Friday, July 19, 2013

THE KANSAS CITY SHUFFLE - VATICAN STYLE


GUEST POST:




The Vatican City Shuffle:
The Conning of Christendom
By Timothy J Cullen

A Kansas City Shuffle is when everybody looks right, you go left.” (“Mr. Goodkat,” Lucky Number Slevin)

          When the Second Vatican Council ended nearly half a century ago in 1965, the Roman Catholic Church and Christendom were about to initiate a process of change that would prove to be as profound as that brought about by the Protestant Reformation, although perhaps it would be better said “to continue” rather than “to initiate” a process of change begun even earlier and never truly interrupted.
          What makes Vatican II a watershed in Church history is the acceleration and profundity of the process of change: simply put, it is difficult for older Catholics to recognize as the Catholic Church the international organization headquartered in Vatican City and recently presided over by Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, one of the principle intellectual architects of the transformation of the venerable religion that was the foundation of Western civilization and culture into… into… into what, exactly?
          Those seeking the answer to this question must look not to the theological antecedents of the transformers, but rather to the philosophical sources of their thought. As for the ongoing process of transformation—the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity”—, one needn’t look far: two of the former pope’s fellow Germans—Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) provided the inspiration for much of the thinking that went into both process and content.
          Space constraints require that the reader make the effort to familiarize himself with at least the general philosophical direction of both Kant and Hegel, but for the purposes of this essay, it should be noted that Hegel is now perhaps best known for what has come to be known as the “Hegelian dialectic,” generally conceived as the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” model, though Hegel himself never phrased it so, but rather as “abstract-negative-concrete,” by which one may infer that his intention in developing the dialectic was to arrive at the “concrete”—the “synthesis”—though a process of mediation that would end with the retention of what is perceived as useful in the original proposition while employing the dialectical process to move beyond the limitations of the original. In other words, it is a process of continuous change, of immanence, both of these being absolutely antithetical to dogmatic Catholicism, which is to say the Catholic Church as it had existed since its establishment by Christ.
          The Hegelian dialectic was adapted by Marxist philosophers and politicians, most notably the dreaded and murderous Soviet dictators Lenin and Stalin. Communist fellow-travelers have also adopted and adapted the method as a valuable weapon in their intellectual arsenal. The dialectic allows for the slow but steady shifting of the “middle” toward one of the two poles in opposition. In practice, this has meant steadily shifting the “syntheses” to the political left, beginning each new dialectic with an ever-more-leftward-right, so to speak. Slowly but surely, the original “right” has disappeared to be replaced by a “right” that would once have been seen as “left.” It is this writer’s contention that nearly all the post-Vatican II Church hierarchy and clergy have been and continue to be complicit in this deliberate religio-cultural shift to the kind of intellectual subjectivism that characterizes both Protestantism in religion and the kind of oligarchic totalitarianism in politics that typifies both fascism and communism.
          The “Kansas City Shuffle” is a con-game that depends upon misdirection of the victim’s attention for its success. The modernists surrounding the former and present pope—and perhaps the former pope himself—are employing the “Vatican City Shuffle” to move the theological, political, social and cultural position of the Church slowly but surely steadily leftward in sync with what is taking place in secular Christendom, now no longer Christian in anything but name.
          There is an understandable reluctance on the part of the faithful to accept the truth of the above proposition: to do so could be seen as calling into question certain parts of fundamental Catholic doctrine. Then again, one could also posit that the hierarchy, the clergy, the religious and certainly the laity have not only called into question fundamental Catholic doctrine and dogma, but have by their actions demonstrated open defiance. Who, then, is correct? What should one consider Catholic doctrine when what was once quite clear has now become ambiguous to say the least?
          To the best of this writer’s admittedly limited understanding, the answer to the question “who?” is clear: the Holy Father, who is the undisputed head of the Church. Catholic doctrine is very clear on this point and it is an article of faith that the Holy Spirit takes an active part in the election of the successor of Peter. There can be no question that Benedict XVI was chosen pope. If he is in fact a heretic, an agent of the Father of Lies, a deliberate destroyer of the Roman Catholic Church, he is nevertheless the pope and one must believe that the Holy Spirit has made him pope for a reason beyond our present understanding. One could argue that Catholic dogma with respect to the pope has in a sense painted the Church into a corner, but dogma it is and it remains to be seen how the Church will exit the trap laid for her long ago.
          And if Benedict XVI, the modernists and now Pope Francis are in fact being guided by the Holy Spirit, difficult though that may be for a Traditionalist to accept? Should the good Catholic not humbly submit to changes he may find distasteful and threatening? Should one simply accept what the overwhelming majority of Catholics have not only accepted but embraced? Should one be “one with” the Holy Father and “fake it till you make it” with respect to acceptance and embrace of the now-not-so-new liturgy of Paul VI, assuming one accepts that the “new” Mass is valid? Is to do otherwise an act of defiance? Does obedience demand that one follow the Church into what one is in conscience convinced is error; is to do otherwise not the essence of Protestantism? These dilemmas have created great discomfort for Traditional Catholics for nearly fifty years now and show no sign of abating; quite the contrary. What is one to believe?
          Has the Holy Spirit placed upon the papal throne a series of “saboteurs” to test the Faithful? This cannot be dismissed as paranoid nonsense unless one is willing to ignore any and all objective evidence that the Church has been guided in a direction that seems to contravene Her two thousand year history. Or is it God’s will that the Church continue her transformation per the hermeneutic of continuity and that the old forms and faith wither on the vine until nearly no vestige of them remains?
          The “Motu Propio” with respect to what is now known as the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass has not proven to be a great success in inspiring a restoration of the venerable Mass as it existed until 1969. Many bishops have either openly defied the pope or have quietly refused to offer the old Mass with good will or even polite resignation; indeed, the bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Freiburg, Switzerland, has published a decree forbidding SSPX priests to celebrate the Mass in churches and chapels in his diocese! The bishop—also a Dominican theologian, Rector of Angelicum, Secretary of the International Theological Commission and member of the delegation representing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Church’s talks with the Society of St. Pius X—cites in his decree a letter written by Benedict XVI to bishops worldwide stating that SSPX clergy “do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church,” because the society lacks canonical status.[1] This apparently contradictory set of circumstances provides an unfortunately telling example of the “Vatican City Shuffle” in action.
          The “Shuffle” has presented Traditional Catholics with a paradox that will not be easily resolved: if the Roman Catholic Church has demonstrated a strong and apparently irreversible tendency to “Protestantize” herself, then is a Traditional Catholic who believes the aforementioned himself becoming a Protestant if he refuses to accept this tendency in spite of the fact that its characteristics are openly endorsed by recent popes and their hierarchy? Is the institutional Roman Catholic Church recently headed by H.H. Benedict XVI and now by Pope Francis truly what it claims to be, or is it in fact a Protestant simulacrum of what the Roman Catholic Church was until the transformation resulting from Vatican II? Or is the Traditional Catholic simply a stubborn holdout flirting with heresy by way of disobedience? Or is the Traditional Catholic correct in believing that it is Rome and not he who has gone dreadfully astray?
          The “Shuffle” is in play with respect to politics as well. Once a bastion of the “right,” very politically conservative, Holy Mother Church abandoned this posture by failing to condemn communism at Vatican II and has ever since shuffled slowly to the left, embracing globalism and socialism while paying lip service to conservatism by denouncing such brazenly Marxist manifestations as “Liberation Theology.” And socially? Well, simply look at how modern folk dress to go to Mass. Look at how the clergy dress for Mass! Not all that long ago, “abandonment of the clerical dress and state by clerics who have received major orders” was considered apostasy by the Church[2]; now it is the order of the day.
          Some years ago, this writer wrote a Remnant essay in defense of Benedict XVI entitled “On the Tines of Morton’s Fork,” which treats of someone in an unwinnable situation; that situation now applies to the Traditional Catholic: no matter what one does, one loses with respect to being in “full communion” with the pope and Holy Mother Church, seeming ever more like “Holy Step-Mother Church,” if the irreverence can be pardoned. For its failure to bend the knee before the changes of Vatican II, the SSPX has been rather unceremoniously kicked from the curb directly into the metaphorical gutter, as the institutional Church’s bishop of the home country of the SSPX demonstrates: those who do not keep in step with the shuffle are cast aside.
          This writer has lost his faith in the good intentions of the previous Holy Father and of his subordinates with respect to the Catholic faith; the intentions of the pope and his subordinates with respect to the institutional Church cannot be questioned if logical coherence with Church dogma is to be maintained; the “Vatican City Shuffle” has been superbly executed in that respect. Does this loss of faith damn him to hell? It may well. Can one act in opposition to conscience if conscience fails to conform to Church dogma vis-à-vis obedience, no matter how distorted it may now appear? Apparently not. And so…?
          There is a very poignant nineteenth century Negro spiritual sung by the late Paul Robeson (1898-1976 ) and in a very moving version by the late jazz singer Billie Holiday (née Eleanora Harris; 1915-1959) that is entitled “Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child;” this writer shares the feeling with respect to Holy Mother Church, who seems to have left as foundlings him and no small number of his fellow faithful, clergy and religious included.
          The “Vatican City Shuffle,” like the Hegelian dialectic that gave birth to it, has maneuvered many directly on to the tines of “Morton’s Fork” from which there is no truly acceptable release; every which way you look at it, you lose. One need look no further than at the examples of the various priestly fraternities that have tried to reach an accommodation, a “full canonical status” with the Roman Catholic Church as ruled over by the modernists St. Pius X demanded an oath against: they have either bent the knee or found themselves on the outside looking in.
          Bend the knee or not: that is your choice, a choice with consequences.
          Look right; go left! The “Vatican City Shuffle”!
          Care to dance?
          Damned if I do and damned if I don’t.



[1] http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com.ar/2013/02/lefebvrians-are-suspended-divinis-they_2.html
[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

POSTSCRIPT:

We here at The Eye Witness are very pleased to present these thoughts from Mr Cullen, who has contributed many articles to such entities as LewRockwell.com and The Remnant.  

In his article above he paints a sad but truthful picture of some of the goings-on in Holy Mother Church that should concern not only Catholics but the whole world.  As goes the Church so goes civilization.

If I offer any criticism of Mr Cullen's thoughts above it would only be in the realm of the actions of the Holy Ghost during a papal Conclave.  I  remain unconvinced that we can say simply that the Holy Ghost personally chooses the Pope.  We heard much of this in the recent papal election.  The action of the Holy Spirit would seem to be more of a form of guidance to the electors, provided they directly and prayerfully ask for such help from the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.  We have no assurance of that other than a naive hope that the Cardinals so meeting were asking the Holy Ghost for such guidance.  Indeed we have plenty of evidence that certain Cardinals were playing a purely political game and making sure that "their" candidate was getting the right number of votes.  The whole sodomite infiltration also cannot be ruled out of this sorry mix.

Whether or not God, Our Lord and the Holy Ghost are pleased with the current occupant of Peter's Chair I have no way of knowing.  The man is being showered with graces - more graces than those given to any other living person - but it is up to the man himself to cooperate with those graces something, again, I have no way of knowing.

We are grateful that Mr Cullen has offered this piece to us for our little blog and we hope that he will be no stranger to these pages in the future.  

1 comment:

  1. As is said sometimes the truth hurts Sometimes it hurts very much.
    Mr. Cullen has stated the case with
    extraordinary clarity. We are many
    suffering orphans. I hear and read
    hateful comments about tradition Catholics from non-tradition Catholics. Yes it seems perpetually difficult to come to terms with what has happened in the Church. I said difficult but I meant impossible.
    The Lord's Help
    we pray +

    ReplyDelete