The Proverbial Chicken And Termites vis a vis Truth And Falsehood.

 

A Catholic "fowl" will of necessity shake off any "water" of Modernist indifferentism and subjectivism or of any error whatsoever "poured" on it. So too, a subjectivist, indifferentist "fowl" will of necessity shake off the water of objective Catholic integral doctrine "poured" on it... "Verbum sat sapienti est" of course... 

Preamble:

Writing on the Catholic Priesthood, Pope Pius XI had this to say: 

"Profane sciences have indeed made much progress; but in religious questions there is much ignorance still darkening the mind of our contemporaries. This ignorance the priest must dispel" (Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, 57)   

As part of my feeble attempt to contribute to dispelling the ignorance in religious questions still darkening the mind of our contemporaries, particularly with regards to Vatican II and the Modernist impostors, I shared a screenshot of Bp. Charles McGuire's Easter "Bishop's Note" on my WhatsApp status and it got a curious reply from one of it's viewers. 

 My response to the reply seem to have forced my interlocutor to liken me to the proverbial fowl which "would easily always shake off any liquid meant to bathe it" on account of it's "seemingly impermeable skin composition". 

More so, by a dark insinuation he deemed me guilty a "holier than thou" leaning and of "absolute religious fanaticism" - "capable of erupting wars which is antithetical to Christ's teaching on peace"; and judged me to be blind and attempting to lead others. Later on in the chat thread, he insinuated, again, that I, or the Catholic Church that I claim to speak for, "tell lies in order to have converts". He went on to number me among those "grossly inadequate in understanding", and that "it is only light that attracts termites, not darkness".  

Anyone with an informed Catholic Common Sense can tell that my interlocutor's blasts have not their foundation in a carefully thought out analysis whatsoever. 

Be that as it may, how can we relate with the analogy of chicken and termites in relation to Truth and Falsehood, light and darkness to-day? That is the point of this brief article.

The Disputed Bishop's Note

The Note from Bishop McGuire which I posted and became the occasion for the replyreferred to above reads as shown in the attached screenshot below:

Against this no loving child of the Catholic Church, with an informed Catholic Common Sense, would contend. Don't you think so too?

Key points from the Bishop's Note:

• The feast of Easter is one Faith as it is of joy, victory and triumph. 
• Our Lord's resurrection proved His divinity and the truth of His doctrine. 
• There is utter contradiction between what was taught by Christ and His Church and what is taught in Vatican II institution today.
• Examples of such contradictions: denial of historical resurrection (by Ratzinger), teaching that the Holy Ghost use non- Catholic sects as means of salvation (by JP II -as does Vatican II). 

The Reply to Note Posted

My interlocutor had this to say in reply to my status update:

"I feel the proper thing to do is to work towards getting a place in the transcendental abode rather than wasting our time on peti-doctrinal issues, viz: who is right and who is wrong?, which of the doctrines habour the truth or falsehood? Leave it to the greatest judge, as humans are grossly inadequate in all ramifications to engage in such crucial appraisals..." 

Now, imagine that a teacher of great repute, receives the following letter from a parent of one of his pupils whom he failed in an arithmetic test because the child gave 5 as the sum of 2+2: 

"I feel the proper thing to do is to work towards seeing the kids graduate with flying colors and get admitted to distinguished colleges and universities rather than wasting time on peti-arithmetical questions as to whether 2+2 = 4 or not, or which child got it right or wrong. Leave it to the greatest judge, as humans are grossly inadequate in all ramifications to engage in such crucial appraisals..."

Who, being on friendly mode with Catholic Common Sense, would fail to see how this relates to doctrinal issues?!

Well, my response underlining the presuppositions in his reply, where they spring from , and their implications with respect to himself as an individual in particular and to human race in general, led him to make a further reply as follows: 

Well, the fowl, resulting from its seemingly impermeable skin composition would always easily shake off any liquid meant to bathe it. Its a case of absolute extremism/religious fanaticism attempting to convert one who is already saved. Let's pray for divine counseling and direction so as not to either be led astray or lead others astray, this is because it's really difficult for a blind man to lead others; both the blind and those who see. In conclusion, religious fanaticism is capable of erupting wars, which is completely antithetical to Christ's teaching on peace, as reflected in the beatitudes"Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called sons of God"

My honest attempt to point out yet again the false principles enshrined in the reply above was of no help at all. The following came as a sequel: 

Well, the Roman Catholic Church, where I belong, does not tell lies in order to have converts. The more those grossly inadequate in understanding leave, the more we grow and glow. It's only light that attracts termites, not darkness. "By their fruits, we shall know them" Some baseless arguments, such as the one we're into can only lead one into a philosophical cul-de-sac! One who has prejudice as his/her compass will always see nothing good in any person in opposition to his/her view; even if that opponent descends to Earth from Heaven. While you have the right to practice anything you like in the name of religion, you have limitations-not to be on the offensive or grossly lacking in respect 'in the name of God' This is akin to the Jihadist's way of practising religion. Let's think of how to partake of the 'beatific vision' and desist from exposing all what we know garbed in ' absolute holier than thou attitude' God remains the final judge; not any mere mortal."Verbum sat sapienti est"! 

Chicken/Fowl - Termites: brought to the truth corner

It is true that the chicken/fowl can easily shake off any water poured on it because of the nature of it's feather. It is also true that termites seek light, not darkness. 

Now, the idea of a fowl and termites used as an analogy in reference to a human being, a moral being, takes on a nuance that can prove rather disconcerting. 

Take it for an example that a fowl is being poured fresh water and hard water and shakes off either. Replace fowl with human being, a moral entity; fresh water and hard water with Truth and Falsehood. 

The fowl indifferent to either truth or falsehood represents one either formed in truth or falsehood: If formed in Truth, he would shake off 'liquid" of error "poured" on him by a native force of repulsion. On the other hand, if someone were to be formed and established in error he would shake off "liquid" of truth "poured" on him with selfsame innate repulsion. 

Now, termites! Well, just like termites as such could be attracted by a false light, humans are liable to be attracted by false light, false truth. This is where it gets rather slippery and uncomfortable as it is easier for people to be attracted by a false light; false truth, than attract them with true light as such.  

just like termites as such could be attracted by a false light, humans are liable to be attracted by false light, false truth... Right?!

Established in error? Attracted ed by false light? Reasons: 

It should be noted that someone who in the present is established in error and falsehood may be so either due to ignorance or malice. One's ignorance may be invincible or vincible. 

Invincible ignorance is an unconquerable ignorance. The inability to dispel the ignorance may either be that it is impossible for the individual to suspect he is ignorant or that it is morally impossible to obtain the due knowledge although one realizes the need for it. 

Vincible ignorance is simple: if it can be cleared up if one uses sufficient diligence. It is crass if it could be cleared up but is left entirely undisturbed. It is affected if one deliberately fosters it in order that he may not be restricted by what investigation might disclose. 

Analysis of the The Interlocutor in question. 

From my interlocutor's responses provided above, it easy for one with an informed Catholic Common Sense to see how he is pitiably stuck in a series of errors and attracted by false lights. 

From his first response we can point out a number of suppositions: 

1. Insistence on doctrinal rectitude has nothing to do with "getting a place in the transcendental abode" as he puts it.
2. There are no objective principles by which it can be discerned that someone is right and another wrong. 
3. Humans are intrinsically incapable of demonstrating who is right or wrong . 
4. God has not given us the rule by which to know who is right or wrong in matters of religion. 

Who does not see that these presuppositions are fruits of indifferentism and subjectivism having their roots in rationalism, nominalism, naturalism etc? Well, perhaps someone stuck in the same indifferentism and subjectivism. Now, these are/were supposed to be the "water" meant to "bathe" me, or "truths" meant to attract me away from darkness. How ridiculous! 

From the second response, it is clear that 

1.  He considers as "religious fanaticism" the fact of insisting on what is doctrinally right and true as opposed to what is wrong and false so as to ensure ones walking on the right way to salvation. And, by that same token, who does not see that he is bound to accuse the Apostles and Martyrs and Confessors of religious fanaticism? 
2. He advocates for a false peace making which seeks to reconcile things opposed to one another on the ground of compromise -be it in dogma or in morals.  The false peace which seeks to silence the voice of truth in the face of falsehood and error.
3. He implicitly judges that I hold to a wrong position and that I am in fact a blind attempting to lead others, contradicting his supposition that humans are intrinsically incapable of demonstrating who is right or wrong. One wonders: on what basis is he now able to judge that I am a blind to lead others?! 

From his third response, he

1. Implicitly accuses me, a Catholic Priest, of using lies to gain converts [again one wonders how he was able to arrive at that, giving his supposition that humans cannot know who is right or wrong, what is true or false, and must leave that judgement to God...]  
2. Suggests that those, like me, who cut ties with the hierarchy and institution headed by Bergoglio and the host of lay-robbed men in communion with him are people with "grossly inadequate understanding", attracted, not by light, but by darkness. 

He is right about one thing: the Catholic Church; Catholic clergymen, does not, and cannot, tell lies to gain converts. But he is utterly wrong in pointing to the Modernist impostor ecumenical church occupying Catholic buildings when speaking of the Catholic Church. The reason is that, Modernists have succeeded thus far in proportion to their duplicity and lies.

Now, St. Alphonsus Liguori noted in the preface of his "History of heresies and their refutations" that 

"if any sect still reckons many followers, as the Mahometans, Lutherans, or Calvinists, it is easy to see that they are upheld, not by the love of truth, but either by popular ignorance, or relaxation of morals." 

It is easy to see that Modernists command a large following, glows and grows, to-day precisely because of popular ignorance [even on the part of those considered learned in society] and relaxation of morals, both being the effect of the Modernist poison: indifferentism. 

Because the many are dazed by indifferentism, they no longer "endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires" they "heap to themselves teachers having itching ears" with their hearing turned away "from the truth" , but "turned unto fables" (see 2 Tim. 4:3-4)

Stuck in the pitiful rut of subjectivism, no objective evidence -be it from principles or fact- is able to incline them towards the obvious truth. On the contrary, any attempt at pointing out objective principles and facts is by default considered "a baseless argument" which, by a law of necessity, leads indeed to a "philosophical cul de sac!" 

Rounding up:

St. Augustine wrote in his "Confessions"(Bk. X. Ch. XXII, 34)

"Why, then, doth truth engender hatred, why does a servant of yours who preaches the truth make himself an enemy to his hearers (John 8:40; Galatians 4:16), if the life of happiness, which consists in rejoicing over the truth, is what they love? It must be because people love truth in such a way that those who love something else wish to regard what they love as truth and, since they would not want to be deceived, are unwilling to be convinced that they are wrong. 

They are thus led into hatred of truth for the sake of that very thing which they love under the guise of truth. They love truth when it enlightens them, but hate it when it accuses them (John 3:20; John 5:35). In this attitude of reluctance to be deceived and intent to deceive others they love truth when it reveals itself but hate it when it reveals them. Truth will therefore take its revenge: when people refuse to be shown up by it, truth will show them up willy-nilly and yet elude them". 

Irrespective of the hatred that is sure to be our lot on account of siding the cause of objective truth, we would continue in our feeble attempt to whisper to the ears of those who have ears that hear and call them to a keen sense of the sacred duty of "all Catholics worthy of the name and wishful to be known as most loving children of the Church" as once outlined by Pope Leo XIII in his "Immortale Dei" (132-133):

• To reject what is inconsistent with the so fair title of the Catholic name.
• Defend the integrity of Catholic saving doctrines. 
• To not connive in any way with false opinions
• And never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows. 

It was for this very, reason that I shared the screenshot of the "Bishop's Note" against which no loving child of the Catholic Church, with an informed Catholic Common Sense, would contend. 

You see? A Catholic "fowl" will of necessity shake off any "water" of Modernist indifferentism and subjectivism or of any error whatsoever "poured" on it. So too, a subjectivist, indifferentist "fowl" will of necessity shake off the water of objective Catholic integral doctrine "poured" on it. Inasmuch as the ignorance keeping any of our contemporaries stuck in subjectivism and indifferentism is most likely culpable, it is ours, together with providing due information and instruction, to pray for the divine touch of grace so that what our words, empty in themselves, fail to bring about the inner workings of grace may accomplish: "to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). Kyrie Eleison!