The Schema Of Opposition And The Church: A Memorial Reflection.

Preamble: 

Today, August 1st, 2023, marks the 6th anniversary of my flight from the modernist impostor church occupying Catholic buildings and hypocritically laying claims to the Catholic name. This flight took place after my ninth year in “formation” as a temporary professed Religious and a Seminarian: and that ninth year was my second year in theology. This flight was informed by my firm conviction that the “sedevacantist” position, as it is ‘sedevacantism’ simply so, is the only Catholic response to the Vatican II question if I must still profess my faith that the Catholic Church is infallible and indefectible.

My resolve, to the majority, was simply foolish and senseless: six years later it is still not seen in a better light by the majority -blessed be God, truth is not determined by the majority, but by conformity of the mind to objective reality!

For a while now I have considered utilizing the “schema” or “square” of opposition as an attempt to situate the discussion thus far concerning the status of the ‘church’ who identifies itself as ‘conciliar church’, ‘post Vatican II church’, among other titles. Providence ordering all things sweetly, I felt persuaded that this occasion of the sixth anniversary of my flight from the ‘conciliar church’, ‘post Vatican II church’ is a fitting opportunity. 

Oh that this adventure with the schema of opposition proves to be "devotional", (as in an expression of my devotion to the Catholic cause ( and "thought provoking"! (I.e. urge others to cultivate the same devotion to the Catholic cause)

The Schema of Opposition showing the opposed propositions concerning the status of the post Vatican II church/religion, the conciliar church/religion: what a sad enigma to see some oscillating between the propositions "E", "I" and "O", be it willfully or despite their very best intentions... This oscillation works to justify the epithet "anything but Sedevacantistism"...  

The Opposed Propositions Concerning the 'Post Vatican II Church': 

    Caught as it were in the heat of the controversy concerning the status of the 'post Vatican II church', I consider [and, I stand to be corrected] that the opposed propositions involved can be reduced to the following: 

1. The post Vatican II Church is a new church.
2.  The post Vatican II church is not a new church.
3. The post Vatican II church partly a new church.
4. The post Vatican II church partly not a new church. 

In Logic, the first proposition fits the form of an "A" proposition: a universal affirmative proposition; the second, an "E" proposition: a universal negative proposition; the third, an "I" proposition: a particular affirmative proposition; and the fourth, an "O" proposition: a particular negative proposition. 

Noteworthy is that each of these categorical propositions has corresponding consequences, admitting no entrance into a maze of sophistry -it is negligible whether the entrance into a maze of sophistry is merely for the fun of it or calculated to mislead.  

Six years ago, having reached the conclusion that the first proposition alone describes the 'post Vatican II church', the 'conciliar church', I saw sedevacantism per se as the only position upholding this first proposition, to the extent the point of departure is the visible Catholic Church, One in itself and markedly distinct from any other. On account of the need for precision, this Sedevacantism per se is now defended as "Totalism" and "Theological Sedevacantism".

The post Vatican II church in action:
the Assisi interfaith gross impiety,
with the then "Pope Materially" in attendance, and presiding...

Now, the second proposition, "the post Vatican II church is not a new church", cannot be true, since this post Vatican II church has done what the Catholic Church, being infallible and indefectible, cannot do: teaching of heresies and attempting to alter the mission of the Church [the "subsists in" heresy, Ecumenism, collegiality, religious indifferentism, other churches/ religions as means of salvation, stress on dialogue with other religions, not conversion from there; promotion of inter-religious worship ...to name but a few] 

Nor can the third proposition, "the post Vatican II church is partly a new church", and the fourth "the post Vatican II church partly not a new church" hold true, since they deal a deadly stroke, not only at the visibility of the Church, but also at her infallibility and indefectibility, nor is her Unity, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity spared. If "something" is missing in what constitutes a Church the Catholic Church, then that church is simply not the Catholic Church.

I am persuaded that a quick review of basic catechism suffices to clear whatever doubts anyone may have on the matter... 

The Laws Of Opposed Propositions:

The laws governing opposed propositions are as shown in the screenshot view of the text of the class note in Dialectics made available to us back in the Seminary: 

The Laws of opposed propositions: one can't make this stuff up... 

The Status Quo: An Enigma.

The post Vatican II church in action:
fully represented by the reigning "Pope Materially"
with his "material-legal cardinals" of divine institution... 

A. Contradictory Things affirmed: 

They are some who hold firmly that "the post Vatican II church is not a new church", but the same people insist that "the post Vatican II church must be absolutely rejected". Meanwhile, in the real world, only those who hold to the first proposition, i.e. that "the post Vatican II church is anew church"; could logically say that it must be absolutely rejected. What a contradiction: saying "the post Vatican II church is not a new church" while saying "it must be absolutely rejected!"

Now, to say that the "post Vatican II church" is not a new church, and therefore the Catholic Church it claims to be, and insist that it must be absolutely rejected is to affirm that the Catholic Church must be absolutely rejected. But we know that these persons in question who refuse to see in the post Vatican II church a new Church have no intention whatsoever either to reject or to promote the absolute rejection of the Catholic Church, or are we in a way mistaken? 

But what is the basis for the rejection of the post Vatican II church according to these who hold that the post Vatican II church is not a new church? "The Post Vatican II church is a new religion" they say. Thus, for them the post Vatican II church is a different religion, a new religion and must be treated as Protestantism or Arianism or any of the heresies that has afflicted the Catholic Church; a new religion and that therefore it must be absolutely rejected. 

One wonders then: while there is a continuity of "Church-ness" between the "pre-Vatican II" and "post Vatican II church", that continuity does not extend to the "religion" practiced by the "post Vatican II church? So, in one and the same Church there is both an "old religion" [to be absolutely accepted] and a "new religion" [to be absolutely rejected]? Perhaps, using Modernist lingo, the "old religion" within this one church is "extraordinary", and the new religion "ordinary"?  What an apology for the existence of an "ordinary " and "extraordinary " form of the "Mass" in the post Vatican II church/religion! Be that as it may, who does not see the Unity of the Church assailed in this scheme? And the visibility, Holiness, Apostolicity of the Church, how not imperiled?

Now, to the extent the post Vatican II church is not a new church different from the Catholic Church, we should suppose that it must be absolutely accepted. Or should we not? That being the case, the majority is right in thinking my resolve six years ago to absolutely reject it and flee from it's four walls, foolish and senseless; are they not? Then, to the extent it is a different religion, a new religion other that the Catholic religion, it must be absolutely rejected, and I was correct to have rejected it absolutely six years ago, and what do we think of the majority who consider my resolve foolish and senseless? Well! Good luck with the fine church-religion distinction in the real world and the corresponding logical action...

The post Vatican II church in action:
a one-time "Pope Materially" in a joint prayer
with Islamic clerics in a historic Mosque... 

B. A Sub-alternate and Sub-contrary Proposition insinuated:

Now, the same people who refuse to see in the post Vatican II church a new church but would have it absolutely rejected because it is a new religion, insinuate the sub-alternate proposition that "the post Vatican II church is partly not a new church", this in turn insinuates the Sub-contrary Proposition "the post Vatican II church is partly a new church". 

Indeed, the refusal to see the post Vatican II church as a new church stem from a hidden conviction that the post Vatican II church is partly not a new church. How so? 

The material-legal structure of the post Vatican II church is recognized by them as a continuation of the legal structure of the pre-Vatican II Church merely lacking formality. This material-legal structure is sustained by a material-legal college of cardinals. These material-legal cardinals could as well be phony Cardinals but are not phony electors. As material-legal electors, they can designate a person with a material-legal title to the papacy who lacks a formal title due to the positing of an obstacle. This individual with material-legal title to the papacy they do not shy at different points to labeled "heretic”, “apostate”, “antichrist” as occasion presents itself. Though, to the extent he has a material-legal title to the papacy, they insist he must be called also "Pope materially”, sadly, this Pope Materially does not enjoy so much as "obedience Materially" from them, nor does he enjoy "communion Materially" with them... 

At any events, given this scheme, we are stuck with the paradox that the guarantors of Apostolic Apostolicity are none but the purveyors of apostate apostolicity: the heretical, apostate and antichrist material-legal Modernists... 

The Post Vatican II church in action:
a one-time "Pope Materially"
reverencing the Koran with a kiss materially... 
The Koran: containing Mohamedan blasphemies
against the Most Holy Trinity and a host of other impieties... 

C. Scandalous Substantial Identification:

Though they hold that the post Vatican II church is a new religion, identifying the Catholic Church with the same post Vatican II church they categorically affirm also that the "Church is sinking" like the titanic. They say that all the life signs of the Church are bad such that the "prelates" have to do something about it, needing some action, not just words. And this leaves one with an informed Catholic Common Sense wondering... 

So, the Catholic Church, which is not different from the post Vatican II church, is "sinking" like the titanic! Let the reader let that sink in! The Catholic Church, the Barque of Blessed Peter, is sinking like the titanic?! Oops...

But we know that the Catholic Church, the Barque of Blessed Peter, is not "sinkable", for her Divine Founder says, and it is written "...the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18) If the post Vatican II church is sinking like the titanic, what evidence is needed for them to call it a new church which is NOT the Catholic Church? In the real world, as it is obvious, either this post Vatican II church which is sinking like the titanic IS the Catholic Church or IT IS NOT... Who dares say nay?!

Meanwhile, it would seem that since the material-legal structure of the post Vatican II church is the continuation of the legal structure of the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ, shying of an outright identification, at best they will say that by means of the said material-legal structure, the Catholic Church "susbsists in" in the post Vatican II church... But, it is not clear how that helps: a species of the Modernist "subsists-in" heresy to the rescue?  

The reigning "Pope Materially"
locked in a material embrace and kiss with a Mohamendan cleric
 after co-signing a document teaching that
God in His wisdom wills religious pluralism and diversity of religions... 

D. A Yardstick for Vigor

Meanwhile, when in the mode to defend the claim that the post Vatican II church must be absolutely rejected with a vigor worthy of being the yardstick for vigor in defending something, (irrespective of whether that thing is the truth simply so or one's pet opinion that must be defended just because it is a pet...), they bellow thus:

 "if Bergoglio is a true Pope, the Catholic Church is a false religion and you don't have to worry about Heaven, Hell or Purgatory"...  

And, here of course, none with an informed Catholic Common Sense would disagree...

Meanwhile, it should be noted that using the expression "if Bergoglio is a true Pope" makes allowance for the affirmation that he is a "Pope Materially but not formally". But, again: in the real world, heretic, apostate, antichrist Bergoglio is either the Pope or he is not. But we know that a heretic, apostate, antichrist is not a member of the Church, and that one who is not a member of the Church cannot be a "material" for being designated a Pope: put differently, a heretic, apostate, antichrist is in no way "Papabile". What monster then is this creature called "Pope Materially"! 

Rounding up:

We will be in no way taken by surprise if someone fails to see the enigmatic element just analyzed concerning the discussion on the status of the post Vatican II church. Nor would we be taken aback if someone fails to see how scandalous and embarrassing it all amounts to.

 

Post Vatican II church in action:
A one-time "Pope Materially"
receiving "Confirmation materially" perhaps? 
and, they say "he was a true embarrassment for the Catholic Church".
How about saying "he was a true revealer
of the non-Catholicity of the post-Vatican II church?"  

As noted earlier: the second proposition, "The post Vatican II church is not a new church", cannot hold true since this post Vatican II church has done, and continues to do, what the Catholic Church, being infallible and indefectible, cannot do. By it fruits, the post Vatican II church has shown itself as not being the Catholic Church. Nor can the third proposition, "the post Vatican II church is partly a new church", and the fourth "the post Vatican II church partly not a new church" hold true, since they deal a deadly stroke, not only at the visibility of the Church, but also at her infallibility and indefectibility, nor is her Unity, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity spared. Yes, if "something" is missing in what constitutes a Church the Catholic Church, then that church is simply not the Catholic Church. Here it is negligible whether they are categorically affirmed or merely insinuated... 

And, I am still persuaded that a quick review of basic catechism suffices to clear whatever doubts anyone may have on the matter... 

Now, St. Pater, who was in chains just a moment before, "coming to himself, said: Now I know in very deed that the Lord hath sent his angel and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews." (Acts. 12:11).

Six years ago, on this very date, Providence ordering all things sweetly, the grace was granted me to categorically affirm that "The post Vatican II Church is a new church" ; and to act logically: absolutely rejecting it; and thus delivered, as it were by an Angel from the Lord, from the quicksand made of: my then de facto lecturers and formators, who, insisting on a spurious "hermeneutics of continuity" kept insisting on the second proposition: "The post Vatican II church is not a new church"; and the pseudo-trads who alternated between the third and fourth propositions:  "the post Vatican II church is partly a new religion" and "the post Vatican II church is partly not a new religion" respectively. How can I repay the Lord for His goodness to me?! 

Raising the Chalice of Salvation
and calling on the Lord's Name:
in thanksgiving for my deliverance
 from the chains of Modernist impostors occupying Catholic buildings...

While through, with and in Mary Immaculate, Mother of Divine Providence, I will sing forever of God's mercies and the praise of God will always be on my lips as a token of an unalloyed gratitude for that deliverance so miraculous; I entertain some hope that this memorial reflection would pass for something "devotional", and "thought provoking".

However, perhaps just like six years ago, even today on account of my resolve and my memorial reflection concerning my resolve, of me the majority would say: “.. according to his name, he is a fool, and folly is with him...” (1Kgs. 25:25) 

On my own part, knowing “whom I have believed” (2 Tim 1:12) and conscious of being “pressed” (2 Cor. 5:14)  by “the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge...” (Eph. 3:19) I claim for myself these words of King David:  

I am a worm, and no man: the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people. All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have spoken with the lips, and wagged the head. O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my offences are not hidden from thee: Let not them be ashamed for me, who look for thee, O Lord, the Lord of hosts. Let them not be confounded on my account, who seek thee, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to the sons of my mother. For the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up: and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. (Pss. 21: 7-8; 68: 6-10. )

 At any events, I am persuaded that with the enigmatic element in the discussion thus far concerning the status of the post Vatican II church in mind, one with an informed Catholic Common Sense cannot but lament:

How are the valiant fallen in battle and the weapons of war perished?! 

Would to God, it be ours to be welcomed to a news of retraction! 

What the truly “best”, says history, boldly made; winning admiration 

Attesting, from the Original wound of ignorance, even the best has no exemption. 

While waiting, we wait 

Pacing calmly but surely the gait 

We cannot but toot the plait: 

 How are the valiant fallen in battle And the weapons of war perished?! 

How, pray, tell, Even those who claim the title “the best”, prey, of such spell! 

 Oh, tell it not in Geth, publish it not in the streets of Ascalon:

 Lest they rejoice in triumph who regard the anti-Modernist Catholic cause a delusion!