that frequents the lips of Catholics who care more about appeasing the agents of the politically correct status quo than speaking truth to power.

Will you add your voice to the chorus of those defending the Church's teaching on marriage?

Pray for our priests!

Sources/Links

No comments:

Post a Comment

"A multitude of wise men is the salvation of the world(.)—Wisdom 6:24. Readers are welcome to make rational and responsible comments. Any comment that 1) offends human dignity and/or 2) which constitutes an irrational attack on the Catholic Faith will not go unchallenged. If deemed completely stupid, such a comment will most assuredly not see the light of day. Them's the rules. Don't like 'em? Move on.