Bishop Williamson: Eleison Comments CXLXI
#1
ELEISON  COMMENTS CXLXI  (6 June, 2010) : CONCILIAR "THEOLOGIAN" I.



The havoc wrought upon souls throughout the world by the 1960's collapse of the mass of Catholic bishops at the Second Vatican Council, is immeasurable. So one can hardly reflect too much on the essential problem, because it is still very much with us, in fact more so than ever. It threatens to send all of our souls down to Hell. Last year the Italian fortnightly periodical, Si Si No No, published an article summarising the main errors of a pioneer "theologian" of Vatican II, the French Dominican Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu. Laid out still more briefly below, his six errors point to the heart of the problem: the putting of man in the place of God (I have changed their order - thereby hangs a tale for another "EC") :



1      Turning to man, as though it is God that needs to be adapted to modern man, and not modern man to God. But Catholicism strives always to fit man to God, and not the other way around.



2      Submitting divine Revelation to modern ways of thinking, e.g. Descartes, Kant, Hegel. No more is there any absolute, objective Truth. All religious statements become merely relative and subjective.



3      Submitting divine Revelation to the historical method, meaning that every truth arose merely in its historical context, so that just as every historical context was or is changing, so no truth is unchanging or unchangeable.



4      Believing in pantheistic evolution, meaning that God is no longer the Creator essentially distinct from creation. He becomes no different from creatures, which come into being by evolution, and by evolution are constantly changing.



5      Putting feelings first in matters of religion, i.e. putting religious sentimental experience above either supernatural Faith in the mind or supernatural Charity in the will.



6      Denying the difference between good and evil, by claiming that the mere existence of a human act makes it good. Now it is true that every human act that happens has the goodness of being, but it only has moral goodness if it is ordered to its end, which is ultimately God. Human acts not ordered to God are morally evil. 



The six errors are obviously inter-connected. If (1) religion is to center on me, then (2&3) I must unhook my mind from reality, where religion centers on God. With the mind crippled, then (4) "nothing is but what is not", so everything evolves, and (5) feelings take over (whereupon religion is by the fault of men feminized, because emotion is women's prerogative). Finally, where feelings replace truth, (6) morality collapses. 



In the Vatican II documents themselves, these errors are rather implicit than explicit, because the errors had to be disguised for the documents to get the vote of the mass of Catholic bishops who were attending the Council but were not yet sufficiently up-dated. However, these errors represent the fully up-dated "spirit of Vatican II", which is where the Council was headed, and that is why the official Church has been on a path of self-destruction for the past 45 years : 1965 to 2010.  For how many more years ?             


Kyrie eleison.
Reply
#2
Once again +Williamson is spot on.

Reply
#3
Yes this explains it  clearly too bad there are 400+ American Bishops meeting in Florida this week that cant read this!!  But their too prideful to admit their faults just those faults of others centuries ago.
Reply
#4
(06-06-2010, 02:57 PM)DeVille Wrote: 6      ...Human acts not ordered to God are morally evil. 



....(5) feelings take over (whereupon religion is by the fault of men feminized, because emotion is women's prerogative). Finally, where feelings replace truth, (6) morality collapses. 


I don't really know about the guy he writes about.  If he has him nailed he did a pretty good job with 2 caveats...

1st, there are human acts that do not fall into the morally good or morally evil...so not all acts not centered on God are evil...for instance...I can eat an ice cream cone...that is not ordered to God...God probably does not care if I eat an ice cream...it may not even occure to me that thanks to God and his creation that I can eat the ice cream...but it is not evil and it is not good...it is neutral.

2nd, this BS about ration man and emotional women is just gay...it is so stereotypical and laughable.  Now there are times when women get emotional...every mont typically...and they admit as much.  But men get emotional every Modnay night while their football team is losing.

To be human means to have emotion and logic...the two CANNOT be divorced...if they are...you are less than human and your conclusions should be suspect even if just for motive.


Other than that he'd did a decent job, assuming he has Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu properly assessed.
Reply
#5
(06-06-2010, 09:19 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: I don't really know about the guy he writes about.  If he has him nailed he did a pretty good job with 2 caveats...

1st, there are human acts that do not fall into the morally good or morally evil...so not all acts not centered on God are evil...for instance...I can eat an ice cream cone...that is not ordered to God...God probably does not care if I eat an ice cream...it may not even occure to me that thanks to God and his creation that I can eat the ice cream...but it is not evil and it is not good...it is neutral.

"...without me you can do nothing." --Jesus Christ


"You say grace before meals. All right. But I say grace before the concert and the opera, and grace before the play and pantomime, and grace before I open a book, and grace before sketching, painting, swimming, fencing, boxing, walking, playing, dancing and grace before I dip the pen in the ink." — G.K. Chesterton

Fr. Vincent Micelli once said that  Lucifer was the brightest and most beautiful of all the angels and he thought so highly of himself that he lost sight of the fact that it was all owed to God and he wanted to be God and that was the cause of his fall.

God who knows the number of hairs on our heads and stitched our bones together while in the womb knows how often He is ignored and forgotten. 


Quote: 2nd, this BS about ration man and emotional women is just gay...it is so stereotypical and laughable.  Now there are times when women get emotional...every mont typically...and they admit as much.   But men get emotional every Modnay night while their football team is losing.

To be human means to have emotion and logic...the two CANNOT be divorced...if they are...you are less than human and your conclusions should be suspect even if just for motive.

The Bishop wrote:  "Putting feelings first in matters of religion, i.e. putting religious sentimental experience above either supernatural Faith in the mind or supernatural Charity in the will."

Reply
#6
No, he paraphrased the error of Fr. Chenu as placing first...his synopsis said "take over" and then went on to call that feminine.

Now he may mean there should be a balance, but it does not come off as that when he adds the women stuff.

"putting religious sentimental experience above either supernatural Faith in the mind or supernatural Charity in the will." is not feminie, it is a falsification, the notions in the above sentence should not be divorced



And sorry...I can eat ice cream without ordering to Jesus...and do so regularly.  It signifies nothing.

And even if I could not eat ice cream without directing it to Jesus...I can choose between chocolate and strawberry with out doing so...

Now sometimes I take time out to thabnk God for the gift of free will.  But I do not do so every time I execise it...neutral.
Reply
#7
(06-07-2010, 04:29 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: No, he paraphrased the error of Fr. Chenu as placing first...his synopsis said "take over" and then went on to call that feminine.
Now he may mean there should be a balance, but it does not come off as that when he adds the women stuff. 

He has stated before that women can arrive at a truth through intuition since they are more emotionally sensitive and reactive.  A man's emotions can decieve him more easily are not the same as a woman's.  A man who behaves and emotes like a woman is not any closer to being a woman and therefore cannot get any closer to the truth using women's methods.  This leads to a Church geared towards responding to male perceptions of what female emotions are and that's why we have Churches overrun with people with gender issues and disorders. 

" (5) feelings take over (whereupon religion is by the fault of men feminized, because emotion is women's prerogative). " 


Quote: "putting religious sentimental experience above either supernatural Faith in the mind or supernatural Charity in the will." is not feminie, it is a falsification, the notions in the above sentence should not be divorced

Men who lead the Church and try to teach sentimental experiences and "pastoral care" that are guided by feelings are essentially reactive, not proactive. The pushback from the world the flesh and the Devil will inevitably lead to the temptation to resolve conflict through compromise and the priority is peacemaking over standing firm on objective truth since the principles are conflicted, to keep the peace or to stand for truth.  These feminine characteristics of peace-keeping and compromise are elements better handled by women and are more appropriate for the home. 

Changing the Church from a Church Militant into a Church "Home" is the feminization feebly done by men who honestly don't have the equipment to "mother" the flocks when they are supposed to be "Fathers" and train, protect and defend the Church from the world, the flesh and the Devil.  It's against the nature of the men who are supposed to lead and against the nature of the Church Millitant. 

The whole Vatican II experiment has been an effort to catch lightning in a bottle (by those of the best intentions) but it is foolhardy. 


Quote: And sorry...I can eat ice cream without ordering to Jesus...and do so regularly.  It signifies nothing.

Then I suppose giving it up would signify nothing when fasting or during Lent. 

Quote: And even if I could not eat ice cream without directing it to Jesus...I can choose between chocolate and strawberry with out doing so...

You could pick the less liked flavor as a mild mortification, or if sharing limited supplies, you could offer your favorite to others first. 

Quote: Now sometimes I take time out to thabnk God for the gift of free will.  But I do not do so every time I execise it...neutral.

If you willfully do not do so, or culpably neglect to so, that is an action that is ordered against God, since your action has the potential to be ordered towards God but does not fulfill that potential.

St. Thomas states:  "We must therefore say that every action has goodness, in so far as it has being; whereas it is lacking in goodness, in so far as it is lacking in something that is due to its fulness of being; and thus it is said to be evil: for instance if it lacks the quantity determined by reason, or its due place, or something of the kind. "

Reply
#8
wow, you really like tp watch yourself type.  tne first setence in your response indicates tne infection you suffer from...the rest,as regards daily actions has some merit but not to tje extent you are trying to streach it.

Some actions are just plain nuetral.

Reply
#9
(06-08-2010, 01:50 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: wow, you really like tp watch yourself type.  tne first setence in your response indicates tne infection you suffer from...the rest,as regards daily actions has some merit but not to tje extent you are trying to streach it.

True to form.  You ignore the substance and take a personal swipe. 

Quote:Some actions are just plain nuetral.

While that assertion is just about as authoritative and God's own "Let there be light."  Can you provide any kind of support beyond your own divine assertion?  I at least pointed to St. Thomas and I haven't even gotten into St. Therese and the "Little way." 

I think we should approach the Bishop's positions on how they line up with Catholic teaching, not our own wishes for what Catholic teaching "should" be. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)