Are you up to date on Bulverism ... google it if you don't know about it. I suppose we could coin a cognate verb and say that PF was Bulverising when he waxed eloquent last year on the deep and dark psychological maladies of all those ghastly young people who have Incorrect and Unbergoglian Tastes in liturgical matters.
It seems to me a term with possibilities. One could say "Don't you Bulverise me, you ..." in a very hostile tone of voice.
A thing I do not quite understand is PF's purpose in quoting before Christmas from the Commonitorium of S Vincent of Lerins.
The passage he alluded to also includes, though PF did not quote it, the phrase eodem sensu eademque sententia. Derived by S Vincent of Lerins from the text of S Paul, it was used by B Pius IX, incorporated in the decree on the papal ministry at Vatican I, and contained in the anti-modernist oath. Very significantly, it was used by S John XXIII in the programmatic speech he gave at the start of the Council ... What the Council taught, so he laid down, was to be in the same sense, the same meaning, as the teaching of the preceding Magisterium. S John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor made clear that it applied to questions of morality as much as to those of dogma. Benedict XVI used this same sanctified phrase in his 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia about the Hermeneutic of Continuity. I have recently repeated a series of mine on this phrase which you could find via the search engine on this blog.
Eodem sensu eademque sententia: because the teaching of the Church cannot and does not change.
If this phrase means anything at all, it must mean that the teaching of Familiaris consortio (1981; paragraph 84) and of Caritatis sacramentum (2007; paragraph 29), that divorced people who, having gone through a civil form of marriage, are in an unrepented sexual relationship with a new "spouse", should not approach the Sacraments, cannot already ... in less than a decade! ... have metamorphosed or "developed" into its exact and polar opposite.
Even Jesuits, even the Austrian aristocracy, whether or not adorned with umlauts, cannot really expect to get away with black being white, with non-X and X being identical. Come off it, chaps ... Magnum Principium stat non contradicendi!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Ah, dear Father, don't you realise that you only write this sort of thing because you're rigid, legalistic and suffer from psychological problems?
Bulverism for sure...one could also say that we are being "gaslighted" by the HF. Constantly gaslighted. All in the name of Mercy of course.
Speaking of Bergoglian tastes in liturgy. His celebration of the now notorious ‘Tango Mass’ which reduced the Sacred Mystery to just another ‘strictly come dancing’ gig indicates his poverty of comprehension of the nature and purpose of the Liturgy. His great friend and admirer, Cardinal Vincent Nicholls, exercising his role has teacher of the faith, has abandoned any attachment or obligation to the principle of ‘ eodem sensu eademque sententia’. He now teaches almost exclusively within a hermeneutic of nuance. He is on the record as saying that the ‘language’ the Catechism uses when teaching about homosexuality is no longer helpful. He is proud of the fact that in England ‘we are more nuanced’. If a fellow Bishop asked him to explain to the faithful, in whatever kind of language he preferred, to enunciate the teaching of the Catechism ‘ eodem sensu eademque sententia’ I believe he would do a Pope Francis and simply refuse. My suspicion is that what the Cardinal means by ‘nuanced’ amounts to saying that which cannot be said, namely, ‘I do not believe what the Church teaches about homosexual acts.’ I believe my interpretation of the Cardinal’s position is tenable simply by the fact that, to my knowledge, he has never qualified his nuancing by any clarification. Just failing to teach. As does Pope Francis. How many Cardinals and Bishops have now advocated ‘gay marriage’ with never a correction coming from Pope Francis?
Of course, committing Bulverism (uncritically assuming that your opponent is wrong and attributing their error to personal/psychological motives) also involves uncritically assuming that you are in the right and that your own personal and psychological motives are perfectly sound and self-evidently justify your position without the need for rational argument.
Thank you.
Well, Father, I've referenced it a bit differently to the same end in that in Catholicism today we have far too many who look at a cow and then turn, look you straight in the face, pull a Bible from their pocket, place their right hand on it and swear it is a motorcycle.
With handlebars.
But then that is why we mortals have only maybe a half a dozen original stories ever told, one of them being the Emperor's New Clothes.
You have nailed it here.
Jesus either said something or He didn't.
He made life a lot easier in many ways. He softened many unnecessarily hardened teachings. But when He took on the issue of marriage I think His eyes narrowed, he scanned left and right like we are told in our self-defense pistol classes, He tightened His gut and He tensed every muscle for a fight.
And He ENDED the "Mosaic Compromise" right there and then.
Fact is, even Mercy has a limit, and that limit is found on the Original Intent of God Himself. The Pope can't have more "mercy" than the Son of the Living God.
One Man. One Woman. One Time.
"For I hate divorce" says the Lord.
As that's the case, I really don't give a Rat's Backside for what the Pope thinks about it.
{Says the man who got in a raucous fight this very eve with his precious and wonderful wife of 30 years.}
Thomas: that is admirably logical. I would only add that, in the real world as we experienced it in the Church of England and are now being invited to contemplate it within the Catholic Church, those who uphold Tradition tend to be very willing to give their reasons; it is the Bergoglians who Bulverise. And make things personal and nasty. Witness Bergoglio himself: his long history since his election of hurling malevolent abuse in all directions.
Oh I agree with you Father. My post was not at all aimed at yourself, but rather what Bulverism reveals about the state of mind of those who regularly indulge in it. Perhaps I should have used the more formal "one" instead of "you".
Simple Simon: I think VN's attitude to homosexuals is a bit more nuanced than you think. Contrast his treatment of the Soho Masses episode with his exclusion from their Chapel of the Knights of Malta thereby promoting a homophobic witch-hunt of innocent people.
Thank you for your words of wisdom, dear Father.
You end by implicitly asking as to whether or not some very important divines think they can get away with rejecting the principle on contradiction. Do they think they can get away with it? The tragedy seems to be that they actually believe they are right, and that THEIR teaching is the Church's teaching. They believe that THEIR teaching is what all Catholics must follow. They seem to have rejected the principle that guards all other principles; and they seem to have neutered their own faculties of reasoning by absolutising the words, "Who am I to judge?" They seem to be operating is a philosophical wonderland that even Alice would not recognize, and now are unable to respond to simple questions put by certain Cardinals. The refusal to answer the Cardinals questions is not so much a refusal as it is an inability. Being irrational they will not answer - and will try to justify their silence by claiming they are judging no-one. Their hope seems to be that the majority will be kept ignorant as to the shenanigans being perpetrated in the name of mercy. Disdain for those who dare suggest they may be wrong is permitted because that doesn't break the new first principle: "Thou shalt not judge!"
Seems like the new first principle is "You can only judge if you do not judge" - and unfortunately it is believed by many. Irrationality lies behind the silence: you can not say "yes" or "no" if you are living in a philosophical wonderland.
Dear Father. One hopes your reference to The Commonitorium will cause those of your readers who have not read it to read it.
It is so wise and it has excellent advice for those blessed (not joking) to live during this execrable ecclesial epoch.
The comforting truth is that those of us alive at this time are supposed to be alive at this time and thanks be to the mercy of God it is a very easy time to prove one loves God (He is testing us now) by adhering to Tradition and so one can be less fearful of standing before the Judgement Seat of Christ and being on the wrong side of His Justice.
To-days essential reading is an essay by Father Weinandy OFM at:
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2018/02/22/the-four-marks-of-the-church-the-contemporary-crisis-in-ecclesiology/
It is the most comprehensive demolition of certain aspects of this papacy.
I am disturbed by AL just as much as you, but we must not think that this monster is going to be slayed by repeating the Church's age-old doctrine , since all of that was reaffirmed in AL. Rather, what has changed is the amplifying of the sense that persons can be less than mortally culpable for their grave sin even in acknowledged persistence. This is a matter of conscience and subjectivity. That is where the war will be waged.
"Bulverism" - a new word for me! At first, I thought it might be a spelling variant of "Boulwarism", which concept did not relate in any way. Thank you for this new word which I doubt I'll ever use.
"Eodem sensu eademque sententia: because the teaching of the Church cannot and does not change."
You are surely mistaken, Father. A Cardinal of the Church, no less, explained to Radio 4 listeners one Sunday morning not long ago that the theology of the Church had indeed changed.
Where Peter Is contains a typically Jesuitical article, by a Jesuit(!), explaining why A L says nothing new that had not been said before re. admission to H C of those in irregular marital situations
Post a Comment