In his speech at University of Dallas, Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga gives us a glimpse at certain of the underlying principles that are influencing the direction in which Pope Francis intends to take the Church.
Revealed in the process is yet more evidence that this pontificate represents an aggressive return to the vision of Pope John Paul II; a truly modernist one, based as it is upon the notion that the post-Vatican II Church sees herself “in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously.” (As mentioned in an earlier post.)
Yes, quite unknown previously, indeed!
So rich in content is Cardinal Rodríguez’s speech that it will take several posts to dissect it. Today, I would like to take a closer look at his concept of the sacred hierarchy.
The hierarchy has no purpose in itself and for itself, but only in reference and subordination to the community. The function of the hierarchy is redefined in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant, not as “Pantocrator” (lord and emperor of this world); only from the perspective of someone crucified by the powers of this world it is possible to found, and to explain, the authority of the Church.
This vision of the hierarchy is impoverished for the simple reason that it is based upon a neutered image of Jesus Christ, wherein He is essentially viewed an itinerant preacher who went about doing good deeds, only to be defeated by the “powers of this world,” and most importantly, a man rendered stripped of any meaningful right of sovereignty over the created order that He came to redeem.
In this, one sees very clearly the degree to which the cardinal is of like mind with Pope Francis, who in one of his many public condemnations of restorationists (aka Catholics) provided additional insight saying, “In their hearts [Triumphalists] do not believe in the Risen Lord and want to make theirs a more majestic resurrection than that of the real one.”
If Cardinal Rodríguez’s “C-8” counterpart, Cardinal Pell, wants to know what rubbish really looks like, he need look no further than this utterly false dichotomy between a “real” resurrection and a “majestic” one.
To state the obvious (which apparently is becoming ever more necessary), the resurrection is both real and majestic. Even so, the new regime seems to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ rose not to reign in glory, but simply to pick up where they imagine He left off, only to be killed once more.
If, indeed, these new churchmen of the new church-of-man still hold to any part of the traditional understanding of the priest as Alter Christus, it would appear that their concept of Holy Orders has been reduced to little more than ontological configuration to a glorified Peace Corps volunteer.
Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga hammers the point home stating:
Indeed, the first trait of the priesthood of Jesus is that “he had to be made like his brothers in every respect.” The original priesthood of Jesus is the one that has to be continued in history.
No, eminence, not in “every respect” as Jesus Christ alone is King “as man in the strict and proper sense.” (see Quas Primas)
In any event, it would seem that by “the original priesthood of Jesus” the cardinal is suggesting that the priesthood of Christ the High Priest can be understood in more than one fashion, the “original” and what, the “new and improved”?
I honestly can’t say with any certainty what he’s talking about since I have this nasty habit of reflecting on such things through a Catholic lens, but I suspect he is attempting to paint an image of the hierarchy as men called to imitate the God-man who walked the earth en route to the crucifixion, apart from the Lord who is risen in glory, ascended into in Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. The latter, one supposes, is just a little too Kingly for comfort, never mind that the resurrection of Our Blessed Lord in glory is that which makes Holy Orders possible in the first place.
I will resist the urge to go on, but will instead wrap it up for now with the observation that this “utterly new” ecclessial self-awareness that is driving the current pontificate is only plausible for those who in some measure have forgotten, or who have never really believed, who Jesus is.
This should make sense. In order to supplant the Mystical Body of Christ with the church-of man, it is first necessary to redefine Christ, and that is precisely what we are witnessing here.
Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga offers any number of gems in his speech that make this clear, but I will close with this:
The calling of the Church, in the likeness of Jesus, is to proclaim the Kingdom of God. Even Christ himself did not proclaim or preach Himself, but the Kingdom.
Yea, sure, eminence, you just keep telling yourself this filthy disgusting lie, as if Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same who said “I am the way, the truth and the life,” and whose public proclamations of His own divinity led to His crucifixion, didn’t preach Himself.
Just make sure you savor all of the raucous applause that comes from the poor gullible fools who line up to swallow this poison, because surely you have received your reward.
“The original priesthood of Jesus is the one that has to be continued in history.”
I think the cardinal is talking about the „historical Jesus“. “Original” means “historical”.
Leonrado Boff, a friend and admirer of the Pope, explains this concept here:
“(…)The most frequent criticisms that circulate in the social media of these historically antiquated and backward groups, go along the line of accusing Pope Francis of undermining the sacred nature of the figure of the papacy, trivializing and secularizing it. In reality, they ignore history and are hostage to a secular tradition that has little to do with the historical Jesus and life style of the Apostles.(…)”
One should read it all to understand their way of thinking:
http://leonardoboff.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/pope-francis-and-the-shedding-of-pagan-papal-customs/
I read some of the writings of the Pope´s Teacher J.C. Scannone SJ, a famous Argentinian liberation theologian. He makes the same distinctions and speaks only of “the historical Jesus before the cruxifixon”.
This is modernism according to St. Pius X..
Quote from Pascendi Gregis:
“(…)Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. Lately, the third canon, which lays down that the person of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else that is not in keeping with His character, circumstances and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A strange style of reasoning, truly; but it is Modernist criticism.(…)”
Wow.. much of this “crap” is just like Hugh Benson’s novel, “Lord of the World”!
More about the “historical Jesus” and the “Christ of the faith”:
“To adequately comprehend Christianity, one must make some distinctions that are accepted by most scholars. Thus, it is important to distinguish between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the faith. By historical Jesus is understood the preacher and prophet from Nazareth as he actually existed under Caesar Augustus and Herod. The Christ of the faith is the content of the preaching of his disciples, who see Him as the Son of God and Savior.
Another important distinction that must be made is between the Kingdom of God and the Church. The Kingdom of God is the original message of Jesus. It signifies an absolute revolution, redefining the relationships of human beings with God, (sons and daughters), of humans among themselves (all brothers and sisters), of humans with society (the centrality of the poor), and with the universe (the creation of a new heaven and a new Earth). The Church has been possible because Jesus was rejected and therefore, the Kingdom of God was not realized. The Church is a historical construction, that tries to carry on the cause of Jesus in different cultures and epochs. The dominant incarnation is in Western culture, but it is also found in Eastern culture, in the Copt and others.
It is also important to distinguish between theTradition of Jesus, and the Christian religion. TheTradition of Jesus predates the writing of the Gospels, even though it is embodied in them. The Gospels were written from 30 to 60 years after the execution of Jesus. In the meantime, communities and churches were organized, with their tensions, internal conflicts and forms of organization. The Gospels reflect and are part of this situation. The Gospels do not pretend to be historical books, but books for edification, and for the diffusion of the life and message of Jesus, as the Savior of the world.(…)”
http://leonardoboff.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/the-tradition-of-jesus-vs-the-christian-religion/
Dear Mr. V. Traditionalists are chided for passing on Tradition and they are derided as, presumably, trying to be “More Catholic than the Pope” but there is an action the modernists engage in that could be called “Humbler than Jesus.”
That is, the modern Popes have refused the Triregnum (consider the threefold symbolic truth that represents) whereas Jesus was radically humble and allowed Hs enemies, those about to Kill Him, to Crown Him.
Our modern Popes will not even let their friends Crown them and that, to me at least, suggests not humility but fear; they fear being mocked and derided by the world for that Triregnum represents a truth the world thinks silly and long passe (well, so do the modern Popes come to think of it).
So, what is worse than More-Catholic-Than-The-Pope ?
Humbler-Than-Jesus.
This filth is enough to make a strong woman cry. But not tears of weakness, tears of the “St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle” type.
Sir,
I read Maradiaga’s discourse, prompted to what you posted two days ago. I translated and summarised it in Italian for the blogpost Chiesa e postconcilio, which is widely read Oltre Tevere. It will appear tomorrow November 1. If you don’t mind, i’ll supplement it with your comments, always very clear and sounded, I mean, Catholic sounded.
Your sincerely, in Domino
Rosa Roccaforte, Milan
“If … Cardinal Pell, wants to know what rubbish really looks like, he need look no further than this utterly false dichotomy between a “real” resurrection and a “majestic” one.”
This papacy is expert at creating false dichotomies; it boggles one’s mind to see how many straw men Pope Francis has created just so he can demolish them:
1. Judas was an ideologist vs. the traditional belief that Judas was a thief. (That makes Judas an intellectual?)
2. If you want to know about the Blessed Virgin Mary, don’t go to the theologians – look instead to those devoted to her. (Can’t theologians be devotees, too? Think Sts. Thomas, Agustine, Bernard, Duns Scotus.)
3. Prayers of the heart vs. standard verbal Catholic prayers (not the same thing?)
4. Fostering feelings of brotherhood among men vs. the need for salvation (? – God so loved the world that He sent His only son to foster feelings of brotherhood among men, so that the youth will always have employment and old people will never be lonely.)
5. Gossip is murder vs. to fight against abortion is an obsession
6. Mysticism vs. asceticism (In reality, one can’t be a mystic without being an ascetic first.)
7. Real resurrection vs. majestic resurrection.
8. Hierarcy’s purpose is “subordiation to the community” vs. the Heirarcy embodying Christ’s mediatory priesthood.
Thank you, Mr. V, for pointing out this “utterly new” ecclessial self-awareness is only plausible for those who in some measure have forgotten, or who have never really believed, who Jesus is.
Thanks to all of you for your comments which help a simple Catholic to de-code the modernist lingo. Honestly, I don’t know what they are talking about half the time, but I can detect code-speak when I hear it. One of the clues is that to the untrained ear it makes no sense. It is not rationally coherent. But the modernist speaker will go on-and-on in this same non-sensical way and one must come to the conclusion that to them it does “make sense”. Thankfully, I am not “tuned in” to their “frequency” or should I say “cosmic vibrations”?
This is basically taking the notion of “Christ the Hippy” and turning it into high sounding theological gibberish. Can’t you just hear John “more popular than Jesus” Lennon’s anthem for secular humanism, “Imagine”, playing in the background? At least J.L. could communicate his message effectively and artistically to people. As for these modernist priests, they are only fully understood by one another and their “fruits” are to drive people away from the Church. What believing Catholic would want to listen to such a perversion of the faith? As for the non-believers, sure they love it. They aren’t quite sure what it all means but it sure sounds “groovy”.
HI Louie. Just a thought. Have you considered doing regular talks and posting them as mp3s or videos. Basically, it would be nice to be able to listen to these same blog posts. I just like to be able to listen to good solid Catholic talks. Sometimes it’s nice to be able to listen while cooking for example, rather than sitting down and reading. You’re Italian, you should understand cooking while listening. 🙂
God bless you and keep you pure of heart.
Is not the Pope “Servus servorum Dei”?
Modernism vs. Orthodoxy from http://www.peterkreeft.com
The following questions do not divide Protestants and Catholics—and they are the most important questions of all—but they do divide the orthodox from the Modernist in both churches:
1) Is God a transcendent, supernatural, personal, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, providential, loving, just Creator? Or is God an immanent cosmic force evolving in nature and man?
2) Do miracles really happen? Or has science refuted them? A transcendent God can perform miracles; a merely immanent, naturalistic God cannot. The three great miracles essential to orthodox Christianity are the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the new birth.
3)Is there a heaven? Or is heaven just all the good on earth?
4) Does God really love me? Or is that just a helpful sentiment?
5) Does God forgive my sins through Christ? Or is sin an outdated concept? In other words, is Christ a mere human example or a Savior from sin?
6) Is Christ divine, eternal, from the beginning? Or is he only divine “as all men are divine”?
7) Did he physically rise from the dead? Or is the Resurrection only a myth, a beautiful symbol?
8) Must we be born again from above to be saved, to have God as our Father? Or is everyone saved automatically? Does everyone have God as Father simply by being born as a human being, or by being reasonably nice during life?
9) Is Scripture God’s word to us? Or is it human words about God? Does it have divine or human authority behind it? And can an ordinary Christian understand its true meaning without reading German theologians?
10) Most important of all, can I really meet God in Christ? If I ask him to be my Lord, the Lord of my life, will he really do it? Or is this just a “religious experience”? This question is really one with the question: Did Christ really rise from the dead? That is, is he alive now? Can I say: “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!”?
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/toward-reuniting.htm
Modernism vs. Orthodoxy from http://www.peterkreeft.com
The following questions do not divide Protestants and Catholics—and they are the most important questions of all—but they do divide the orthodox from the Modernist in both churches:
1) Is God a transcendent, supernatural, personal, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, providential, loving, just Creator? Or is God an immanent cosmic force evolving in nature and man?
2) Do miracles really happen? Or has science refuted them? A transcendent God can perform miracles; a merely immanent, naturalistic God cannot. The three great miracles essential to orthodox Christianity are the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the new birth.
3)Is there a heaven? Or is heaven just all the good on earth?
4) Does God really love me? Or is that just a helpful sentiment?
5) Does God forgive my sins through Christ? Or is sin an outdated concept? In other words, is Christ a mere human example or a Savior from sin?
6) Is Christ divine, eternal, from the beginning? Or is he only divine “as all men are divine”?
7) Did he physically rise from the dead? Or is the Resurrection only a myth, a beautiful symbol?
8) Must we be born again from above to be saved, to have God as our Father? Or is everyone saved automatically? Does everyone have God as Father simply by being born as a human being, or by being reasonably nice during life?
9) Is Scripture God’s word to us? Or is it human words about God? Does it have divine or human authority behind it? And can an ordinary Christian understand its true meaning without reading German theologians?
10 ) Most important of all, can I really meet God in Christ? If I ask him to be my Lord, the Lord of my life, will he really do it? Or is this just a “religious experience”? This question is really one with the question: Did Christ really rise from the dead? That is, is he alive now? Can I say: “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!”?
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/toward-reuniting.htm
Samwise said: is not the pope the servant of the servants of God? In an unfallen world – always – in a sin soaked world where the Church’s higher ‘servants’ have long started looking to the ‘enemy’ – the world- to see how to progress – not so much. Pope Benedict said in the papal office, pointing to the door, ‘My authority ends there.’
It’s largesse to suppose these men have’ forgotten, or who have never really believed, who Jesus is.’ Honour thy mother and father. These new church ‘pastors’ have no Church fathers – they certainly have fathers but not from the Church’s treasury.
Thanks for the quotes Martina from the revolutionary loyal sons of the father of lies: “The Kingdom of God is the original message of Jesus. It signifies an absolute revolution” – no, not really – Christ said Himself that he came not to abolish but to fulfill. “The Church is a historical construction” – I though it was the eternal Goodness and Life reaching into the temporal so that we could respond and become a part of the eternal Goodness and Life? “The Gospels do not pretend to be historical books”, um no, they’re not pretending, they are historical and inspired by the Word.
PF “If you want to know the Blessed Virgin Mary, don’t go to the theologians – look instead to those devoted to her” I’ll put my hand up here and say that looking to my inward incorruptible self of the true compass of good and evil, the Blessed Virgin wishes Pope Francis would stop using her to gain street cred for his anti-Catholic and anti-Mother Church brain farts. Of course I’m paraphrasing using my own, and therefore ‘sanctified’, ‘dialectic’.
Michael Leon said: I don’t know what they are talking about half the time, but I can detect code-speak when I hear it – This speech by Cornelia Ferreira helps to sort the blue pill from the red pill – ” the blue pill will allow the subject to remain in the fabricated reality of the Matrix, and the red pill serves as a “location device” to locate the subject’s body [and soul] in the real world and to prepare him to be “unplugged” from the Matrix.”
http://www.fatimathepathtopeace.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148&Itemid=8
Ferreira’s speech ‘World Revolution and Diabolical Disorientation’ has the new orientation of the post-concilliar heirarchy down pat. She explains the double-speak (basically muddying the waters) which has Hegelian roots – Hegel greatly influenced Marxism. So the church of man marches on – whatever a Priest receives at ordination (nothing less than a divine, unique power of the Holy Spirit ) is – what? I guess Hegel might know.
Let’s pray that in the years to come these sophists don’t begin muddying the clarity in the Roman Catholic Church of Apostolic succession, so that, like the Anglicans – this unique gift itself may or may not ‘be’. What else is left for ruinators? Perhaps turning the Vatican into the Grandissimi Lodge? If so, maybe that would explain why in the vision of Sr Lucia, God lets it get blown to bits. Also, it simply is not possible that the muddy mind of man could make a “more majestic resurrection than that of the real one.”
God bless you Louie and everyone willing to be hated for the love of Christ.
Some of the good cardinal’s comments quoted above (if taken in proper context, noting I haven’t read his speech) seem close to manifest heresy. At the very least, they are capable of giving rise to (what’s the buzz-word of this papacy so far?) “confusion” or even outright scandal.
This is unfortunate but unsurprising in the current climate.
It seems to be yet another indication that (as has been variously foretold by Our Lady, other saints and blessed past popes) that the clergy are losing the faith and that the faith in the one, true God is being replaced by a false faith in man-as-god.
In fact, its only a slight exaggeration to suggest that the apparent gross and blasphemous belittling of Our Lord’s role in salvation by the New Church could be seen as virtually equating His status in the New Church to His status in Islam – mighty prophet, good all-round guy, born of an exulted and holy virgin… but NOT an integral part of the Godhead. After all, its not “His” Kingdom Jesus is talking about according to the modernists (who are apparently content to completely ignore, among many other indicators, that He openly admitted to Pilate that He was, indeed, King of a Kingdom which not of this world!).
But wait! Could that be the real agenda? False ecumenism extending to Islam?
This would fit in very nicely with the One World Religion and New World Order goals advanced by various conspiracy theorists.
While I’m not a card-carrying conspiracy theorist, what’s been happening lately really starts you thinking – just maybe.
Roi – close to the mark. The ‘new-worlders’, or as St Alphonsus would have called them, worldlings, employ Islam to clean out Christianity (and because islam in the eyes of worldlings can do no wrong, no one complains( (except those pesky traditionalists)), the swept out Christianity is then replaced with radical totalitarian sharia rock the casbah islam, which then is replaced, through ‘intervention’, with the up front and bold luciferian totalitarianism which is what Alinsky, and his bequeathed, blithely give their lives, and maybe their souls, for.
I’m finding it very, very difficult to believe that the pope and the majority of our hierarchy truly believe in the bodily resurrection of Our Lord.
I want to believe they believe it, but their words constantly point otherwise. For the modernist doesn’t believe it miracles. We’ve heard it from the most blatant modernists…the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was really a miracle of sharing, the resurrection of Jesus was really in how he lived on in His disciples, etc. How are we not to conclude, given their words and actions, that such a profound loss of faith, had not infected the men that sit in the highest places in Holy Mother Church?
The thought is terrifying. Truly terrifying.
Thank you for this Mr. V. The modernist churchmen are bent on destroying our Catholic identity. I cannot stand them – and will certainly not follow them – as, it seems to me they have lost the faith. There is nothing beautiful about their humanistic ramblings. as they do not lead to God. They flatten the Faith and tie it to earth-bound things….
“As Mons. Lefebvre said (and wrote a book about) “They have uncrowned Him”.
They are betraying the Lord Jesus. with their words.
What pitiful men!
Greetings and prayers for ALL SAINTS!
Barbara
The Cardinal from Honduras is a doublespeaking forkedtongued hypocrite: because even if Jesus was as he claims, and we should imitate Jesus as he claims, they we should not lie and double speak as he does in implying that the Church got the priesthood of Christ and the ministerial priesthood wrong all these centuries, and now he and his chum from Argentina are going to set it aright. To call Jesus a layman is nothing short of the substitution of revelation with the rationalism of a non-believing Jew…the surrender of the Church to the synagoge of the damned…
It`s wonderful to see familiar commenters frequenting this blog…I remember many of them from Rorate. I`m always edified by their solid Catholicism and knowledge. This site is a great bastion and I pray that Mr V and all who comment here will continue refuting the lies and distortions. All are in my rosaries….I fear the worst is yet to come …we must hold fast to the rosary.
” I fear the worst is yet to come”
Dear Theresa. My Uncle used to say that it is always darkest before the storm.
Yes, worse is yet to come for the Catholic Church is recapitulating the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ but we Triumphalist Traditionalists already know how that will turn-out although it is likely not one of us will witness the miraculous resurrection of Holy Mother Church in all of her magnificent Glory and which rapid resurrection will shock the world and convince many (most?) that Jesus Christ indeed is the Head of His Church.
In the meantime, those of us who are Irish-Algonquin Catholic Traditionalists will enjoy the battle as we search for love among the ruins wrought by the maelstrom of modernism
Meanwhile, back in Recognizably Catholic Land…
.
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis ##65-66:
.
“…We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements – namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption,[123] – was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Paraclete. The Eternal Father indeed willed it to be the “kingdom of the Son of his predilection;”[124] but it was to be a real kingdom in which all believers should make Him the entire offering of their intellect and will,[125] and humbly and obediently model themselves on Him, Who for our sake “was made obedient unto death.”[126] There can, then, be no real opposition or conflict between the invisible mission of the Holy spirit and the juridical commission of Ruler and Teacher received from Christ, since they mutually complement and perfect each other – as do the body and soul in man – and proceed from our one Redeemer who not only said as He breathed on the Apostles “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,”[127] but also clearly commanded: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you;”[128] and again: “He that heareth you, heareth me.”[129]
.
66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the Shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity,[130] she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: “Forgive us our trespasses;” and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health.”
Happy All Saints Day!
Spot on Barbara. They (modernists) have lost the faith. Reading excerpts from the speeches of the likes of the Bishops of Rome or Tegucigalpa, it would appear that Jesus is neither Lord nor God. He’s just a good example. A role model if you will. As far as the Resurrection is concerned, yeah, ok. But let’s not obsess with it. Besides, there’s nothing worse than dogmatic certainty. Bad for ecumenism, you know. With respect to how they see the Church (of Jesus), they see it as the bedrock of “reaction”. To these folks, the Church is the institution that kept people like Pinochet and the Argentine Generals in power. Definitely not the friend of the likes of Che, Castro and Chavez. It’s not a force for change. And they are bent on changing it. As far as what Bergoglio teaches about our Faith, it is similar to listening to Obama talk about capitalism. The words are there, but they mean something totally different. Sure Obama says that the market is the best allocator of resources, but then he turns around and forces Obamacare onto the population, an entitlement program that will take over 1/6 of the entire US economy. Which brings me to the point of this entire rant. It’s all about what the Brits term “dosh”. Marx said that at the end of the day, its all about economics. And what we are dealing with here is functional Marxists (both Obama and Bergoglio). The two quotes of Begoglio’s that give the game away are first when he lamented about the religious orders “whose mission was coming to an end” but they don’t want to hand over their real estate. And the second was when he was talking about the “obsession over abortion” and let slip that he did not know who was funding the anti-abortion elements inside the Church. These two quotes struck me as weird since I would not expect a religious man, let alone the pope to think in those categories. But I think that we are all cognizant of the fact that we are dealing with a different type of an animal here altogether.
PS And as far as the “orthodox” red meat that Bergoglio throws out now and again, it’s just to throw the dogs off the scent.
The Church is just another institution that could be used for the “fight”, if not for those pesky Pelagians. And calling them names doesn’t seem to be doing the trick either.
Thank you , all of you here, for helping this wretched convert. I am so grateful for the fellowship you give to me, Mr. V. thank you for helping me. Last Sunday, Feast of Christ the King, on the way home from TLM in a poor parish here in nyc, the driver of my handicapped transit vehicle asked me -as he helped me out- the following: “what do you think of Jesus Christ?” {yes, this is true-it happened.}
I hesitated I was afraid, this is nyc. Then I felt a push on my shoulder. {Our Lady?} Then I blurted out–“Jesus Christ is my Lord and My Savior,”–then , I knew I had only about 90 more seconds with this young man
So I gave him the 90 second radtrad synthesis of Catholicism, full force procelitism. I ended by telling him to spend time with Our Lord in the next Catholic Church he passes -look for the Tabernacle-bc He is present in no other than a Catholic Church. This man had an open heart & was awe inspired. He said no one ever told him about the keys being given to Peter or anything he had just been made aware of. He thanked me & helped onto the sidewalk. Was I too strong? Did I do the right thing?
“It`s wonderful to see familiar commenters frequenting this blog…I remember many of them from Rorate. I`m always edified by their solid Catholicism and knowledge. This site is a great bastion and I pray that Mr V and all who comment here will continue refuting the lies and distortions. ”
Amen, Theresa! And thanks, Louie!
Linda- You did the EXACT right thing. Good for you! Don’t ever be afraid to speak the truth. Would we be afraid to call the sky blue if someone thought it was purple? No! Same with Christ. Reason, science, historical fact and grace all prove Him alive and well:+) Only truth sets people free and if we truly love them, we will speak the truth in kindness whenever possible. You just did a spiritual work of mercy: instructing the ignorant. Way to go! God bless~
Yes, the Pope and Heirarchy are servants of the people but they are also the vicar and princes of the Kingdom of God. Why is it so hard to live out both of those realities? Being Catholic means being BOTH…mercy & justice…truth and kindness…servant & King…etc. Granted it doesn’t mean “doing” both good and evil…or supporting both good and evil…it means distinction, wisdom, and fullness. Yes, the world sees “kings” as being too evil, materialistic, power hungry etc. But that’s their messed up view. Again, the Church is catering to the world rather than leading and instructing it…which if you read the Gospels is exactly what Christ did. Viva Cristo Rey! God bless~
Linda,
You did the right thing, and may have created a new open chair among the saints for that man! Happy All Saints, Day, and let’s live like it’s “Even More Saints” Day!
Further to Martina’s comments on the Modernist dichotomy between the historical Christ and the Christ of faith, the homilies etc. of Pope Francis appear to exhibit a peculiar understanding of the Resurrection as an “event”.
In his homily for the Assumption, Francis says, correctly:
“Our whole faith is based upon this fundamental truth [that Christ is risen] which is not an idea but an event.”
For Francis, however, this “event” does not seem to mean what one would expect, i.e. “a historical fact attested to by eye-witnesses”.
In his Urbi et Orbi message on Easter Sunday, Francis gives a description of the Resurrection that includes the word “event” but does not refer to, and even appears to deny, historical fact:
“We too, like the women…who went to the tomb and found it empty, may wonder what this event means…. What does it mean that Jesus is risen? It means that the love of God is stronger than evil and death itself;… this same merciful love has flooded with light the dead body of Jesus, has transfigured it, has made it pass into eternal life. Jesus did not return to his former life, to earthly life, but entered into the glorious life of God….”.
In his Easter Vigil homily, Francis seems to imply that the “event” at the Resurrection is that the tomb was found to be empty. In each of this homily’s three enumerated parts, the historical fact of the bodily Resurrection goes unmentioned:
“1…. they [the women] see the stone removed from before the tomb,… they do not find the Lord’s body. It is an event which leaves them…full of questions: ‘What happened?’, ‘What is the meaning of all this?’…. Doesn’t the same thing also happen to us when something completely new occurs in our everyday life?…
2. But let us return…to the women…. What was a simple act…– going to the tomb – has now turned into…a truly life-changing event. Nothing remains as it was before…. Jesus is not dead, he has risen, he is alive! He does not simply return to life; rather, he is life itself, because he is the Son of…the living God…. Jesus no longer belongs to the past, but lives in the present and is projected towards the future; Jesus is the everlasting ‘today’ of God. This is how the newness of God appears to the women, the disciples and all of us: as victory over sin, evil and death….
3…. The women encounter the newness of God. Jesus has risen, he is alive! But faced with empty tomb and the two men in brilliant clothes, their first reaction is one of fear…. But when they hear the message of the Resurrection, they accept it in faith. And the two men…tell them something of crucial importance:… “Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee”…. This is the invitation to remember their encounter with Jesus,… his words, his actions, his life; and it is precisely this loving remembrance of their experience with the Master that enables the women to master their fear and to bring the message of the Resurrection to the Apostles….”.
I find all of this, frankly, staggering. I would, however, gladly learn of any unequivocal assertion by Pope Francis of the historicity of the Resurrection. It would help make proselytism appear less like “solemn nonsense”.
Linda….absolutely beautiful!!! The right thing indeed.
Dumb ox – sorry, brother, but I have to disagree with your relevant interpretation.
I find far more comfort in the pope’s acknowledgement of the Resurrection as “an event” rather than “an idea”. An event is a fact rather than a notion (idea). Also, there are several scattered references to the Resurrection (explicit and implicit) in the 3 paragraphs you refer to.
In fact, I find these 3 paragraphs in the pope’s Easter Vigil homily most eloquently conveyed in a solidly orthodox and crystal clear manner – in sharp contrast to a lot of other things he has said which are capable of various interpretations.
And this is the nub of it.
Beautifully pronounced truths (and he has given many of them) are apparently being mixed with ambiguous statements and even possible half-truths. Frustrating. Perplexing. Even alarming considering the warnings of Our Lord in the scriptures and Our Lady in apparitions that, in the end times, false prophets will arise who will deceive even the elect, if that were possible.
Let’s pray that, IF we are in the last times, we are among the elect and that our deception will NOT be possible. Let’s also pray for the Pope, that he opens himself up to guidance by the Holy Spirit remembering that Christ will always be with us, even until the end of time and that NOTHING is impossible for God.
Regarding the Resurrection as an “event”. Louie has taught us to watch out for false dichotomies. When he says, the Resurrection is “not an idea but an event”… why can’t it be both? An event is something that occurs in the natural world as opposed to the supernatural world. I am instinctively not comfortable with calling the Resurrection an “event”. Yes it is historical and happens at a particular place and time, but it is also much more than that and transcends space and time. These are mysteries like the Trinity and the fact that Jesus was true man and true God. An “event” has no mystery. God must/will always be a mystery to us otherwise we could predict and control God. An “idea” certainly conveys a bit more of the mystery of the Resurrection because ideas cannot be seen — they cannot be measured. As God cannot be measured. So an “idea” is a closer to the supernatural.
It would be theologically consistent if Francis did not fully believe in the Resurrection. And in the excerpts provided there is a certain sense of reducing the Resurrection to a natural event. Is it that “he is alive” in “this loving remembrance” of Jesus? This would be the typical modernist view of the Resurrection.
When he says, ”Jesus no longer belongs to the past, but lives in the present and is projected towards the future” it has a certain New Age quality to it which reminds me a bit of Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point. I’m not saying unequivocally that this is what is being said, I’m just saying that unfortunately we need to be en garde for such ideas creeping into Catholic thought.
I agree with Roi that we can’t quite pin a denial of the bodily Resurrection on Pope Francis, yet I agree with dumb_ox’s basic point: the Pope’s handling of the biblical text is mighty squishy (and New Agey, as Roi notes). You can hear Balthasar loud and clear in there.
.
Even so, I think Michael Leon grasps the deeper significance of this little quandry: the Pope keeps emitting a confusing mixture of scintillating orthodoxy with plainly quasi-Catholic stinkers. One of his favorite concepts is “leaven,” and I think that’s what he’s doing: insinuating dangerous seeds of theological implication into the by now gleefully gulped down flood of influence he has on most literate Catholics. He’ll never say anything that you could 100% prove is formal heresy–he’s a consummate Jesuit!–because to do so would be to scare off his unwitting orthodox courtiers and handlers. It’s like the Eisenhower quotation: “Pull the string, and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.” He’s a pied piper of orthodoxy, very content to play the tunes of old-fashioned orthodoxy, but only in order to lead his followers “forward” onto the path of “reform” and “dialogue.”
.
Indeed, recall what I consider some of the most chilling things he said in the interview with Spadaro: “Only in narrative form do you discern, not in a philosophical or theological explanation, which allows you rather to discuss. The style of the [Jesuit] Society [and thus of a Jesuit Pope] is not shaped by discussion, but by discernment, which of course presupposes discussion as part of the process. The mystical dimension of discernment never defines its edges and does not complete the thought. The Jesuit must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking. … God manifests himself in historical revelation, in history. Time initiates processes, and space crystallises them. God is in history, in the processes. We must not focus on occupying the spaces where power is exercised [Mariadaga’s recent perestroika speech in Dallas, anyone?], but rather on starting long-run historical processes. We must initiate processes rather than occupy [!] spaces. God manifests himself in time and is present in the processes of history. This gives priority to actions that give birth to new historical dynamics. And it requires patience, waiting.”
.
I am not trying to plug my blog, but rather than keep bloating this comment, I welcome constructive feedback about my “F1 F/X Files.” I’ve gone over all this and more at great length, almost interminably, over the past month. Not only has Louie’s blog here (and commenters like youse guys!) enriched my inquiry, but I am also convinced that Pope Francis is playing the long Jesuit game of infiltration and misdirection. We’ve been told by Lombardi that we’ve got to embrace a new genre of papal speech, which entails a new hermeneutic of “the general idea” rather than the actual words, and which often leaves its meaning up to the audience. These Orwellian “language games” are potentially cataclysmic.
Oops, here’s the link for the Mariadaga perestroika speech that I bungled in HTML: http://ebougis.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/meanwhile-in-the-land-of-catholicism-wow/
Michael – the way I see it, if one acknowledges the Resurrection as an “event” (defined by Oxford Dictionary as: “a thing that happens or takes place, especially one of importance”) it can ONLY be supernatural as someone rising from the dead is clearly incapable of natural explanation and can only have occurred supernaturally.
The fact that I am more comfortable with this interpretation of the pope’s personal credo (ie his acknowledgment that the Resurrection is an event) is based on my reasoning that if he rather suggested it was merely an idea that would detract from the true historicity and authenticity of the fact that the Resurrection occurred. Somewhat like various modernist heretics who have denied such things as Our Lady’s perpetual virginity or the Real Presence putting them down to notional ideas rather than literal substantive realities.
Roi- Somehow I don’t think Bergoglio uses the term “event” in the way you claim he does. To him the Resurrection “event” is most likely understood in a way that a Dawkins would understand the Resurrection event, i.e. historical Jesus died, so get over it. Where Bergoglio and Dawkins differ is that Bergoglio affirms a supernatural realm, where Jesus might be the Son of God, but at the end of the day is some sort of a drifting “good spirit” that touches people who want to have a personal relationship with him. Notice the lack of “space” for the Ascension in Bergoglio’s ‘teaching”. Or references to it for that matter. Therefore, we have the devil (i.e. “bad spirit” that fits into the supernatural thing),the fascination with Pentecostalism and the whole agape talk. Like I said in my earlier post, the rest of the “orthodox speak” is to throw the dogs off the scent, because at the end of the day, it’s about the dosh. Can’t help the poor and build wells without the dosh.
S..Armaticus – while I get where you’re coming from, none of us can read the pope’s mind. Personally, I have no doubt that he believes in the (supernatural) Resurrection as the focal point of our Catholic religion – based on what I have read of his public assertions since assuming the papacy (and, of course, assuming they are his honestly held views).
The false dichotomy Louie was concerned with was between a “real” and “majestic” Resurrection not between a real and merely idealogical/theoretical Resurrection. As I understand it (Louie – please correct me if I misunderstand) Louie’s concerns relate to the modernist’s tendency (plan?) to denigrate all monarchic/majestic/kingship/ triumphalist notions forming a critical part of Catholic Tradition.
Accordingly, they don’t want to give Christ His due for rising from the dead by worshipping Him as the Glorious King of the Universe – principally because this doesn’t fit in with their “co-exist” and don’t make waves with other religions plan. So they try and make this most miraculous and significant event in all Creation less significant than it really is.
On the other hand, true Catholics obviously want to make it as majestic as it really is – ie in accordance with the Divine Truth.
God bless you linda stella zentner for doing what the Apostles did, telling the Truth, sharing the gift of the Word of God. p.s. nobody tell the Pope and his Poppets who seem bent on bending and contorting the Word so that that dark glass St Paul spoke of is getting darker and muddier all the time.
Our Lord certainly did “preach Himself.” The Rabbi with whom Pope Benedict dialogued said that this was his chief objection to Jesus Christ.
I’m afraid that Cardinal Maradiaga is “dissolving Christ.” “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God.” 1 John 4:3.
Thank you, all of you here.
Roi – Of course none of us can “read” the popes mind. However what we can “read” is what is written down on the back of what this pope says (and that what Fr Lombardi doesn’t correct:-)). The other thing that we can “read” is what the Faith has always taught us, i.e. the Magisterium. And by comparing the two (papal uttering’s, lacking correction vs the Magisterium) we can deduce that this pope teaches something quite different from that which has always been taught.
And the question is why?
Now we know that VII defined no new “doctrine” (supposedly). Yet all this new “doctrine” coming out from the mouth of our Bishop of Rome is laid at the feet of VII. So which is it? Why are we taking seriously something that doesn’t exist, i.e. new doctrine? And the reason is,….. that what we are dealing with here are revolutionaries in the true sense of the word. These revolutionaries have highjacked the Church and are using it to achieve their own ends. And unfortunately for the Faithful, those ends have nothing to do with guiding the souls of the Faithful to heaven.
OMT and as always, the SSPX have the definitive take-down of the Bishop of Rome. Well worth the read. Link below:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/pope-francis-and-modernism-2729
Further to my earlier comment, and having set my own challenge I am relieved to find that Francis has made a positive statement on the Resurrection as historical fact.
In his first contribution to the series of papal Catecheses During the Year of Faith, begun by Benedict, and echoing a point made in the latter’s Regina Caeli message on Easter Monday 2012, Francis said the following (April 3rd):
“Here we can grasp an element in favour of the historicity of the Resurrection: if it was an invented event, in the context of that time it would not have been linked with the evidence of women.”
Francis also remarks:
“The Resurrection of Christ is our greatest certainty….How can we not share this…certainty with others? It is not only for us, it is to be passed on….”
My relief at these words, however – and I do remember them now – is tempered with not a little vexation.
If I ask Francis whether I can take these words and indeed “pass them on”, three other words immediately spring to mind – “No! No! No!” (“Go and encounter him, he is your brother! And this is enough.”)
If I ask Francis whether I can speak, as he himself did, of “facts”, “historicity” and “certainty” – to someone who thinks “proselytism is downright nonsense; it doesn’t make any sense” – I recall that these latter words are from the self-same catechist.
If I reflect on Francis’ proclamation of “our greatest certainty”, I am mindful that he “would not speak about ‘absolute’ truths, even for believers”.
From the point of view of evangelisation, I am relieved to be able to refer to this catechesis, but only in defence against those who are now able to quote the Pope against me.
It is shocking to hear words like this by a man who has authority to govern in the Church:
“The calling of the Church, in the likeness of Jesus, is to proclaim the Kingdom of God. Even Christ himself did not proclaim or preach Himself, but the Kingdom.”
That man evidently places more weight on the pop-theology of the past 50 years than the solid Christology of Church tradition.
After reading the “Aparecida Document of 2007”, Maradiaga’s speech has more context, but takes for granted that people had read said document.
If Francis is guilty of anything, it’s assuming that the Latin American Church is a microcosm of the Universal Church, and ifso, to communicate to the global Church that that will be his approach to leading the Church.
Instead, there is an assumption that all have read the Aparecida Document overseen by BXVI, and resonate with the problems outlined in it. The European Church is very different…and, may have missed the boat by not heeding the wisdom of BXVI