As you know, on Saturday I posted a video asking what I think is one of the most important questions of our time; namely, is Mortalium Animos still the faith of the Holy Catholic Church?
In that video I invited a number of prominent apologists / theologians to engage in a conversation on this topic, among them Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Michael Voris and Marcellino D’Ambrosio and unnamed others with similar apostolates.
The fact is, no one owed me a response, but I’m happy to say that after posting it to Face Book (which I realize all of you don’t dabble in), Jimmy Akin was kind enough to respond, and I do mean kind.
Obviously, there are some things concerning the state of the Church today that he and I see differently, but having had the opportunity to exchange some private emails with him, I can attest that Jimmy Akin is a true gentleman.
I’ve created a new page on this website, The Ecumenical Question, where I will update my exchange with Mr. Akin as it progresses. (I may add a tab for it above later.) It’s up to date now if you care to take a look.
As you’ll see, I’ve decided to close that page to comments so as to leave it simply as a place where our examination of Mortalium Animos and its relevance in the life of the Church today can be read.
This might be a good opportunity for those of you who are interested in offering feedback and commentary on the conversation to make use of the Forum on this site for that purpose. I’ve already created a topic on the Forum for this purpose.
Good on Jimmy to respond.
–
I think all in all, the matter is entirely cut and dried when seen logically.
–
There can only be one objective truth.
–
Everyone must accept that truth if they want to accept reality.
–
Everyone must accept the consequences of that reality and truth.
–
If that Truth imposes something on our lives then we are bound to conform ourselves to that reality or risk the consequences that come from choosing not to do so.
–
The only people who cannot except this are those who are opposed to Truth as a virtue and believe in indifferentism and relativity where absolutes can never be known. But upon stating there are no absolutes, they state this absolutely and thus believe in a contradiction, which makes no sense. One can of course stubbornly believe this contradiction, but then one undermines his own case and has no argument for why another who believes in Truth can’t impose that Truth upon them.
–
Others claim we are incapable of knowing or arriving at absolute truth, in which case Pascal’s Wager kicks in and they are better off conforming themselves to the truth that is most knowable. Thus they are still obligated to search for it, which takes us back to point 1.
–
Basically, if the Catholic Faith is the Truth, then all men are obligated to follow it, in its entirety, and all Catholics are likewise obligated to make this Truth known to others and impose it upon their intellect and hearts, making them fertile for the seeds of God’s grace for when they shall be converted.
There is also the simplicity of the ‘Golden Rule’ – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
–
I want to be saved from going to Hell.
–
Therefore I should help save others from going to Hell.
–
If the Catholic Faith and the Sacraments are necessary for my Salvation from Hell, then I should also give the Catholic Faith and the Sacraments to others.
–
If false religions don’t save me from Hell and only endanger me more, then I should also help bring people away from false religions.
–
All of this is really simple basic 101 stuff that a child could tell you. Certainly there are suitable times and places to engage in evangelism and when not to do so which we leaving it to individuals to judge such circumstances and opportunities. But to proclaim that it is not necessary to convert anyone, or to say that the faith necessary for salvation is not important, or to say that the contradictory differences between the Truth and the Falsehoods do not matter, only seeks to destroy that simplicity. It would frankly be better never to open ones mouth and say anything at all, rather than to speak an untruth and encourage a falsity.
“I can attest that Jimmy Akin is a true gentleman.”
I got this impression from reading the account of his conversion.
Edward Feser wrote an excellent commentary on the current situation in the Church:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/10/nudge-nudge-wink-wink.html
His follow up post is worth reading as well:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/11/voluntarism-and-psr.html
Fr. Chad Ripperger’s essay on the difference in mindset between traditional and conservative Catholics is also worth reading since it is pertinent to this discussion:
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_mar01.html
Dear Louie,
We’ll be following this discussion with much interest, and praying for you both. It could be very interesting if it doesn’t get bogged down with neo con. semantics which prevent real communication.
___
One major issue (maybe the central one?) is whether people accept the fact that for the sake of all who will yet come to salvation through His Church, which Jesus remains with till the end of time, its caretakers can’t afford to even approach the appearance of compromise regarding dogmatic teaching or practices of the Catholic Faith. It is not man’s pride, but a Divinely willed condition which gives it a status above all others on Earth till the end of time, endowed as it is by God with the greatest riches and treasures any human being could ever hope to obtain, including His Real Presence in the Eucharist.
___
The grand delusion of striving for an un-converted utopia based on mutual desires for peace, has infected many hearts and souls. But no lasting earthly union can ever be accomplished without the fountains of Grace found within these walls, and attempts to pull them down so all can enter without using the narrow gate, are futile. God has ordained it so, and has been showing us that through the bad fruits it produced over the past 50 years–one of Pope Francis’ claims to fame is that he is a product of all this. We can see that clearly. .
A little off topic, but worth the read. Mundabor’s take on the state of Francis’s papacy.
_
Link here: mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/rise-and-fall-of-a-court-jester/Dignitatis Humanae
_
Mundabor qutoes:
” I am, I am sure, not the only one who has the feeling that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History is facing a big crisis. Blogging priests are more and more open in their criticism; Cardinals and Archbishops have made themselves very vocal; the attempt at carrying water to the cause of heresy by simply ignoring the English version of the Relatio Synodi has been thwarted after only one day of outcry; most importantly, Francis’ troubles have become so mainstream it now seem every secular outlet feels the need to report about them.”
+
“The world loves the novelty factor, but it then requires more and more of it, like an heroin addict. Francis has tried to oblige as far as he could – actually far more than he could – and has fallen on his nose. The world now looks at him on the ground, his nose running blood, and it starts looking for some other form of shallow entertainment.
.
The novelty is gone. The enthusiasm is gone. The apparent invincibility is gone.
.
But the sacredness is also gone; the authority; the prestige; even the respect of his own priests.”
_
I wholeheartedly agree!
_
With one qualification: we are in the “wounded animal” phase of this papacy.
And one for the “you wouldn’t believe me if I told you” category.
_
“The Scalfari Magisterium of Pope Francis — Vatican Publishing House to Release Pope Interview Book”
_
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-scalfari-magisterium-of-pope.html
_
EF:
” The confusion at the highest levels will continue. This is in the truest sense of the word, because in the Vatican of Pope Bergoglio, there is confusion and more comes every day.
+
“Interviews and conversations with journalists”. In book form, all the controversial “recognized interviews of Pope Francis, published by L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See and other newspapers” are to be issued.
_
Interviews as part of Francis’s magisterium
_
What will the pollyanna’s say now?
Oh my :o! This will not be good news for the new “Scalfari magisterium”.
_
” It’s the greatest achievement in human history, and one you probably never heard about. – Extreme poverty fell to 15% in 2011, from 36% in 1990. Credit goes to the spread of capitalism.”
http://www.aei.org/publication/greatest-achievement-human-history-one-probably-never-heard/#.VFeCIDpyBTI.twitter
_
AEI:
“The World Bank reported on Oct. 9 that the share of the world population living in extreme poverty had fallen to 15% in 2011 from 36% in 1990. Earlier this year, the International Labor Office reported that the number of workers in the world earning less than $1.25 a day has fallen to 375 million 2013 from 811 million in 1991.
.
Such stunning news seems to have escaped public notice, but it means something extraordinary: The past 25 years have witnessed the greatest reduction in global poverty in the history of the world.
.
To what should this be attributed? Official organizations noting the trend have tended to waffle, but let’s be blunt: The credit goes to the spread of capitalism. Over the past few decades, developing countries have embraced economic-policy reforms that have cleared the way for private enterprise.”
_
Who would have thunk? 😉
_
PS But the burning question is: Who will tell Francis? 🙂
Please say this news came from “onion” or some other prankster…..
Oh well,
if they do decide to convene a Council to declare him a heretic, at least they have , a lot of the research done and documented with his impri matur–it’s really a signed confession, isn’t it.?
And this. Protestants correct bishop of Rome Francis.
_
“Creationists” Criticize Pope Francis’ Backing Of Big Bang And Evolution Theories
_
Link here: http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/571662/20141104/pope-francis-criticsm-big-bang-theory-evolution.htm#.VFnj71fN40s
_
“Some creationists expressed their strong opinions about Pope Francis’ declaration that Big Bang and Evolution theories “are not incompatible” with the existence of a Creator. John Ransom, a Finance Editor for Townhall Finance, likened the Pope to a drunk driver. Kent Ham, the leader of the Christian group Answers in Genesis alleged Pope Francis is putting man’s words above God’s words. Michael Snyder from Right Side news said Pope just wants to recruit new people to the Catholic faith by embracing a progressive view of how the Earth was created.
+
Pope Francis, “lane-wise, seems like a drunk driver,” Ransom wrote. He said he agrees with the Pope saying that the scientific theories of creation are not incompatible with how it was written in the Bible. However, with Pope Francis’ “desperation to be relevant,” he made use of words that “will hurt Catholics” who had been loyal to the faith, Ransom stated.
.
In Ransom’s opinion, the Pope’s statement that “God is not a magician” is tantamount in saying that God is not divine. “I don’t know how I can support a pope – or church- that says that God is not divine,” Ransom highlighted.”
_
It’s amazing that protestants can’t recognize a new quasi-christian sect arising. The church of Francis. 🙂
_
Graduality… has many fathers….. and definitions too. 🙂
And speaking of wounded animals: this!
_
Pew Sitter: “Democrats shellacked…”
_
Link here:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/5/hurt-america-faces-most-dangerous-two-years-150-ye/
_
America faces most dangerous two years in 150 years.
_
Mind the Gap! 🙂
Dear Indignus:
.
Yes. It is like the famous Lenin quote that when it come time to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.
The conversation between Jimmy and Louie will be interesting, and instructive. But the real question is this:
—
What do people in the pew NOW believe about conversion?
—
I’ll bet the farm they NOW believe all go to Heaven, there is no need for conversion to the Catholic Church.
—
These debates are fun, but the horse has already left the barn – and Pope Francis has opened the doors wider than they were before, yes, but it’s in the wrong way, and too late.
Thanks for the link to Fr. Ripperger’s article in Christian Order. I think it is a must read for understanding our tradition, and why it is rejected today.
—
It is very definitely worth a close read.
I hope the discussion with Jimmy Akin goes well. I hope he doesn’t come under any pressure from Keating and some of the other so-called apologists because he wants to have a frank discussion of the issues at hand.
Without any comment: Fr. Blake has an excellent post.
_
St Charles Borromeo’s Century
_
Link here:http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2014/11/st-charles-borromeos-century.html
_
Well worth the read. 😉
I agree.
Bergoglio is undoubtedly meticulous in his language. He “would not speak about ‘absolute’ truths”, and says, “God does not exist: Do not be shocked!”.
The Angelic Doctor, on the other hand, teaches that it is absolutely true that God exists.
Bergoglio is wrong, and no “gentleman’s agreement” can mask that.
Sources (links below must be prefixed with “http:”)
(Aquinas)
“[I]t is absolutely true that there is first something which is essentially being and essentially good, which we call God, as appears from what is shown above (Question 2, Article 3 [‘Whether God exists?’])”.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm#article4
(Bergoglio)
//w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari.html
//en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/09/pope_at_santa_marta_what_we_dare_not_hope_forp/1108212
Right away Mr. Akin objects to calling certain points of doctrine/practice “of the faith”, and wants to use the term “church teaching.” Regarding doctrines, disciplines and practices that have been constant and universal in the Church up until the V2 revolution, this subtle term shift already works to weaken the stability and constancy of the faith. It’s the no-one stutter – step toward legal positivism. Be careful Louie what you agree to in the term setting department at the outset. You’ve got a great opportunity here. If Akin is of good will, this will be interesting.
Should be neo- con stutter step up there, not “no one”. Darn auto spell on this smartphone.
For those who want to know where Begoglio is taking the church of Francis, Sandro Magister has the answer.
_
“Ecumenism Rewritten by Enzo Bianchi and Alberto Melloni”
_
Link here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350916?eng=y
_
Magister writes:
” The leaders of the “school of Bologna” have a very ambitious new project in the works: a history of the movement for Christian unity aimed at a thorough reform of the Catholic Church, starting with the dismantling of the papacy in its current form. They believe they have an ally in Pope Francis”
+
“For the “Bolognese” (school of Bologna) as well, in fact, only the councils that preceded the schism between West and East are fully ecumenical, as can be seen in their multi-volume edition of the “Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta,” criticized precisely for this reason by “L’Osservatore Romano” of June 3, 2007 with an unsigned official note attributed to Walter Brandmüller, today a cardinal.”
_
And they are going to do it under our noses, right out in the open.
_
Wonder how many cardinal electors are on-board for this “new springtime” that the modernists are cooking up?
_
Furthermore, I wonder how much longer the cardinal electors are going to allow the rogue bishop of Rome to destroy the Church founded by Our Savior?
_
Questions, questions!
If the above church of Francis model is the goal…
…
then this is the strategy.
_
Francis’ Patient Revolution
_
Link here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910?eng=y
_
Magister writes:
“There was no agreement at the synod on homosexuality and divorce, but in the end it will be the pope who decides. And he already has in mind the changes he wants to introduce, or rather is already putting them into practice.”
+
“Because this is how Bergoglio’s revolution proceeds, “long-term, without obsession over immediate results.” Because “the important thing is to initiate processes rather than possess spaces.” Words from “Evangelii Gaudium,” the program of his pontificate.’
_
Can’t wait to see how the “remote-controlled sheep”, i.e. the bishops will react to this Bergoglian “collegiality and synodality” at the Schismatic Synod of 2015?
_
PS The sentence: “Because ‘the important thing is to initiate processes rather than possess spaces” is very telling about why the FFI and Catholicism in general needs to be crushed. Can’t have the Catholic processes moving forward because they will stop the Bergoglian processes.
_
PPS The last hurrah of the hippie church. 😉
This is an example of the horse having left the barn, from Father Z’s com box:
” I teach religious education at at Catholic school in the UK and my department just spent an hour discussing how we can best convey to the children that we and Pope Francis are disappointed that the synod didn’t change Church teaching, and that it’s inevitable and just a matter of time before the Church allows gay marriage, female priests, etc. I was specifically told by someone high up that there is no theological reason not to have female priests. Obviously, I won’t teach anything that contradicts Church teaching, and I may well get into a lot of trouble because of it.
” The thing is, I’ve been worried about what’s been happening since the beginning of this pontificate and I am starting to lose hope. I know despair is a mortal sin and I’ve been trying to fight against it for months, but when I see what’s going on in, I just think ‘this isn’t the Church I went through a lot of personal difficulties to join.’ I was brought up Anglican – I know what it’s like to be in a church that changes its teaching each time a new opinion poll comes out. I’m really trying to keep up hope but I’m genuinely facing the possibility that the Church isn’t what I thought it was and perhaps I was wrong to join it. The Rod Dreher approach is looking appealing at this point. I don’t know what to do.”
—
This is what’s going on at the coal face – regardless of what ‘conservative’ bishops or cardinals are saying. It’s a done deal and there is no going back.
—
And this fellow is a convert! So much for bringing people into the Church…this poor soul is wondering what he came in to!
I have very little hope this effort will lead to anything useful, and fear many may be seduced by the sophisticated theological sophism of the NOs.
Aramaticus,
I don’t think anyone, including Francis, is criticising “capitalism” per se.
What they rightly criticise is uncontrolled global financial andlabour markets, where Governments are said to have to “keep out of the way” with the end result of an effective race to the bottom for worker rights (this is having huge fallout even in the West, esp. Europe).
What has been achieved mustn’t preclude recognising the price paid, unquantifiable human suffering.
All to all that Usury as not only an accepted practice, but the norm, and an apotheosis of “Market” as an intelligent, salvific being, and tell me how such an economic model is compatible with Catholicism and Catholic Social Teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching
Johnno,
the NOs have the following debunking for you:
1)Baptism of Desire, of Blood, and Invincible Ignorance are de fide articles or faith, therefore Catholic Faith isn’t really necessary for Salvation, in practice
2)Only God knows the hearts of men, therefore you absolutely cannot judge if someone (heathens and heretics) will be saved.
3)All religions are imperfect expressions of Truth, therefore the Church isn’t wrong in telling infidels to follow truly their religions, since they are following God, albeit in an deficient way
4) Ecumenism is only a tactic developed in light of the abject failure Proselythism has shown to be. It is only true charity,comprehension and brotherly love that we can convince others to embrace the true faith.
5)Orthodox and Protestants are baptised and therefore in communion with the Church (Soul of the Church). They may err on some articles of faith, nevertheless their sacraments are almost surely salvific.
and more
One good thing may come out of this discussion: that Mr. Akin will expose himself as the modernist he is. I don’t doubt his sincerity in the least, but he will talk the talk, and we will get to see it.
—
I’m grateful to Louie for putting this out there, and for engaging Mr. Akin.
Dear Bert:
I don’t think you understand Francis and his Liberation Front of Judea.
_
Capitalism is not their target. Capitalism is only a whipping boy, and serves as a proxy of their real target. Their real target is natural law.
Think about it this way. The Nicene Creed begins with the verse: Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
Well, that “invisibilium” is what constitutes the natural order, things like math, physics, economics and by extension capitalism. Or in other words, capitalism is the manner in which humans (God’s creatures) organize their economic activities “in a natural state’. I.e. without government intervention. Or to put it another way, when Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, they entered into a world where their economic activities were governed by the natural order based on natural law. They were “dye in the wool” capitalists. 🙂
_
And it is this natural law that Francis and the modernists (all the other leftists as well) have a problem with.
_
And if anyone needs proof, here it is: If the modernists had a problem with capitalism, they would not try to rent out the Sistine Chapel for 20,000 a night. 😉
One for the “Francis is the bestest friend that the Catholics ever had” category.
_
“Una Voce International Federation: SSPX faithful “excommunications” illegal”
_
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/una-voce-international-federation.html
_
Una Voce:
“The Federation is thus obliged to question the notifications since they appear to undermine papal legislation and canon law.”
_
Yep. Silly season is officially over! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
And while we are on the topic of Catholic Social Doctrine, here’s one that just came across on Rorate Caeli:
.
“Mercy”, “social justice” and “the peripheries” in practice – 500 Italian workers to be left in utter squalor by papal decision””
_
Magister writes:
“In these days Pope Francis finds himself at the center of these contradictions. Pope Francis made his social doctrine known in the discourse he delivered at the World Meeting of Popular Movements on October 28. But at the same time some five hundred workers who no longer have work are knocking on the Pope’s door—so far in vain-because they have been dismissed from their jobs which serve the Office of Papal Charities, that is, from that very papal office whose raison d’être is helping those who are the most needy.”
_
The British historian Paul Johnson once made a brilliant observation about JJ Rousseau which fits Francis to a “Capital T”. Johnson observed that just like your typical liberal, Rousseau loved humanity, but hated people.
Next up to the plate to b***h-slap Francis: Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
_
“Bp. Athanasius Schneider on the Synod, “manipulation”, and the “neo-pagan” and heterodox midterm relatio
– Midterm relatio a stain on the honor of the Apostolic See”
_
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/bp-athanasius-schneider-on-synod.html
_
Q: Your Excellency, what is Your Excellency’s opinion about the Synod? What is its message to families?
.
Bishop S: “During the Synod there had been moments of obvious manipulation on the part of some clerics who held key positions in the editorial and governing structure of the Synod. The interim report (Relatio post disceptationem) was clearly a prefabricated text with no reference to the actual statements of the Synod fathers. In the sections on homosexuality, sexuality and “divorced and remarried” with their admittance to the sacraments the text represents a radical neo-pagan ideology. This is the first time in Church history that such a heterodox text was actually published as a document of an official meeting of Catholic bishops under the guidance of a pope, even though the text only had a preliminary character.”
_
There needs to be an investigation and the guilty parties need to be punished! 🙂
_
Bishop S goes on:
“That in the very bosom of the Church, there are people who undermine the teaching of Our Lord became an obvious fact and one for the whole world to see thanks to the internet and the work of some Catholic journalists who were not indifferent to what was happening to the Catholic faith which they consider to be the treasure of Christ. I was pleased to see that some Catholic journalists and internet bloggers behaved as good soldiers of Christ and drew attention to this clerical agenda of undermining the perennial teaching of Our Lord.”
_
Did you get that: “The internet bloggers behaved like good soldiers”
_
So much for “the best laid plans of modernists and men”. 🙂
Dear Berto,
Good list, but we gotta give thanks to Johnno, because simplicity is refreshing. There are really only two underlying causes for all the things you mentioned: -ignorance of the Faith, and rebellion against it, on the part of individuals or groups who follow them. Johnno observed thos,e as the needs of knowing and accepting Truth for Salvation, and in Charity sharing it, in its purity.
____
Maybe “progress” in dialogue only complicates matters that were once more simply handled. Jesus didn’t have much time for it, being crucificed just three years into his public life. But He didn’t require his Disciples to sit down and hold decades-long ecumenical talks with the Jews to whom he sent them in pairs to preach the Good news, either. Would we, today, consider that unjust?
___
With all the complicated laws they had, which seemed to them to be contradicted by many of His teachings and actions, didn’t they need full explanations of all the nuances? Yet the Disciples were instructed to simply preach the Truths He had taught them, and if those teachings were rejected, He pronounced the rejecters “condemned by their own actions”, and told His followers to move on to the next town. And still He wept over Jerusalem.
— When he sent His followers to preach to the rest of the nations, -to people who didn’t have the background of the Jews- there were varying degrees of time spent explaining the Gospel; but no communal prayer, or invitations to come into union with Christian assemblies without first renouncing all erroneous beliefs and any practices the church deemed harmful to the Faith.
___
That process doctrinally “developed” (in continuity) into the Rite of Christian initiation we had before Vatican II’s ambiguities led to a prevalence of teachers who compromised it so greatly it began to drive people away from the Church. What was firmly rejected by councils over the past 2,000 years, (even though Arianism took a long time) is now being taught by the Pope, using bitter language against those who still have the freedom to resist him.
___
Simplifying all this back down to “accepting and sharing unchanging Truth” is an oasis in this desert, where we appreciate drinking it in and resting a while before heading back out into the desert. 🙂
Dear Berto,
Don’t mean to be annoying, but we noticed you give SA an extra a when you type his name. Think Italian for “armed” (with God’s truth): “Armati” 🙂
Dear Barbara,
You said it.
But despite the fact that some of us still live in reality, we’re never supposed to assume a defeatist attitude. -remember St Paul said to finish the race.
God will intervene when and where He chooses. We need to be on the job before, during, and after that.
We are SO looking forward to Our Lady’s Triumph.
p.s. whenever you get discourages, re-read the 7 letters to the Churches in Revelations. “He who perseveres to the end” is a much repeated phrase.
🙂 🙂
Dear Barbara,
Thanks for posting this. We hear the same sad story frequently, and have come up against the modernists all our lives, but it good to have a witness like this to copy and paste over to others who are just now coming to grips with what’s been happening, and need to get the fuller picture of the impact crater.
Three things about that:
1. When they (neo cons) talk long enough in print with someone to challenge them, they are forced to clarify words whose meanings they alter, and end up exposing their misuse of language, their unfaithfulness to tradition and their failures in the proper uses of logic and reason. .
__
2. Why not put a bit more Faith in Louie for his skills in analysis and articulation, not to mention the most important thing he’s got going for him. He’s RIGHT.
__
3. The Holy Spirit deals in Truth. And God promises His support when Christians are on the spot:” Matthew 10:19
..”you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: [19] But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. [20] For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.”
__
Piece o’ cake 🙂 🙂
Dear S.Armaticus.
Man, it feels good to read those words! Thanks, for makin’ our day.
🙂 :-).
I might be either going crazy or worse, I don’t know how could I have failed to notice until you brought it up just now.
I could swear it was spelled ArAmaticus.
Does he belong to the People’s Front of Judea, Popular Front of Judea, Judean People’s Front or Judean Popular People’s Front?
Joking aside, I think I understand your reasoning, according to which Francis&friends criticise capitalism only or mainly to deconstruct natural law.
I.e. private property and market economy being mere social constructs.
It could be. I haven’t read up on Francis’ social ideas much, past what has been superficially reported by media. However it sounds too clever and also convenient: for they would be masterfully masquerading their devious intents effortlessly behind a well estabilished Church undertaking.
Do we have any proof of it all?
This is a bit off topic, but it fits right into what I would call the “psychological operations” category.
_
“In nearly every race, Republican Senate candidates outperformed the polls
_
Link here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/in-nearly-every-race-republican-senate-candidates-outperformed-the-polls/
_
The reason that I am posting the above article is to draw your attention to something that in this years election cycle has become blatant. And that is the supposed “objective”, or rather “lack there of”…. polling services.
_
If we were dealing with an “objective’ set of sampling results, we should expect to see some outliers, but the preponderance of results should fall somewhere close to the statistical mean (average).
_
But when we read the article, in nearly every race, Republican Senate candidates outperformed the polls. This should not happen.
_
So how does one explain this anomaly?
_
At the end of the day, the problem is that the polling firms are biased. They skew their results to help fit a narrative that they are trying to push. (And here I am not speaking about the firms that do what’s called the “internal” polls for the parties or the individual candidates. Those are accurate.) Most of the time, these “external” polling firms can skew their results and still fall within the statistical error. But in elections like last night, which was a tsunami for one of the political parties, their biased results stick out like a sore thumb.
_
If you are still with me, there is a moral to this story. And the moral is this. And old journalistic witticism states that believe nothing that you read and only half of what you see.
_
Especially w/r/t the media coverage of Francis. 😉
_
After the Secret Synod, his papacy has lost credibility with the “institutional” church. All Francis has left now is his inner circle, the aging hippie church which is slowly being moved from the retirement homes to the graveyards and most importantly, the secular media that controls the narrative. 😉
_
PS W/r/t the linked article, it also demonstrates how a “media created” narrative ends. 🙂
No, not discouraged. Actually once we know where people really stand, and where they get their ideas from we can just tick them off the list.
—
I ticked Jimmy off my list about 10 years ago. He was on Catholic Answers and told a little boy who called that it was ok for him to miss Mass on Sunday because going camping with his little friend and his family was more important.
—
Tick
Oh you are so right. I expect Mr. Akin to flee the field long before Louie gets to wipe the floor with him.
—
Dang! There I go again, being uncharitable. Let me rephrase that. Mr. Akin will remember he has a prior commitment and has to leave town, and therefore can no longer participate in this ‘dialogue.’ This will happen just when Louie begins to shred his logic.
Of course.
Simplicity also tells us that if the most extreme NOist are right (those aiming stright to universal or semi-universal salvation types), that would make Catholicism a curse.
Evangelising the Nation would have been a huge mistake and nothing short of a criminal undertaking.
Even Ratzinger realised this, when in one of his books (can’t remember whihc one now) talked about the fact Catholics have to endure additional burdens in order to be saved compared to others (Protestants in that case I believe), and admitted it could look unfair at times.
autocorrect failed me again:
*nations
Bert:
My money’s on the Judean Popular People’s Front. It has that “Bolivarian” ring to it.
_
As to Francis’s “war on natural law”, I would not get bogged down on a specific area that he is undermining. Francis and his ilk have a problem in with “natural law” in general. Actually, they have a problem with objective reality. But that’s for a different day.
_
If you look at the Secret Synod that just ended, it was nothing more than an attempt to “deconstruct natural moral law”. And natural moral law is just a subset of natural law in what a Thomist would call the science of theology. The equivalent to “natural moral law” in the social and hard sciences would be biology, anthropology and anatomy. All these areas are interconnected, if you think about it.
_
The analogous argument to the one above can be made for natural law as it applies to the social science of economics. If one wants to speak about “catholic social doctrine”, one needs to start with the rule of Christ the King. This then will allow one to construct a “just society” in the Catholic sense of that concept.. But Dignitatis Humanae, having destroyed the basis for the construction of a “just society” by anthropocentricizing of the basis of the faith has made this a moot point. But the leftover “catholic social teaching” that remained still sounded good. Utopian in fact. So what needed to be found is an alternative basis for creating of this “just society”. And the liberation theologists found it. It’s just that it was hard to justify since we all knew who Marx was. So the modernists massaged Liberation theology so as to give it an element of “divinity”…. since they are clerics at the end of the day. And they came up with somthing that is pseudo-marxism inside of a “god of surprises” wrap. Redistributionist garbage with the populism kicker. But I am starting to digress….
_
Anyways, a good insight can be gained from the below post titled: “For Chicago, The “Thunder” Is In – Cupich Named Corporation Sole”. Under the video link, the “nutjob who locks out Catholics from church during Holy Week” tells us what Francis really, really means.
_
Enjoy. And try to find anything relating to natural law in this gem…. other than lip service! 🙂
Here’s the link: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2014_09_01_archive.html
.
Starts in the middle of the “For Chicago, The “Thunder” Is In – Cupich Named Corporation Sole” post.
BREAKING at Rorate Caeli: Ravings of a Mad Man!
_
“Francis intends to go all the way: sounds from a meeting in Argentina”
_
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/francis-intends-to-go-all-way-sounds.html#more
_
MUST READ
_
He is the Walrus! 🙂
Dear Berto,
We know the feeling. You get something in your brain and repeat it a few times, and your brain tells you you’re actually seeing it. –A little like the principle of closure.
–This is why is was so important for Catholics to have such a rich treasury of truth incorporated in their Sunday Liturgies. As the years pass, it all becomes part of us.
Dear S.Armaticus,
We’d be a lot more impressed if it weren’t a collection of secret quotes given by totally anonymous people, said to be in key positions.
Interesting.
I don’t understand their thinking.
Even if “they” change doctrine itself, what’s stopping someone else in the future doing just the same?
Once you kill the teaching on doctrine being immutable, assuming that doesn’t lead to the complete collapse of the V:II Church, nothing is unchangeable anymore.
So the unnamed prelates make no sense to me.
Yes, I pray it will be fruitful. One obvious possible impediment could be the invocation of pseudo-intellectualism by means of false, ideologically-premised nuances and distortions of terms. If principles that are simple and understandable by the average person of the age of reason seem to become complicated and tortured through discussion, this is a sign that the discussion is heading away from the truth and elucidation of same.
As I said on Eponymous Flower, this is scandalous. Large parts of these interviews ought to be retracted by the Pope.
And if this teacher stands up for the truth of the Faith and morals (as he is bound to do in, inter alia, his role as a teacher) he will be persecuted and, most likely, will not be supported by his principal, his priest, his bishop, etc. They, against their respective duties, will probably collude in his persecution. However, such persecution gives great witness to the truth, and brings graces that helps save souls. St John the Baptist, pray for all those persecuted in the cause of right.
Yes, a longterm state of mortal sin darkens the intellect and hardens the heart. “May I modify Church doctrine in a way that it may never be modified again”!!!
Thanks for the link Armaticus,
I can partly see what you mean.
But here’s another possibility: what if they’re doing what they’re doing not for philosophical reasons, but simply to further the Global/postnational agenda?
If we assume the Church was infiltrated by powerful groups such as Freemasons, Jewish interests, even marxists (separately or together) wouldn’t that mean they would probably also bend the official stance on whatever might be contrary to their other plans (just like they’ve done for civil governments and public opinion at large)?
Dear S.Armaticus and all,
This is “allegedly” the Papal Oath taken by the Pope during the Coronation ceremony. We don’t know if Francis took it, but it’s interesting to read:
“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
___
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order that may surface; To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
___
I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared. I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone — be it ourselves or be it another — who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”
================
Think a few of them are in really hot water? or worse? Or did they refuse to take it. It’s only been around since the 600’s they say.
Fr Ripperger’s essay is an excellent elucidation of the constitutive intellectual (and pseudo-intellectual) problems that must be recognised in any attempt to find understanding between persons from the different philosophical (only one, valid) perspectives, with respect to the truths of the Faith and morals.
The issue hangs on the statement made by Mr Verrechio at para. 5 of his last posting in the exchange with Mr Akin.
All these arguments would still have to conform to the simplicity of the One Truth and the Law of non-contradiction, and the Golden Rule which necessitates the safest most prudent practice of doing things to assure salvation.
–
“1)Baptism of Desire, of Blood, and Invincible Ignorance are de fide articles or faith, therefore Catholic Faith isn’t really necessary for Salvation, in practice”
–
One should ask, what is the guarantee of ‘Desire’? How does one know if the other possesses it? And again the Golden Rule is operative: “If I am not aware that I posses this ‘Desire’, would not it be beneficial to me that someone of good will should make it necessary to confirm it?
–
Also a similar apologetic is in play as that against Protestantism’s error that of ‘Faith Alone.’ When we know it it not by faith alone, but by faith and works, for works justify faith. Thus, similarly, actions should justify the Desire. If the person displays no actions that are consistent with Desire for the Truth, then they do not posses Desire, and thus we are obligated to instill Desire in them, which means convincing them of the necessity for it, aka making a case for conversion.
–
“2)Only God knows the hearts of men, therefore you absolutely cannot judge if someone (heathens and heretics) will be saved.”
–
This does not change the case and necessity of the Golden Rule. Out of love, are we not obligated to make certain as much as possible that the heathens and heretics possess true Desire? Does one send their child out onto the street to play alone without first being certain that it is reasonably safe? If I were a heathen without a desire for truth, would I not wish for a loving Catholic to attempt to set me straight so that I may avoid danger?
–
“3)All religions are imperfect expressions of Truth, therefore the Church isn’t wrong in telling infidels to follow truly their religions, since they are following God, albeit in an deficient way”
–
To claim this is not to be Catholic but to accept relativism and accept the contradiction that it is absolute truth that truth cannot be known. For we can also point out that if all religions are imperfect, then likewise such a statement as the above is also imperfect and possibly wrong, and thus anyone who holds to the above has no argument to impose it as truth, nor can they argue against my imposing of absolute truth upon them and upon the infidels, for if anything I am more consistent and also more cautionary prudent by imposing Absolute Truth upon myself and others. Pascal’s Wager is made here.
–
“4) Ecumenism is only a tactic developed in light of the abject failure proselytism has shown to be. It is only true charity,comprehension and brotherly love that we can convince others to embrace the true faith.”
–
Can proselytism actually be demonstrated to be the cause of failure? This is like concluding that the act of driving a car is an abject failure given how many accidents occur on the roadways, when in actuality it may be bad driving or bad pedestrians, or circumstances beyond the driver’s capabilities. Frankly one can point to the fact that the Growth of the Early Church is an example of proselytism being amazingly successful, alongside trusting in God’s divine assistance as in cases like Guadalupe & Portugal. And also, how does one know what true charity, comprehension and brotherly love is apart from the Faith and the Truth? In which case proselytism demonstrates true charity, comprehension of Truth and love, for the Absolute Truth determines these things.
–
“5)Orthodox and Protestants are baptised and therefore in communion with the Church (Soul of the Church). They may err on some articles of faith, nevertheless their sacraments are almost surely salvific.
and more”
–
But given that we know from Our Lord and from Revelation that there are Catholics in Hell, and that not everyone who cries out to Him shall be saved, then clearly Baptism, Sacraments, and some knowledge alone aren’t enough to save one from Hell. The danger still persists. Faith and ritual alone aren’t enough and are practically unguarantable as to whether we are truly in possession of them. Rather it is our works which justify that we in fact posses them and utilize them to our benefit. So again, salvation necessitates action and works and results that are visible in order to safely provide a greater guarantee, and thus we are obligated ever to work towards understanding the one absolute Truth, which means the journey is always towards One Truth, One Doctrine, One Faith, One Church, One Unity. So long as contradictory doctrines exist then we are not one, and thus these contradictions demand to be resolved in order to arrive at the One Truth.
How can it be known that a given pope took this oath or a similar oath? Is the fact of same recorded officially by the Holy See? And is such record available to the public? Presumably it is taken before the electoral college of cardinals; and I don’t see that it would be covered by the oath of secrecy covering the conclave.
Maybe I don’t remember correctly, but weren’t newspapers “boasting” Francis refused to even have a Coronation ceremony back then?
Indeed, the most extreme end of the NOs are logically following their lack of faith and denial of Truth to the end whereby, the other logical end, True Uncompromising Catholicism, is horrible to them.
–
But at least they are following the logical course of action, whereas most NOs and Catholics in general are Lukewarm and just want to avoid picking a side.
–
But we must be either hot or cold. For even the most extreme end of NO-ism, more accurately an unwitting adoption of Freemasonry, can be brought to the light much quicker by demolishing the initial error upon which they have built their foundation. Which is why God often works Miracles and Judgement in History to demonstrate the Truth to humanity. And precisely why Our Lady came to ask for Russia’s Consecration by the Pope and Bishops of the World in a public ceremony, because the miraculous conversion of Russia must be public to the world demonstrating that God exists and that Catholicism is the true religion.
–
Indeed Catholicism is a much harder affair from the free-for-all happy-go-lucky nature of Protestantism where you can sin all you like because either you were already pre-destine to be saved or simply raise your hands and say “Jesus is my saviour” and taa-daa, everything’s dandy.
–
Except all this is entirely stupid, because as we all know, Heaven is intimate union with God, but nothing unclean can come before God, therefore we ourselves must be clean, which means all desire for sin must be vanquished from us, in order to even stand in His presence, otherwise we would literally be burning in our sin.
–
Those who are too married to their sin, will suffer for eternity. Those who desire God more than their sin, shall bear the burning until the time when they are clean so that it be purged from them before coming before God, and thus again, this ‘Baptism’, this ‘Desire’, must necessitate that they actually want to be rid of their sins, if while they are on Earth, then in Purgatory, so that they shall enjoy that intimacy with God and rid themselves of all that is displeasing to Him because they love and desire Him, and therefore want to know Him most intimately, which means all errors about God’s identity, His Law, His Will etc. must be discarded for the Truth about Him.
–
We can either desire the objective absolute Truth, which is God, or we can desire a lie, which we prefer, but if we want the lie more than the Truth, then the consequences are that we hold onto the lie for eternity, and therefore burn with it, far away, away from the Truth which is God and all the good He alone provides as the source, and this is a condition and a place called Hell.
Dear Bert:
You write:
“But here’s another possibility: what if they’re doing what they’re doing not for philosophical reasons, but simply to further the Global/postnational agenda?
.
That is my point.
.
What we are dealing here with is apostates. They have no supernatural faith. What they have is a very comfortable existence, and the free time to latch on to whatever trendy “ideology” is cool at the moment. Today it’s aberro-sexuality, tomorrow it will be pedophilia disguised as a “children’s right” movement. In Spain, they are already at the “animal rights” phase. Monkeys have human rights in Spain.
.
Which brings me back on the modernist war on capitalism. It’s… to use a term cd. Pell used in his post Secret Synod speech, a stalking horse.
_
Not to belabor the point, but it needs repeating. The modernists are engaged in a war on natural law. And only objective reality stands in their way. And that is why they have to “reconstruct” the Church, or destroy it if the reconstruction is unworkable.
Dear Indignus:
Treat the information as another “piece of the puzzle” in the construction of the psychological profile of Jorge Bergoglio.
_
It is very consistent with what Sandro Magister wrote recently in the two posts titled: Ecumenism Rewritten by Enzo Bianchi and Alberto Melloni and Francis’ Patient Revolution.
_
I have posted these two in points 18. and 19. of this thread.
Dear Bert:
You write:
” I don’t understand their thinking.
Even if “they” change doctrine itself, what’s stopping someone else in the future doing just the same?”
_
You are correct. But then again, we are not dealing with people that think rationally.
_
But to answer your question, here is what could be the case:
.
– Francis could be so delusional, that he actually thinks that he “is” a living “church father”.
.
– If this is the case, then what he is doing with respect to his interviews and daily musings at Santa Marta is trying to create the Bergoglio magisterium as an anti-magisterium to that of the Church.
–
With the help of the “eccumaniacs”, he is trying to destroy enough of the Magisterium to make the situation palatable for some of the sects to come on-board in a “big tent” type of a “one church global UN sponsored” religion. On an aside, think about the energy Jorge wasted on Tony Palmer and his recent groveling to the Utrecht crowd.
.
If he gets some of these sects on-board, then he can make the claim that he, Francis, church father and instrument of the “god of surprises” is a unite-er.
.
But what is more important, the contraption that is the result of the “uniting” is negotiated. Therefore the need for a new set of foundation docs, i.e. a new magisterium.
.
And voila, we have the Scalfari magisterium in the works.
_____
Does this sound far fetched?
_
Read my posts (and associated links) at point 18. and 19. of this thread and tell me how far off I am.
And more about yesterdays ‘”teachable moment”: Narratives gone wild.
.
Two quotes from Rush Limbaugh. B/t/w I strongly suggest you read the transcript. It explains the “battle of the narratives” very well. And it is the same “battle of the narratives” that is taking place with respect to Francis.
_
Rush Limbaugh: ” Wendy Davis and Alison Grimes Were Myths”
_
Link here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/05/wendy_davis_and_alison_grimes_were_myths
_
Rush: (I will comment in [ ])
” There’s so much deceit and fraud in the day-to-day media, and that fraud is given cover-up by polling data. If you produce a poll that says Alison Lundergan Grimes has a chance to up-seat McConnell, [ or that Francis is the most popular pope evahhhh.] then you’re gonna do a series of news stories pretending and portraying her [ him] as viable and powerful and maybe something serious [Francis can change dogma/teaching just by changing praxis] , when it never was true.”
+
” He’s asking if I can explain how you go from a Deval Patrick Democrat governor to a Republican governor. The only thing I can tell you, and it’s an anecdotal, and this cracks me up, too. In the last three weeks — and, as always, I can’t mention names because these people [ think of Vatican/Curia staff] , when they speak to me, are assured that it’s all off the record in terms of their identity. But I’ve had, I don’t know, a handful of full-fledged, rock-ribbed Democrats in Massachusetts say [ from the RC: bloggers are now getting scoop from ‘mildly progressive’ elements] , “You know, I hope you and Fox News pull this out.”[ cd Burke etc.] And I look at ’em and my mouth falls open. “You know, you and Fox News are so crucial here. [cd. Burke and the bloggers]” And I look at ’em, I say, “What are you saying?”
_
And now reflect on bishops Schneiders interview yesterday and his shout out to the “bloggers”. 🙂
_
Remember folks, it’s might be not what it appears to be. At the end of the day, it is all about the “process”. 😉
The Prophet Daniel was troubled as we are about his vision of the 4th beast:
And he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the most High: AND HE SHALL THINK HIMSELF ABLE TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time.
___
[25] A time, and times, and half a time: That is, three years and a half; which is supposed to be the length of the duration of the persecution of Antichrist.
[26] And judgment shall sit, that his power may be taken away, and be broken in pieces, and perish even to the end. [27] And that the kingdom, and power, and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, may be given to the people of the saints of the most High: whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all kings shall serve him, and shall obey him. [28] Hitherto is the end of the word. I Daniel was much troubled with my thoughts, and my countenance was changed in me: but I kept the word in my heart.
Berto,
I wonder if there is anyone commenting regularly on this Forum who is being paid $25 dollars an hour to do so, by such organizations such as MoveOn or other govt affiliated consensus building organizations?
Like urself, perhaps?
What is the point for me to answer your tauntings?
You never answer back.
Your goal seem to childishly arouse suspicion and discredit me, instead of a constructive dialogue.
Now I’m being paid by MoveOn or other govt. affiliated orgs, ok.
I won’t dream of asking for a shred of evidence for your claims, but is it possible to at least know the reasoning behind your accusation?
Could you show us where or how I ever promoted anything relating to the Government or its line ever?
Yes Armaticus, I share your view about the new pan-whatever religion in the makings.
And yes, that could work. A new Pentecost and/or Gospel for a new religion that does not modify Catholicism, but supersedes it.
A New New Covenant of sorts!
Ah!
There hasn’t been a papal coronation since Paul VI. Fitting, no?
Dear Roman Watcher,
In the past, Louie mentioned his expecting some fraternal correction among us. By that, is usually meant citing a specific knowable attitude or behavior which is contrary to the Faith or to simple charity.
___
We’re sure we’re not alone in noticing that your posts have begun to resemble an obsession which you have allowed yourself to give in to, regarding Berto. We’ve responded a few times with reminders that such accusations are unprovable–and Louie himself has mentioned that, and asked that they not be carried out.
___
We used to look forward to you posts, but lately they only make us feel like saying , “You should be ashamed of yourself”, and “Please stop this nonsensical badgering, as it is disruptive and annoying, and only serves to foster the growing impression that you may be a “troll”. Please go back to using your gifts to challenge ideas, rather than individuals, and with reason, rather than prejudice. We rather enjoyed it when you were so inclined.
God Bless you.
But he then sold his Papal Tiara!
Dear Indignus, Bert and Roman Watcher,
I wholeheartedly agree with what Indignus wrote above.
.
I too enjoy(ed) reading your posts RW, and am sad that your participation in this comment section has been reduced to a trickle.
.
Bert, with all due respect, I can understand RW’s irritation at some of your posts. I think that he might feel that you are trying to bait us with your references to masonry et.al. If you are up for it, I can explain how it is not the fault of the masons for doing what they are doing, but rather the fault of the church hierarchy for allowing them to get away with it. And I can explain it based on natural law. 😉
.
Therefore, I have a suggestion. If we all can stay away from some of the more exotic theories about “undue influences”, I think it will make the conversations much more pleasant.
_
What’cha say?
Fist of all,
I’m not the one blaming stuff on the Masons as scapegoats for everything.
In fact Roman Watcher himself accused me of being one, trying to blame the jews.
It is he who says there are masons in Rome trying to infiltrate Traditionalist blogs et similia, not me.
And how does that relate with Obama or the liberals or NGOs at all is beyond me.
So now it is taboo to even mention or “blame” masons? I guess I’m not only ANTISEMITIC but also ANTIMASONIC then. Can’t catch a break.
Also, as Barbara Jensen (echoing a very popular sentiment among Traditionalism if not even conservatorism) said:
“The insinuation of modernists and masons within the interior of the Church began long before these two popes reigned. It was going on DURING the Pontificate of Pope Pius X, which is why he wrote as he did. John Paul and Benedict did not CAUSE the state in which we are now suffering. ”
“Francis is the choice of the masons. He is night in all its darkness. The Second Vatican Council did not ‘fail’; it was co-opted by the masons and the modernists,”
To which I replied:
“not Conspiracy theories about them being masons or whatever.”
Then Barbara Jensen said:
“By the way, it is no ‘conspiracy theory’ to state that masons have infiltrated–and at this point taken over–the institutional apparatus of Catholicism. Michael Voris has a well-researched, fact-based documentary about the historical infiltration of the masons in the Church. It is simple fact.”
In general, I mentioned the masons in the context of the GAOTU, and how it may relate to ecumenism.
I try to stay away from monothematical obsessive theories about a particular Group or organisation being the root of all evil, but it seems it’s not enough, and someone always has to be offended by a mere mention or theoretical discourse.
Fist of all,
I’m not the one blaming stuff on the Masons as scapegoats for everything.
In fact Roman Watcher himself accused me of being one, trying to blame the jews. In fact I believe I didn’t even mentioned masons at the time when he first started his campaign against me.
It is he who says there are masons in Rome trying to infiltrate Traditionalist blogs et similia, not me.
And how does that relate with Obomo or the liberals or NGOs at all is beyond me.
So now it is taboo to even mention or “blame” masons? I guess I’m not only ANTISEMITIC but also ANTIMASONIC then. Can’t catch a break.
Also, as Barbara Jensen (echoing a very popular sentiment among Traditionalism if not even conservatorism) said:
“The insinuation of modernists and masons within the interior of the Church began long before these two popes reigned. It was going on DURING the Pontificate of Pope Pius X, which is why he wrote as he did. John Paul and Benedict did not CAUSE the state in which we are now suffering. ”
“Francis is the choice of the masons. He is night in all its darkness. The Second Vatican Council did not ‘fail’; it was co-opted by the masons and the modernists,”
To which I replied:
“not Conspiracy theories about them being masons or whatever.”
Then Barbara Jensen said:
“By the way, it is no ‘conspiracy theory’ to state that masons have infiltrated–and at this point taken over–the institutional apparatus of Catholicism. Michael Voris has a well-researched, fact-based documentary about the historical infiltration of the masons in the Church. It is simple fact.”
In general, I mentioned the masons in the context of the GAOTU, and how it may relate to ecumenism.
I try to stay away from monothematical obsessive theories about a particular Group or organisation being the root of all evil, but it seems it’s not enough, and someone always has to be offended by a mere mention or theoretical discourse.
Dear S.Armaticus,
We appreciate the your peace-making effort, and what you suggest sounds like a possible cause, but only RW could confirm it.
___
Unless a topic is inherently sinful, what authority or right does an individual (or a group of us) have, to set ourselves up as Louie’s “blog-censors and police”? -especially since Louie has said often enough that he wishes to foster a more open discussion; recognizes the great value and learning potential in debating opposing sides of issues; and expects it to get passionate at times, (because he knows we’re not luke-warm types), but wants it to be kept in line by Christian charity.
___
Louie blog. Louie alone decides if he needs to designate/ban someone as a “troll” or even as too vulgar or annoying and ban them. He’s given good reasons in the past for not wanting to do that unless absolutely necessary, but we are each each free to email him with our concerns. That’s why we strongly object to RW’s choice to launch an ongoing persecution of one particular poster, using spiteful words designed to either drive him away or discredit him -hopefully not because he enjoys tormenting people.
___
In addition to the annoyance and bad example that presents to everyone who visits Louie’s blog-comments, (we’ve said this a few times before), we personally hate bully-tactics-especially when used on someone who isn’t retaliating in kind. Those are what RW has been using, for a while now.
___
–Regarding the topic of Masonry, the pursuit of truth takes us into occasional discussion of it, and your kind offer to Bert just now, is good example of that.
You obviously extended it in hope of convincing him to think as you do about it, which you believe might then soften change his future comments and eliminate RW’s objections to Berto. But there’s a 50/50 chance you will fail in that with Berto, and a much higher probability it wouldn’t change RW’s opinion of him at all, even if you succeeded. Ant that’s all assuming your ideas are right and Berto’s are in need of your help. None of it solves the basic problem.
___
– Anyone Louie welcomes here should be treated with basic respect despite differing of ideas, as we said, unless they are harming others by being sinful or scandalous, in which case, fraternal correction first, and emails to Louie last, are the remedies.. If Louie decides they are still welcome, anyone who objects must either accept that graciously, or choose to ignore their future posts, or if they can’t do that, then they can always choose to stay away to avoid the occasion of sin it presents to them..
We intervened because we’d rather see RW stick around and share his thoughts on the issues, if he’s willing to change this behavior, and because this is a special place on our planet, where truth can very often be found..
.
p.s. We just read Berto’s response and agree fully.
If anyone want’s to take exception to folks who imply that masonry or any secret societies have infiltrated the Church, they’re going to be taking on stigmatics like Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, and (if we’re not mistaken also Padre Pio) not to mention the Queen of all Saints, Our Blessed Mother, and God Himself ( because we’re talking about approved apparitions like Akita and Fatima in which she warned of infiltration.)
Prior Popes have warned of it as well.
And while we agree that none of it would be possible if members of the Church rejected it, and also that, being secretive, it’s too easy to be wrong or to speculate wildly, nevertheless, there is need to discuss these things periodically which could be taken to forum easily. In fact it has been several times.
God Bless all..
.
p.p.s.
Not trying to make light of such serious matters, but never having never heard of the organization “Move On” which RW mentioned above, we took a look at their on-line site, and couldn’t help laughing. They posted this message to their members:
“Don’t stop fighting. If you’re feeling too depressed right now to get right back in the fight, we get it. But if you’re ready to get back to work, let’s not waste one second. So how about it? …(followed by a donations request)…
____
Apparently they’re democrats who are having a particularly hard time coping with Tuesday’s election results?. Go figure 🙂 🙂
Dear Berto,
Not that it justifies that, but they do still have a whole closet-ful where that came from….. 🙂
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Photos+of+Collection+of+papal+tiaras
Dear Barbara,
Sometimes they make it so easy…. 🙂
It was obviously a symbolic gesture… maybe was meant to signal whoever was looking with interest at the Vatican the Pope gave up on being the Supreme visible Authority on Earth and basically any sovereignty both in matters of Faith and politics (Spiritual and Temporal power).
Lou,
I really like your site, but lately I do not see the behavior and morals which Catholcis generally recognize, and seeing that so many of the frequent commentators here are quite happy bedfellows, and intentionally blind to the fact that Berto is not a catholic, has declared himself not to be a christian, and yet are quite fine discussing the problems in the Church with him as if he was, and of denigrating me for pointing out the inconsistency of such behavior, the unethical stance it is based upon, whether Berto or others are or are not catholics, I find the comments made against me on this blog way off base.
It makes me doubt how many are sincerely interested in the fine articles and commentary you post.
I have worked on the next since its inception for Catholic organizations, I am very familiar with paid trolls and their tactics. I humbly suggest your blog has been infested or compromised, and warn you against the manipulation of which they are capable to alienate authentic Catholics like myself.
sincerely,
Roman Watcher
If me frequenting the site and voicing my opinion has to be such a controversy, I will leave.
There’s no point in insisting on staying if I have to feel so unwelcomed here, and if it means creating an atmosphere of distrust or actually damaging the reputation of the blog itself.
It is not worth it. Muche better to be silent and limit myself to reading the articles.
Goodbye everyone.
Berto falls into errors that entrap more than a few traditionalists, who overreact to the scourge of false ecumenism and other manifestations of modernism by denying article of faith that have always been held by Catholics. Such as baptism of desire:
—–
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
—–
As for disputing the notion that “Only God knows the hearts of men”, one can only shake one’s head in wonder. In practice, of course, it’s never necessary – for the good of souls or any other reason – to judge souls, as oppose to their false doctrines.
—–
Those who spit on such things tend to be consumed by bitterness. There are no bitter souls in Paradise.
Dear R.W.,
-Just sayin’, you also accused me of being a troll too, along with what could be an accusation of less than adequate brain matter. Maybe due to that lack, I didn’t remember when that actually was, but I did find this post by Berto, August 9, claiming to be part of the VII church through Baptism:
https://akacatholic.com/did-cardinal-bergoglio-tell-tony-palmer-not-to-convert/#comment-23424
I guess we can believe that as much as any other anonymous commenter here.
And I’ll add that I’ve enjoyed your comments and Berto’s too. Maybe I’m too naïve to catch his subtle trollishness, but I’ve thought that he’s gotten a lot more pleasant and thoughtful since I first met him.
— Come baack Shane –( I mean Bert), Come Back.
To Berto:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lAY-rRRa4o&feature=player_embedded
Dear Roman Watcher,
You wrote: ” “so many of the frequent commentators here are quite happy bedfellows, and intentionally blind to the fact that Berto is not a catholic, has declared himself not to be a christian, and yet are quite fine discussing the problems in the Church with him as if he was, and of denigrating me for pointing out the inconsistency of such behavior…”
======
-The TRUTH is, we have asked you several times to produce even ONE quote of Berto, demonstrating your claims, and you have ignored us and not produced anything.
–We did the homework and copied and pasted his words-from Louie’s earlier blogs- (sometime last summer) declaring himself a Baptized Catholic, and earlier this month he stating that he refused to answer your demands because of your insulting treatment of him.
— So he HAS affirmed his Catholicity, while you have continued to make apparently FALSE statements.
–And now you have added us and S.Armaticus to your rapidly growing list of people you choose to bully, for failing to yield to your unjust demands.
— Louie’s last response to you on his blog was to post as AUTHOR a rejection of your demands and he explained his policy to you-which we related above.
–We prayed our daily rosary just before posting this, and included you and all the others who post here, in it.
__
We will continue to respond to anyone with whom we wish to converse who posts here, despite your reprehensible behavior, which will only continue as long as you persist in it, unless Louie decides to revoke your privileges.
We trust he will handle this as he deems best
___
God bless you and all of us, including Berto, with whom we enjoyed many conversations, and by whom we were always treated with Christian respect…
We were sorry to see him buckle to your unfounded demands, and hope he reconsiders, so Louie will have chance to weigh in on this matter..
=======
. .
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
We thought Berto was presenting the extremist NO point of view, as a satirical way of agreeing with Johnno’s points above. It seems you took him seriously, or did we miss something? 🙂
Berto has previously indicated (numerous times) here that he does not believe in baptism of desire, and also that we should judge others’ souls.
—–
Perhaps Berto could tell us what his positions actually are. I’ve certainly made mine clear.
“The world loves the novelty factor, but it then requires more and more of it” – quite a salient observation indeed. Mundabor ever proves himself the savvy commentator.
One of the few topics on which Francis is actually more or less right – or at least not horribly wrong.
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
Thanks for the clarification. We hadn’t picked up on that.
Do politicians think past the next election?? Nope – not really. The modernists would be happy – ecstatic – about changing doctrine because that is the best thing they could hope for. They aren’t going to see past that – and the whole notion is nonsensical which they also don’t see.
—-
They don’t understand it’s impossible because they don’t understand the divine origin of the Church, but they know enough to “feel” it would be an immense, unprecedented conquest.
I’m posting only to defend my “good” name.
That is an outrageous lie, and it is vile for you to wait for me to be defenseless like a vulture.
I’m sad to see that much like your similar-sounding collegue below you have usually preferred not to answer my posts on the topics you cite, but you aren’t hesitant to rashly judge and even misrepresent my position.
1)I’ve never said you can judge one man’s hearth and soul (internal forum).
It is obvious I only cite its misusing from the NOs. They utilise that true fact to wrongly imply you cannot basically judge anything. For instance in the case of non Catholics to justify they secretly might have faith or some such nonsense.
That is all.
2)The article you post is disgraceful. They conveniently removed any reference to catechumens, making it look like Bellarmine and Liguori taught heathens, jews, muslims, hindus could obtain salvation through BOD (Baptismus Flaminis actually).
It is also worrying they chose to use a grossly incorrect translation of Trent, adding “without them or without the desire for them” obviously to making it look like Trent thought BOD and BOW are virtually interchangeable.
I ask you again, please show us where Bellarmine, Liguori, etc. explicitly taught non catholics are saved regularly via BOD (let’s act as if they were infallible and could not err for a moment), like the SSPX teaches.
Having said that, I never said BOD is a heresy or anything.
What I said is for all intents and purposes, we should regard it as a theoretical case, which may or may not have ever happened and act as if it isn’t a real, tangible phenomenon.
It is obvious there’s so much distortion and insistence on BOD in people such as yourself, not to mention NOist, because you cannot cope with the idea billions are damned to Hell, therefore you have to make Catholic Faith optional.
If believing someone has to believe in Christ (shocking!), the Trinity to be saved and refusing to recognise heathens are saved IN their religion via some sort of magickal implicit unconscious “desire” is a heresy, then prep the stake.
Berto.
Holy cow, Berto, what’s up? Why the second account? How are you now “defenseless”? Who is my “colleague” – as I assure you I am completely unaware whom you’re referring to?
—–
I disagree with you that the SSPX article is “disgraceful” and that, as you imply, they are a bunch of cave-ins, weak Catholics, or whatever else it is you are typically implying. The document isn’t implying anything as to the number of people who may be saved by this mechanism. In point of fact I, and certainly most SSPX’ers I know, tend to agree with the two greatest Doctors of the Church that the number of the saved is, relatively speaking, *small*. No one – not me, and not this article – implied anything “regular” here – that seems to be your inference.
—–
Acknowledging baptism of desire (even implicit) is not a road to indifferentism. Salvation is difficult, even WITH the great aid that are the Sacraments (especially Penance and the Eucharist), and thus the Great Commission.
—–
Aquinas taught that lack of knowledge of the faith can be a punishment for sin; it is not the lack of faith per se that [typically] causes damnation but the mortal sin that almost inevitably follows from it. However, the – probably very, very few souls that manage to die with no stain of mortal sin do not merit eternal punishment – only the infinite insult of mortal sin merits eternal punishment. Those souls who somehow intrinsically love God enough to never commit mortal sin or are moved by Him to perfect contrition will not be eternally punished.
—–
In conclusion, you seem to jump to the conclusion that anyone – such as the SSPX – who correctly points out that implicit BoD can save therefore also believes that great numbers of non-Catholics ARE saved, and that there is therefore no need to spread the Gospel or insist upon membership in Christ’s true Church. However, these are unwarranted, illogical inferences.
A few more comments. If I misjudged your position it was unintentional. I now understand that you dispute only implicit BoD, not BoD in general.
—–
You insist, I believe, that one must know the faith in order to be saved via baptism of desire. However, that would make the “implicit” qualifier nonsensical, because anyone of good will who knew the faith would explicitly desire baptism. Thus, the fact that popes and theologians have discussed implicit BoD implies they were not limiting things to only catechumens.
—–
I’ll have to dig up the references. There is certainly more out there than that lone SSPX article.
I caught-up on all the comments here so I could figure out what Berto was talking about.
—–
1) I read all of Louie’s posts but have not, in some time, found the time to comment much or read the comments.
—–
2) I have no “affiliation” with RW nor, Berto, was there any reason for you to assume and assert that I do.
—–
3) I have no opinion on the Berto-RW row (and I’ve read close to none of it).
—–
4) I personally hope Berto stays, and am glad that I now better understand his position on BoD. I would like to explore it further with him, civilly.
1) It is not a second account, I merely deleted as much as possible from the profile in my way out, since it is apparently impossible to delete it outright
2)I never implied you have any actual affiliation with Roman Watcher, past frequenting the same blog, similar modus operandi and displayings of pride, at least superficially.
3)The article is ridden with manipulation. Unless specifically removing ref. to catechumens, incorrect translation of Trent and implying the Triune Baptism means Three types of Baptism, and not three qualities of the One Baptism is ok.
4)Pontiffs have never spoken explicitly of “implicit” Baptism of Desire, maybe you mean Pontiff’s Catechisms such as Pius X.
5)If you are looking for la creme de la creme, why not quote the Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston:
<<but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6).” >>
So it seems even in the damning letter it is said supernatural faith in GOD (not Vishna, Zeus or Lucifer or Allah or even Science) is necessary.
6) Since the whole trope about BOD is about the “Ordinary Magisterium” being infallible, it is absolutely necessary that all “theologians, saints, doctors” have to have taught the same exact concept of Baptism of Desire (but not even the name is the same, let alone each of their personal fallible understanding of it)
7)It is and indeed it inevitably lead to Indifferentism.
When you insist people are saved IN their religions, and that Baptism of Water is NOT necessary (like Lefebvre admitted, see Lyonel’s topic in the Forum) it is logically the same as saying outside the Church there is salvation, and Faith isn’t required.
Just a matter of degrees.
8) Some think explicit meant expressed verbally to others, vs only internally desired.
Where is it infallible stated it is as you say an unconscious unknowable gift?
9)Implicit bod in Heathens who keep on being such without realising, as Lefebvre theorises here:
“This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.”
makes no sense. As right after such occult baptism, they would immediately mortally sin and be damned again, by worshiping false deities.
Unless you are also ready to adopt NO’s GAOTU approach of course.
Dear All,
Several things:
1) I have no problem with non Catholics posting, (which means they are reading) on this site. I also have ZERO problems with anyone reading what I write. Furthermore, if we truly believe that the Truth subsists in the Catholic Church, and that we represent “Truth’s” point of view, then we should be more than happy to have as many people come to this blog (especially the non believers) to find out for themselves how the Truth in fact looks. That is, unless we have bought into the Bergoglio “proselytism is solemn nonsense” and we are supposed to just meet people but no to convert them.
2) Personal attacks are never called for, since we must assume good will on the part of the authors. Unless of course, proof to the contrary is established. There is one individual who occasionally comments on this blog who definitely qualifies as a troll (demonstrable bad will), but it DEFINITELY is not Berto.
3) With respect to the masons, Jews, or Canadians for that matter. I have no problem with the statement “the Grand Orient Lodge” in Milan is trying to infiltrate the Catholic Church. What makes the argument weak is when we say “the masons” are trying to infiltrate the Catholic Church. The masons are a large organization that has many “targets of infiltration” if you will. A few years back, the British Constabulary had a problem with Masonry. If my memory serves me correctly, it turned out that through an informal “support network”, a large number of senior staff belonged to one of the lodges. That would not have been a problem in and of itself, if not for the fact that a group of masons were involved in covering up for wrong doings of fellow lodge members. Summa Summarum, it’s not just our problem.
4) With respect to the Jews, same argumentation as above. What makes this topic more onerous is the historical context. And this historical context makes the subject what’s called a “third rail” topic. And what makes this topic even more difficult is that it’s not “the Jews”, but rather a group of influential “people of Jewish descent” who have set themselves up as a “special interest group” to be the “official” guardians of the “history of the Jews”. Now, this “special interest” group does not discriminate on the basis Jew or Gentile when they feel that their “official history” is threatened. Examples of this are plentiful. Therefore, my suggestion is that we, as intelligent and well formed individuals need to pay particular attention to the thoughts that we are trying to express. Not only to make the case are we arguing more sound, but also as not to give ammo to the enemies of Truth. And this is what Roman Watcher was alluding to in a number of exchanges with Berto. Summa Summarum, let’s be very conscious of blanket statements about masons, Jews or Canadians for that matter.
5) And finally, what I think is important is the big picture. Here Roman Watcher has an excellent point. There are ‘shadowy’ organizations that operate in the social media sphere that ‘attack’ social networks trying to steer opinion in a certain direction. If they can’t steer opinion, then they try to shut them down. There are at least two governments (Israel and Russia) who have units that monitor internet traffic to detect when a topic comes into their “sphere of interest” shall we say. If anyone doubts this, I suggest going to one of the more popular business sections of a major newspaper when the topic of Russia appears. A good example is looking through the comment section of say, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the International Business Editor of the Daily Telegraph. What you will notice is quite a few posts with English sounding names but with a very strong Russian (pro Putin) point of view. Hint, they ain’t British folks.
And finally a few words about why I decided to write the above. I wrote the above for one reason and one reason alone. I think that the Harvesting the Fruit blog is one of the top three websites today (with Mundabor and Rorate Caeli), that expresses an editorial line that is consistent with the Faith as taught by Christ and handed down to the apostles and down through the respective generations. This site, along with a few others is fighting the good fight, and it is landing blows against the forces of the evil one. I think that Bishop Schneider’s comment from his “Shot heard around the world” interview, namely: “ I was pleased to see that some Catholic journalists and internet bloggers behaved as good soldiers of Christ and drew attention to this clerical agenda of undermining the perennial teaching of Our Lord.”, was directed at sites like this one. Having said the above, I think it would be a real shame if the comments on this site “degenerated” to the point where they would start impacting on the credibility of not only the editorial position of the owner, but also on the credibility of the commentator.
Dear S.Armaticus,
You brought up a number of very good points, and we have a couple of suggestions to offer regarding them and the smooth sailing we should all like to see, obviously in light of what happened here over the last 6 months..,
__
-Since commenters are anonymous, any personal information they choose to share should not be challenged with any hostility, and that especially, includes their religious background and the reason they chose the name they are using.
__
Any gave concerns for the well-being of the blog-site which may arise from comments someone considers “suspicious”, should be respectfully raised with the person in question. And if the response is not satisfactory to the person raising them, the only appropriate recourse is to contact Louie in private, rather than making any public attempt to shame the poster or coerce other posters to join them in rejecting or denouncing the person in question.
___
These are matters of simple justice and civility. The fact that semi or fully “professional” organizations exist to disrupt peaceful operation of blogs, makes it even more difficult to identify genuine culprits with any certainty, which should lead everyone to even greater reserve and caution before making such assertions.
___
We’d like RW to know that any concerns he has for the safeguarding of the Faith are shared by all of us, and appreciated, even though we disagree so strongly with how he chose to handle it. And we do hope everyone will welcome Bert to return, if Louie has no reason to wish otherwise.
I am hoping Berto was just saying good bye to Roman Watcher. Berto please don’t go because I have loved your posts so.
I am not aware of any good reason for you to leave, Berto. That is a matter for Mr Verrechio. If Roman Watcher has evidence of malfeasance against any person commenting here, he ought to present it to Mr Verrechio, so that Mr Verrechio might protect the blog, its readers and commenters. God bless.
So what’s up with all the very nasty references to Canadians? I personally feel violated, insulted, hurt, dirty, crushed, saddened, marginalized, and lots of other really bad things….
—
Well, ok, I don’t feel any of those things. But all words here are in the eye of the BEHOLDER, not the writer.
—
Simply type with a prayer beforehand, and a smile on your lips, and your words will read as sweet as you type them.
I don’t want anyone to leave feeling ‘hurt’ either. But gee, you know, if you read something that is bothersome there is the option of just ignoring it. Not every post has to get a response – even silly, misinformed, or nasty ones.
—
As for genuine disagreement, well have at it, but I see the degeneration very quickly into hurt feelings, insult, and oh yeah – yo momma!
Dear Barbara,
Generally we agree with what you wrote here, and have put it into practice many times, ourselves. The difference in this case, was the history you may not be aware of, and the recent targeting -(three times within a
couple of days), with more of the same unprovable allegations made last summer– when Louie took the time to post his response as “Author” and reiterated among other things, that anonymity of posters needs be respected for a number of good reasons, and that what was being done at the time, was not the way he wanted things to go.
__
Bert then changed his name to “Berto” (sometime in late August of 2014) trying to “start over” he said, only to be attacked again by RW, on the basis that his new chosen name “proved” he was really Jewish and out to subvert the blog. Berto patiently explained his reasons and anscestry, to no avail, while we all tried to ignore it and moved on–discussing other issues, and treating “Berto” with the same respect as always.
__
It is in light of that, that this latest volley amounted to more than a minor annoying comment or two, which prudence dictates we ignore. And Berto’s decision to leave, rather than remain the center of such an ongoing distracting disturbance, is not something to shrug off either, in our opinion.
__
What do all our objections to things we see the modernists doing to Faithful Catholics and groups like the FFI really mean, if we then allow the same kinds of injustices to be perpetrated all around us, remaining silent in situations where our opinions have a much greater chance of impacting the outcome and restoring justice?
___
We can’t speak for others, but we hope you will agree that the history here, called for something more than prudential silence, but if not, you are certainly entitled to hold and express other opinions. In good conscience, we stand by our decision to speak out as we did, leaving anything further to Louie’s discretion.
Berto,
—–
As you might imagine, I don’t agree with your conclusions. This will be a short response for now – I will post something longer, with references, but it may not be until early next week.
—–
5) It is dogma that God can be known via reason alone. Thus, Faith (the virtue) is possible without explicit knowledge of the Catholic religion. Theoretically *possible* says nothing with regard to occurrence.
—–
6) The ordinary magisterium is infallible only when it is universal – that’s a fact. However, “always & everywhere” does not really mean what you seem to assume – that every Catholic “theologian, saint, doctor” taught the same thing since Apostolic times. Teachings sometimes begin, of course, in very loose form. Doctrine cannot change in meaning but it can (and often has) become more precise. I’m pretty sure you’d agree with that.
—–
7) You said: “When you insist people are saved IN their religions, and that Baptism of Water is NOT necessary (like Lefebvre admitted, see Lyonel’s topic in the Forum) it is logically the same as saying outside the Church there is salvation, and Faith isn’t required” you certainly sound like you are questioning – if not denying – ALL baptism of desire, not just the implicit type. So, perhaps I can be forgiven for being confused about your position previously.
—–
In fact, water baptism is necessary generally, as ordained by God, but not in every specific case, as God does not bind Himself by normal means of affecting His own Sacraments. Rather, there are indeed *three types* of Baptism, water included, which the Church has always taught – there is support for this teaching going back to the early Church. A soul baptized by desire is baptized and thus a member of the Church; extra ecclesium nulla salus is not violated – or neutered.
—–
Before we continue, I think you should clarify whether or not you deny only implicit Baptism of Desire or any sort of Baptism of Desire. If the former, why would you attack Archbishop Lefrebvre for stating the truth that Baptism can be affected without water (this being not the normal means) when God so chooses? Please explain.
Barbara, we live in the Age of the Subjective.
—–
Heck, even revelation works that way – from the bottom up, via feelings. 🙂
Dear Barbara:
_
W/r/t the Canadians…nothing personal.
_
Besides, we’re all VICTIMS 😉
ACT,
I cannot help but feel you feign naïveté on purpose. You cannot seem to distinguish between arguments and personal opinions, and criticising of behaviour from theology.
5)So what you are saying is that the supernatural faith talked about in the letter vs Feeney is towards false idols, and that all religions are expressions of God, albeit imperfect, yes?
6)A doctrine has to have at least the basis in common.
The historical teaching on baptismus flaminis (or whatever you call it) it is not the same as what you modern enthusiasts claim to be Baptism of desire.
You cannot justify a teaching to be universal and de fide since “forever” if it looks nothing like what you today claim it to be.
Your reasoning is exactly the same as the Nos, they say they merely perfected prior teachings (meaning unaltered).
Quote mining from (some) theologians of the past =/= unanimous teachings of the fathers.
7)Why? You yourself admitted that would qualify as “implicit BOD”
And Lyonel is right in saying acting like BOD today is a FACT and regularly occurring phenomenon in all false religions is irrational.
You cannot possibly know that, and it is obviously just a way to promoted Religious Indifferentism.
For all intents and purposes the Church has always acted like BOD (for infidels but also often catechumens) wasn’t a thing. You and the SSPX are doing exactly the opposite.
“God does not bind Himself by normal means of affecting His own Sacraments”
you perversely use that, much like NOists use “you can’t know a man’s soul” to mean Sacraments are not necessary.
You really cannot distinguish here between theoretical theology and practical conduct?
It seems so, because you then say “why would you attack Archbishop Lefrebvre for stating the truth that Baptism can be affected without water (this being not the normal means) when God so chooses?”
Because He said Baptism of Water is not necessary to catechumens, instead of baptising them. Again, by your logic the Church would have never insisted on the Sacrament for adults ever.
It is God that chooses (we cannot know if and when) not you or Lefebvre.
The same applies to BOD for infidels keeping on being infidels (let’s pretend it makes sense for a moment), you claim to KNOW God is currently and continously engaged in such an activity for which YOU KNOW Infidels IN THEIR RELIGIONS are saved.
Berto, you are the one who seems to be unable to cease making personal comments.
—–
Before going further, just to dispel this silly asserting that I (& Archbishop Lefebvre) are “just like the NOs”, here is a little something I wrote a few years ago in which I argue, as did Augustine and Aquinas, that salvation is extremely difficult, and even the greater number of adult *Catholics* are lost:
—–
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/hell/
—–
I reference this, again, only to counter this ridiculous assertion of yours that I – and the SSPX – preach the indifferentism of the modernists.
—–
I’m sorry that you believe that a statement like, “When you insist people are saved IN their religions, and that Baptism of Water is NOT necessary (like Lefebvre admitted, see Lyonel’s topic in the Forum)…” sounds nothing like Feeneyism. It does. The implication is that you believe water baptism to be strictly necessary in all cases, which is Feeneyism in a nutshell. I certainly believe you when you state that you do accept explicit baptism of desire; I’m just expressing the fact that it has been difficult to interpret your words.
—–
5) Of course I wasn’t stating anything remotely similar to what you asserted – which is a completely modernist conception of religion. As I said earlier, this is an illogical inference you seem to make of anyone (including Archbishop Lefebvre!) who understands the three types of baptism. It is you, rather than Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, who misunderstand theology here. You do not seem to grasp the completely critical distinction of “in” vs. “by” – of “due to” vs. “in spite of”. This indeed is the critical distinction!
—–
6) Why don’t we skip the Fathers and go right to Trent: “And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, *or its desire* [aut eius voto], as it is written; ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.'”
—–
So, you say you have no issue with that – no issue with baptism “of desire” – yet deride +Lefebvre for asserting that “baptism of water is NOT necessary” (your emphasis) – not, of course, a quote, but merely a direct inference from Trent’s dogma that there exist three types of baptism. But, let’s move beyond that, since you do declare that you believe in the doctrine of the three types of baptism. Let’s stick only with *implicit* BoD from here on out. Here are a few references (emphasis mine in all cases):
—–
Aquinas (Doctor of the Church), from the Summa: “…man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire,explicitly or **implicitly**”.
—–
St. Ligouri (Doctor of the Church): “Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or **implicit** desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the baptismal character or as to the removal of **all debt of punishment**.”
—–
Catechism of the Council of Trent (translation by James Duffy): “In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: **and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament**.”
—–
Pope Pius IX – that great hammer of modernism – and I’m sure you are familiar with this quote: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. **Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments**.”
—–
Let me address now a few more of your statements.
—–
“You cannot possibly know that” “[implicit BoD] is a regularly occurring phenomenon in all false religions” – Berto, I’M NOT SAYING THAT. I’ve made this clear. I’ve never once hinted at any such thing. Neither had Archbishop Lefebvre. Once again, this is an inference of yours, and an invalid one. Period. Indeed, I have absolutely no idea how operative is baptism of desire in the communities of false religions, but I am inclined to believe it is extremely rare, which is why the Catholic Faith, the only true religion, the only Ark of Salvation, should be preached, as Our Lord commanded, unceasingly, to the ends of the Earth.
—–
And I marvel at the fact that there are people that believe that the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre believed anything other than this with regard to the one, true Faith.
—–
Denial of implicit baptism of desire is indeed not Feeneyism, but it is not an error. Your position seems to be driven almost entirely over invalid inferences you draw from the very concept of implicit baptism of desire – you believe its very existence fosters indifferentism, but that is not true. I side with Pius IX, Archbishop Lefebvre, and, indeed, Aquinas & Trent as well over your position.
—–
(Note, especially, that Pius IX is stating explicitly exactly what you declare to be indifferentism, to be modernism.)
—–
I’m going to stop there. I doubt I will put forth more effort on this topic here. You can have the last word.
First of all, I agree that this conversation is fruitless and you are right in giving up hope, because there seems to be a mutual inability to grasp the subtleness and distinctions we might mentally make but fail to express them in words due to succinctness and maybe bias.
1)I never said that (you are just like the NOs) I said that in in reference to specific instances and modus operandi.
2)That according to some theologies prevalent today (yes, including some NOism-s) most catholics would burn (or risk to) while infidels would not is a well known paradox, one I and others have touched upon in other comments. And Benedict XVI also recognised.
3)Still misrepresenting my position I see (I’m sorry that you believe that a statement like, “When you insist people are saved IN their religions, and that Baptism of Water is NOT necessary ), and failing to differentiate between theology and practical effects and/or behaviour.
5)No, again, I said that because it is the only logical outcome you HAVE TO arrive at to resolve inconsistencies.
I perfectly grasp the simple distinction between IN vs in spite of. Who couldn’t?
I’m trying to point out that even interpreted properly it cannot make sense.
See my other comment on mortal sin for “saved” infidels also.
You said they know God rationally and that is what the letter refers to.
But they keep on worshiping false idols and believe them true (remember Lefebvre is not talking about dying infidels who in the last seconds of life receive bod, but “living oblivious individuals”
So, either you have to admit all religions are true (more or less) and/or that they are extempt also from mortal and/or they cease to be infidels.
Tertium non datur.
Please post a “working model” for a professing heathen(who doesn’t stop being such) being saved while having faith in demons instead. One that has heard about Catholicism (like 99% of the people alive today) would be preferable. Using B.O.D.. Thank you.
6)I won’t comment on the veracity of that particular translation (there are good arguments against it), but I am perplexed as to why you chose to post that, since I was specifically referring to the crux of the issue, modern vs historical understanding and the reality of DESIRE being a valid mean to baptism wasn’t on the table! And you post it as if I could be unaware of the Trent passage as if it isn’t the most utilised argument of BOD.
But ok. Next you move on to tidbits about “implicit” BOD. Again the crux of the issue is not that some individuals or even the Church at large say that.
The problem is WHAT exactly is “implicit b.o.d.”.
The definition you seem to strive should be called “occult heterogenic baptism of ignorance”, as those who allegedly receive it do not
a)desire it consciously
b)are aware of it
Does the Catechism of Trent refer to people who keep on practicing their religion afterwards and have no clue about God?
Since you seem to say that they rationally understand God, it follows they identify it with their own false idols afterwards correct?
About the quote from Pius IX, I talked about it at lenght in other comments.
Regardless of it endorsing bod for infidels or not, it highlights an interesting dilemma.
They have not to be guilty of deliberate sin. We have to use a relativistic definition of mortal sin then. Only those who are aware of what is a mortal sin, can commit one, correct? Since many religions require their followers to commit mortal sins to adhere to them.
8) If we agree about Catholic Faith de fact being necessary, what is the problem?
I, Lionel and you all agree for all intents and purposes we should act as if BOD isn’t really “real” both in preaching and proselythising.
The problem arises when they are used as excuses not to do that.
And yes, the same is true about Baptism of Water vs Desire.
Since theoretically B.O.D. could replace the Sacrament proper(but some theologians disagree), does that mean we shouldn’t baptise even those explicitly asking for it? Please cite historical examples of it being the norm.
“Denial of implicit baptism of desire is indeed not Feeneyism, but it is not an error.”
Don’t you mean, it IS an error?
Again, I didn’t even deny implicit baptism of desire, I denied the particular definition some subscribe to.
Hey, I hoped you’d realize I was kidding!!!
I do agree, and thanks for pointing out the history.
Dear Barbara,
Glad to hear that, and you’re more than welcome.