The Hollow Victory over Jansenism

Started by Vetus Ordo, March 21, 2020, 01:22:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Arvinger

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 21, 2020, 01:42:09 PM
In terms of the individual Catholic, a paradigm must be developed that allows for critical but loyal dissent on the level of the members of the Gallican Church during the Jansenist crisis. In this, we have to put away the radical ultramontanism that has decayed the fabric of Catholic thought. To use the analogy of the stool attributed to the Anglican divine, Richard Hooker, Catholics must once again lay claim to the idea that we have a multifaceted approach to questions of Faith. Indeed, instead of three legs, our stool has four: Scripture, Tradition, authority, and reason. In the ultramontanist mutation, authority often replaces the other three legs instead of mediating between them. What we get left with in this deviation is a "magisterial positivism" (to use the phrase of Fr. Chad Ripperger in his article, Operative Points of View), in which the positions of the authorities of the Church must be affirmed by any means necessary.

The problem is that so-called "Magisterial positivism" is in fact the basis of Catholic epistemology - QMR was quite right here. Teachings of the Magisterium are not subject to any assessment by individual faithful in order to determine whether they conform with Tradition or not - as soon as you do that, an individual becomes the final authority rather than the Church and there is no way of verifying objectively who's "loyal dissent" is correct and which one isn't.

Also, why "loyal dissent" could not be applied to non-infallible documents such as Pascendi, Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, etc. If an individual disagrees with St. Pius X on modernism, all he needs to do is to point out his encyclical was not infallible, invoke the necessity of "loyal dissent" from St. Pius X's teaching which he judges to be erroneous and voila.

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Arvinger on March 23, 2020, 01:40:05 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 21, 2020, 01:42:09 PM
In terms of the individual Catholic, a paradigm must be developed that allows for critical but loyal dissent on the level of the members of the Gallican Church during the Jansenist crisis. In this, we have to put away the radical ultramontanism that has decayed the fabric of Catholic thought. To use the analogy of the stool attributed to the Anglican divine, Richard Hooker, Catholics must once again lay claim to the idea that we have a multifaceted approach to questions of Faith. Indeed, instead of three legs, our stool has four: Scripture, Tradition, authority, and reason. In the ultramontanist mutation, authority often replaces the other three legs instead of mediating between them. What we get left with in this deviation is a "magisterial positivism" (to use the phrase of Fr. Chad Ripperger in his article, Operative Points of View), in which the positions of the authorities of the Church must be affirmed by any means necessary.

The problem is that so-called "Magisterial positivism" is in fact the basis of Catholic epistemology - QMR was quite right here. Teachings of the Magisterium are not subject to any assessment by individual faithful in order to determine whether they conform with Tradition or not - as soon as you do that, an individual becomes the final authority rather than the Church and there is no way of verifying objectively who's "loyal dissent" is correct and which one isn't.

Also, why "loyal dissent" could not be applied to non-infallible documents such as Pascendi, Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, etc. If an individual disagrees with St. Pius X on modernism, all he needs to do is to point out his encyclical was not infallible, invoke the necessity of "loyal dissent" from St. Pius X's teaching which he judges to be erroneous and voila.

Exactly.

The Catholic model does not allow for anything other than "magisterial positivism", as the author put it. Which is why, ultimately, the traditional Catholic position vis-à-vis Vatican II and the subsequent magisterium is paradoxical: it can only exist if the model itself is ignored. In practice that's what traditional Catholicism has always been, even if unwittingly: a Western version of Eastern Orthodoxy.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

John Lamb

#17
I too have heard Satan tell me how angry God is towards me and how much He loaths and detests me, how powerful he (the devil) is and how complete is his mastery over humanity and human nature, and how the vast majority of human beings will be consigned to eternal flames by the divine Wrath.

This is an almost complete annulment of the power of the gospel and the resurrection, a satanic blasphemy against God and Christ, and a kind of hymn to the devil. The muse of Jansenism is not Christ but Satan, like the poet Milton, there's a morbid fixation on the power of evil and rebellion.

Jansenism turns Christianity into a worthless, if not wicked, religion. Imagine spending your entire life slaving away trying to appease the unappeasable divine tyrant, and then on your deathbed still being in a state of anguish and despair over your salvation. What a miserable "religion". It would be better to be a prostitute than the nun of such a religion, because at least a prostitute might repent and turn back to God the Father, whereas the Jansenist nun has cut herself off from God the Father by worshipping a tyrant in His place. Also, the Jansenist being devoid of any Christian joy, the prostitute would likely have a relatively happier life.

Thank God this satanic subversion of the Gospel is beginning to wane. For me, St Therese of Lisieux is the archetypal Saint who has overthrown Jansenism forever, in that the Church from now on will grow more and more "Theresian", that is, more and more childlike in its hope and confidence in the Father's love. The theory of apokatastasis, universal reconciliation of all souls, is far more likely than the Jansenist/Calvinist twisted fantasy of God picking out a tiny, precious elect for Himself while lording it over the great host of the damned for all eternity. People who want a return to the glories of the darker Gospel of Jansenism are like those addicted to their abusive partners, having internalised the abuse and come to see something beautiful in the violence. This masochistic spirituality is a thorough perversion of the love which God wants to share with us. This is not the religion of wrath and punishment, and those Christians who want to make it so, and who prefer to dwell on us being sinners rather than the redeemed children of God, seemed to have missed the entire point of the New Testament.

[yt]https://youtube.com/watch?v=UBG7YpYU0Qo&t=22m24s[/yt]

Listen to this discussion from 22:24.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Philip G.

If Jansenists are as bad or evil as has been said, the least opponents of them should be able to do is provide example(s) of the moral trespass they are guilty of.  Name one mortal sin that Jansenists practice or preach. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Arvinger

Quote from: Philip G. on March 23, 2020, 10:38:01 PM
Name one mortal sin that Jansenists practice or preach.

Heresy, one of the most serious sins possible, which directly attacks Divine Revelation and thus God himself.

Philip G.

#20
Quote from: Arvinger on March 25, 2020, 11:16:25 AM
Quote from: Philip G. on March 23, 2020, 10:38:01 PM
Name one mortal sin that Jansenists practice or preach.

Heresy, one of the most serious sins possible, which directly attacks Divine Revelation and thus God himself.

Not that I am granting your accusation, but contextually I was referring to matters of morality, as opposed to matters of faith.  You know, faith and morals.  It is commonplace to distinguish between the two, but never separate. 

Or, do you believe that a bad tree can bear good fruit?  Such to me seems unlikely considering our Lord "cursed" a good tree that bore him no fruit.  And, don't cite me disciplinary differences.  Lex orandi lex credendi is not a dogma.  Such is might I say merely prudential, and secondary at that.
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Arvinger

Quote from: Philip G. on March 25, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Not that I am granting your accusation,

The Church has settled the matter, so there is no room for discussion here.

Quote from: Philip G. on March 25, 2020, 11:50:33 AMbut contextually I was referring to matters of morality, as opposed to matters of faith.  You know, faith and morals.  It is commonplace to distinguish between the two, but never separate.

Sins against faith are more serious than sins against morality. As Bishop Sanborn (if I remember correctly) noted, we collectively lost sight of that, even among Traditionalist circles. Thus, for example, sexual sins are treated much more seriously than sins of heresy and schism, even though the latter ones are much more grave.   

Philip G.

#22
Quote from: Arvinger on March 25, 2020, 02:05:57 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on March 25, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Not that I am granting your accusation,

The Church has settled the matter, so there is no room for discussion here.

Quote from: Philip G. on March 25, 2020, 11:50:33 AMbut contextually I was referring to matters of morality, as opposed to matters of faith.  You know, faith and morals.  It is commonplace to distinguish between the two, but never separate.

Sins against faith are more serious than sins against morality. As Bishop Sanborn (if I remember correctly) noted, we collectively lost sight of that, even among Traditionalist circles. Thus, for example, sexual sins are treated much more seriously than sins of heresy and schism, even though the latter ones are much more grave.

Yeah, the same thuc line fraud bishop who says it is a mortal sin to attend an una cum mass.  It all makes sense now.  You totally discredit yourself.
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12

Arvinger

Quote from: Philip G. on March 25, 2020, 02:10:16 PM
Yeah, the same thuc line fraud bishop who says it is a mortal sin to attend an una cum mass.  It all makes sense now.  You totally discredit yourself.

So now it is ad hominem against Bishop Sanborn now rather than addressing an argument, which you evidently can't. It is understandable though, since the Church has settled the matter against Jansenism, so there is nothing to argue about. 

Francisco Suárez

Thanks, as always, for the post and reference Vetus. Another great website to subscribe to. It is, however, yet another nail in the coffin of the old narrative that I once subscribed to. I am left, once again, drifting across the ocean, seemingly without an anchor, or any idea of where to go. I just have Jesus' face in my head from time to time.

Prayerful

Quote from: John Lamb on March 23, 2020, 03:55:50 PM
I too have heard Satan tell me how angry God is towards me and how much He loaths and detests me, how powerful he (the devil) is and how complete is his mastery over humanity and human nature, and how the vast majority of human beings will be consigned to eternal flames by the divine Wrath.

This is an almost complete annulment of the power of the gospel and the resurrection, a satanic blasphemy against God and Christ, and a kind of hymn to the devil. The muse of Jansenism is not Christ but Satan, like the poet Milton, there's a morbid fixation on the power of evil and rebellion.

Jansenism turns Christianity into a worthless, if not wicked, religion. Imagine spending your entire life slaving away trying to appease the unappeasable divine tyrant, and then on your deathbed still being in a state of anguish and despair over your salvation. What a miserable "religion". It would be better to be a prostitute than the nun of such a religion, because at least a prostitute might repent and turn back to God the Father, whereas the Jansenist nun has cut herself off from God the Father by worshipping a tyrant in His place. Also, the Jansenist being devoid of any Christian joy, the prostitute would likely have a relatively happier life.

Thank God this satanic subversion of the Gospel is beginning to wane. For me, St Therese of Lisieux is the archetypal Saint who has overthrown Jansenism forever, in that the Church from now on will grow more and more "Theresian", that is, more and more childlike in its hope and confidence in the Father's love. The theory of apokatastasis, universal reconciliation of all souls, is far more likely than the Jansenist/Calvinist twisted fantasy of God picking out a tiny, precious elect for Himself while lording it over the great host of the damned for all eternity. People who want a return to the glories of the darker Gospel of Jansenism are like those addicted to their abusive partners, having internalised the abuse and come to see something beautiful in the violence. This masochistic spirituality is a thorough perversion of the love which God wants to share with us. This is not the religion of wrath and punishment, and those Christians who want to make it so, and who prefer to dwell on us being sinners rather than the redeemed children of God, seemed to have missed the entire point of the New Testament.

[yt]https://youtube.com/watch?v=UBG7YpYU0Qo&t=22m24s[/yt]

Listen to this discussion from 22:24.

It is hardly a controversial matter than the greater number should fear and tremble for their salvation. St Leonard of Port Maurice stated the matter well, drawing on good authority and his skill as a preacher. The biggest danger with imputing too fixed position to Jansenism is that once Louis XIV set about destroying Jansenism and its theological engine which was the convent of Port Royal, and with Blaise Pascal no longer alive to defend his family and Augustinianism, it became substantially the demotic, miracle focused, and radical movement of the Convulsionnaires, which alienated the more intellectually minded among them. The royal party made certain to fund the more controversialist intra-Jansenist pamphleteers.

I cannot see how the greater number could be saved, given how even among Massgoers, the bigger portion are lukewarm, a category of Christian almost drawing the strongest reprobation. These matters should be reflected upon with great care.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Francisco Suárez on April 11, 2020, 10:57:28 AM
Thanks, as always, for the post and reference Vetus. Another great website to subscribe to. It is, however, yet another nail in the coffin of the old narrative that I once subscribed to. I am left, once again, drifting across the ocean, seemingly without an anchor, or any idea of where to go. I just have Jesus' face in my head from time to time.

What happened to you?
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Xavier

I disagree with fatalist and gloomy predictions and projections on the final number of the saved; which in fact tends to lead souls to even great despair and discouragement, and then makes it even harder for them to be saved. First of all, if you want to be saved, complete the 9 First Fridays to the Sacred Heart, the Five First Saturdays to the Immaculate Heart, or the 9 Fridays and Saturdays to the Twin Hearts. Then, according to the Divine Promises, you can never lose your soul, but will gain the Grace of Final Perseverance, and overcome all sins.

Next, what percent of the human race will be saved? Jut 10% or 1% as some people think? Now, I understand why people believe this; they may see that, in the place where they live, hardly 10% come to Mass. Of those who are habitual Mass-goers, they may estimate that only a further 10% of this 10% are devout and really love God. But the problem is such judgments are subjective and uncertain. Moreover, they are anecdotal and based on very limited experience. It is estimated 100 billion people have lived since the beginning of time. By the end of time, who knows how large that number will be? Perhaps it may be several times that number, like say, 100 trillion?

So, even if, so far, very few have been saved - and that is truly tragic; even one lost soul is terribly painful to God's Heart - it may very well be, when all things come to an end - especially because, according to the Saints, in a future Age, called the Sixth Age of the Church, or the Age of Mary, all men will be Catholic, and almost all will be holy - that a substantial percentage of humanity is saved.

St. John the Apostle says this of the number of the elect in the Book of the Apocalypse: "9 After this I saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands: 10And they cried with a loud voice, saying: Salvation to our God, who sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb." [Apoc 7]

The CE justly remarks on this verse: "That the number of the elect cannot be so very small is evident from the Apocalypse (vii, 9). When one hears the rigorists, one is tempted to repeat Dieringer's bitter remark: "Can it be that the Church actually exists in order to people hell?" The truth is that neither the one nor the other can be proved from Scripture or Tradition (cf. Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theologie", Mainz, 1897, VIII, 363 sq.) ... lest "it should be said to the shame and offence of the Divine majesty and clemency that the [future] Kingdom of Satan is larger than the Kingdom of Christ" (cf. W. Schneider, "Das andere Leben", 9th ed., Paderborn, 1908, 476 sq.)." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm Finally, one also reads in the Apocalypse, chapter 12, that 2/3rds of the Angels were saved, and 1/3rd lost. Now, some say, humanity was created to fill up the ranks lost by the wicked Angels, which is very likely. But does that mean precisely 1/3 or 33.3% of the human race will be saved? No one knows for sure, because we do not know the relative numbers of total number of human beings created to the total number of Angels created. But maybe 33% is a good estimate.

Anyway, we know that, if we pray the Rosary everyday, if we wear the Scapular devoutly and perseveringly, we will be saved in the end. So let us do that, and all will be well.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

trentcath

Quote from: Xavier on April 11, 2020, 11:30:09 PM
I disagree with fatalist and gloomy predictions and projections on the final number of the saved; which in fact tends to lead souls to even great despair and discouragement, and then makes it even harder for them to be saved. First of all, if you want to be saved, complete the 9 First Fridays to the Sacred Heart, the Five First Saturdays to the Immaculate Heart, or the 9 Fridays and Saturdays to the Twin Hearts. Then, according to the Divine Promises, you can never lose your soul, but will gain the Grace of Final Perseverance, and overcome all sins.

This clearly wasn't the view of the many many saints who wrote on the four last things as they almost invariably emphasised the fewness of the saved, Saint Leonard of Port Maurice for example stated
QuotePious souls, you may leave; this sermon is not for you. Its sole purpose is to contain the pride of libertines who cast the holy fear of God out of their heart and join forces with the devil who, according to the sentiment of Eusebius, damns souls by reassuring them. To resolve this doubt, let us put the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, on one side; on the other, the most learned theologians and erudite historians; and let us put the Bible in the middle for all to see. Now listen not to what I will say to you – for I have already told you that I do not want to speak for myself or decide on the matter – but listen to what these great minds have to tell you, they who are beacons in the Church of God to give light to others so that they will not miss the road to heaven. In this manner, guided by the triple light of faith, authority and reason, we will be able to resolve this grave matter with certainty.

Note well that there is no question here of the human race taken as a whole, nor of all Catholics taken without distinction, but only of Catholic adults, who have free choice and are thus capable of cooperating in the great matter of their salvation. First let us consult the theologians recognized as examining things most carefully and as not exaggerating in their teaching: let us listen to two learned cardinals, Cajetan and Bellarmine. They teach that the greater number of Christian adults are damned, and if I had the time to point out the reasons upon which they base themselves, you would be convinced of it yourselves. But I will limit myself here to quoting Suarez. After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he wrote, "The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians, there are more damned souls than predestined souls."

Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, and Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone
. Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned." The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."

The full sermon can be read here https://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

trentcath

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 23, 2020, 02:20:37 PM


The Catholic model does not allow for anything other than "magisterial positivism", as the author put it. Which is why, ultimately, the traditional Catholic position vis-à-vis Vatican II and the subsequent magisterium is paradoxical: it can only exist if the model itself is ignored. In practice that's what traditional Catholicism has always been, even if unwittingly: a Western version of Eastern Orthodoxy.

And yet, so many theologians, and saints, can be cited in support of a doctrine of 'loyal resistance'. I certainly do not think the claim that traditional catholicism is western eastern orthodoxy is even remotely credible, frankly speaking such a claim demonstrates ignorance of both. When, pray, was the last time a traditional catholic group placed itself underneath the state or split in two because of some new independence movement? The distinctive trait of eastern orthodoxy is Caesaropapism, they even have a related 'heresy' what they call 'Phyletism', the confusing of the Church with a race or a nation, usually when a newly independent nation demands its own 'Church'. I certainly do not think traditional Catholicism can be accused of either Caesaropapism or Phyletism.

It is true we live in unique times in terms of obedience to the church hierarchy but it is also true our notion of obedience is informed by a particular view of Ultramontanism that took hold after the First Vatican council, it is possible to hold that certain interpretations of that ideology are wrong without impugning V1, after all many heresies sprung forth from a new perversion based on misinterpretations of ecumenical councils during the first few centuries of the Church.