In a must-read Catholic Family News article, publisher John Vennari delved into the more troubling aspects of the recently released Instrumentum Laboris (Working Document) for the upcoming Synod of Bishops on Marriage and Family.
Having waded through the some 25,000 word text (a great service to all concerned), Mr. Vennari provides solid evidence for his claim that the document reveals the Synod’s “revolutionary aims.”
If you haven’t done so already, I highly recommend that you read this article (linked above) in its fullness.
Honing in on the reasons why the upcoming Synod is cause for grave concern, Mr. Vennari asks a series of rhetorical questions.
Why then are Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Baldiserri and Pope Francis considering the heterodox Orthodox model, instead of repeating the solemn teaching of the infallible Council of Trent? Why not save a tremendous amount of time and bother? Why not avoid unspeakable confusion and scandal? Why not publicly reaffirm the defined truths of the Catholic Faith on this point, rather than pretend there can be any other Catholic view?
I would like to propose that the answer to all of these questions can in some sense be summed up in one word; ecumenism.
Ecumenism, such as it has been practiced from the advent of Vatican II forward, is the bedrock upon which the post-conciliar church-of-man presently stands. Don’t be fooled, however, into thinking that visible “Christian unity” is the end game; it is not.
Ultimately, if not for divine intervention, this ecumenical bedrock will one day be leveraged to serve as an integral part of the foundation upon which a one-world religion; one with man at its center, will be constructed.
Follow me here…
Establishing the ecumenical foundation for what I like to call “Newchurch,” more than anything else, was the principal aim of the most influential of the Council Fathers; the same who managed to push forward their agenda over and against the concerns of a naïve and traditional minority.
So confident were the modernists at Vatican II that they even plainly admitted their ecumenical motives in the document treating of that which is arguably the most purely Catholic treasure of all; the sacred liturgy.
This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (SC 1)
While the more traditional minded Council Fathers took comfort in the latter aim (“to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church”), they naïvely failed to realize that the modernists meant something entirely other than what the Church had always understood to be her mission; namely, calling those outside of the Holy Catholic Church – schismatics, heretics, heathens and Jews – to conversion.
Pope John Paul II, in Redemptor Hominis, gave the interpretive key to this text when he said:
Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the Council teaches, “by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man” … This man is the way for the Church-a way that, in a sense, is the basis of all the other ways that the Church must walk-because man-every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it: “Christ, who died and was raised up for all, provides man”-each man and every man- “with the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme calling…”
If nothing else, Pope Francis, who has taken up the conciliar cause with renewed vigor following the all-too-brief and meager Benedictine respite, has made it abundantly clear that there is to be no call to conversion in this post-conciliar church-of-man.
Indeed, why should there be if in fact each and every man has already been united to Christ and thus duly redeemed?
If not so effect conversion, one may ask, what then is the mission of this Newchurch?
It is nothing more than to conspire with other members of the human family in order to construct, in place of that perfect society that is the Holy Catholic Church, a parallel society wherein all men can interrelate harmoniously; a global village that gives visible witness to the desire that “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.” (cf Gaudium et Spes – 12)
While certain differences of religious belief and practice are certain to endure in this village (these being redefined as that gift of the Holy Spirit known as “diversity”), some are so fundamental to our identity as human beings as to all but guarantee division if not breached; among them are those concerning marriage and family.
Enter the Extraordinary Synod; an earthbound exercise wherein the architects of Newchurch will brainstorm ways to circumvent, or at the very least downplay into virtual insignificance, the barriers that threaten to cause division relative to marriage and family, even if, and perhaps especially, those that are among the dogmatic teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
Why not simply skip this step and get right down to the business of creating the one-world religion? I mean, isn’t it divisive in itself to exert so much energy addressing specifically Christian concerns?
This effort only makes sense when one considers that those who march under the conciliar banner do so to the beat of a gnostic heart.
Remember what John Paul II said in providing the interpretive key to the Council’s ultimate aim:
“With each man without any exception whatever, Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it.”
In other words, while we know that Christ is He who has united and redeemed (very importantly, united and redeemed in the past tense) the whole of mankind; others may not.
Indeed, according to this manner of thinking, non-Christians need not even be aware of Christ; they simply need to be invited to visibly live out the “unity” that is already presently their own. This, naturally, requires the construction of a society wherein man can celebrate himself as its “center and crown.”
And how, the illumined ecumenists ask with condescension, are we to achieve said society if we cannot first establish visible unity amongst ourselves? Hmmm?
This being the case, to John Vennari’s very pointed rhetorical questions I would add the following:
When and how will Pope Francis avail himself of the consultative insights of the schismatics, heathens, heretics and Jews before putting pen to paper in crafting the Apostolic Exhortation that is expected following the Synod?
At the very least one can be certain that Jorge will consult with his evangelical mentors before daring to produce an exhortation on a topic of such importance as marriage and family, no?
In any event, even if the Synod provides Pope Francis with a virtual blueprint for constructing the City of Man, every such effort is destined to fail as did the designs of the men of Babel, but with one major difference.
Given that the rebelliousness of churchmen bent on building nothing less than an entire world of their own making is exponentially greater than that of those who attempted a mere tower, so too will be the chastisement that is certain to follow.
So when Our Lord told the Pharisees that they were the “sons of the devil” did that mean Our Lord was a part of them then? How can you be a “son of the devil” and still have Christ with you? How can you be a tare with bits of wheat in you too? A sheep with a goats tail maybe? How utterly spiritually grotesque can one be? No wonder Our Lord said He would spit the lukewarm out of His mouth. Pope JP II’s words are devoid of logic or reason and defy Our Lord’s own words.
This is far worse than mere ecumenism. It is the solemn beginning of the syncretistic one world pagan religion. That’s the role of the False Prophet of the Bible. Antichrist and the abomination of desolation follows soon after.
Hate to hijack this post but I just forced myself to sit through the latest Vortex: Disobeying the Pope. Has MV lost his mind? Doesn’t he realize that the Pope and the POPE ALONE has the power to REMOVE every single solitary Bishop on the planet if he so chooses? Just b/c we’ve had weak “collegial” Popes since John XXIII doesn’t mean the Pope can’t use his power to clean up the disobedient Bishops. If every Modernist/disobedient bishop were removed and replaced with a Traditional minded priest this crisis would be over within a year. And yes, there are other reasons for “criticizing” the Pope…i.e. we need to correct Him so that the countless Catholics who are uncatechized cont’d
don’t naively believe the Pope and follow him into hell and heresy. And then there is the indirect snub at SSPX…probably the ONLY truly faithful Catholic organization in existence…and it’s called “schismatic”? I don’t know about you…but seeing as the current institutional Church is infected with utter evil, modernism, sodomy etc. I would assume their enemy (other than the Mafia) is the true Church. If this evil neo-Nu Church condemns SSPX why aren’t all true Catholics flocking to them? What exactly is “schismatic” about the traditional faithful of SSPX? Other than the fact that they refuse to follow the demonic V2, NuChurch and the Modernist leadership? Heck, I’m not even SSPX cont’d
Bingo !!! Thanks so much Lou !! I have been trying to say the same thing that you & John are getting at. But I don’t have the talent or education to properly express myself lol.
All the BS that has been coming out of Rome and the Hierarchy for the past 60 years only makes sense if you look at from this viewpoint.
The church of man is being constructed right before our eyes, the false church that the anti- Christ will one day take charge of.
The lodge tried two different foundations to build their ” one World government” , the first was in Soviet Russia , it failed because they were too brutal in their repression. But the “soft” repression of the west has been a huge success for them, they know humans need a “spiritual” outlet . This One World Church will fulfill this purpose.
In this new “religion” anything goes except one thing , You cannot claim to have a monopoly on the Truth. As time goes on Talmudic Judaism will slowly but surely assert itself as the World Religion.
As far as the Synod goes my prediction is that they won’t come out with an official new teaching . No they will come out with a “new practice” that will circumvent whatever teaching they target to do an end run around. Then in reality the teaching will change. Although academically it will stay the same.
This was done with divorce, the condemnation of divorce is still on the books, but the abuse of “annulments ” has become so ludicrous (anyone can get one) that to the average NO catholic , divorce is acceptable. I can list the same type of nonsense that neutralized belief in the real presence, contraception, holy orders, the papacy, modesty, chastity, confession, nature of the mass, etc
I think you get the picture.
For people who just dismiss the current crises, saying that we have had bad days in the past, the difference with the current crises is that never, ever,ever in church history has a line of successive Popes (going on 6) worked to actually undermine the Faith , and change Traditional Doctrine and Dogma. Actually there is a poster on here who actually uses that as proof that these novelties come from The Holy Spirit !!!
and this irritates me. MV is obsessed with Papal idolatry…”nothing to see here folks…the Vatican is waaaay far away” when in the spiritual reality we live in a TOP down Church. Heirarchy anyone? Why is he so obsessed with covering the Pope’s behind? Maybe his brain is toxic from drinking too many sodas:+) We need to pray for MV…like it or not he is a out front leader in this war…and he needs to wake up and follow objective truth…trusting that by defending Our Lord and His deposit of faith that all will work out for the good. More and more I see the SSPX as St. Athansius. God bless them and you Louie!
MMC
IMO Voris is the Sean Hannity of The Catholic World . The most effective weapon the Modernists have is using Front Men like Voris, Catholic Answers etc…they have a reputation of being “conservative” but they will always inch forever left ward and compromise. And they will always be counted on to attack Trads. This fake ” left – right ” paradigm is a very effective psychological weapon. This gives the Modernists control of the whole issue in the eyes of the average person, and makes Traditionalists look like extremists.
@MMC, that is why I gave up my premium subscription ($120) that I had at CMTV for 5 years, for the very reasons you state. I got tired of the mendacity and cover up over there. I’m done. If these heresies come to pass, MV is going to have to choose which church he’s going to belong to.
I totally agree with thumbs. You nailed it! “Sean Hannity.”
SC: “to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ.” How naive. Even then, the Protestant bodies with quasi-liturgies the Novus Ordo soon would ape — Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc. — were declining fast. To be replaced with guys and gals standing up with a Bible in one hand and just blabbing.
I’m going to remain hopeful as long as possible. I was heartened by three recent developments:
–
1. The publication of “Testimony to the Power of Grace: On the Indissolubility of Marriage and the Debate Concerning the Civilly Remarried and the Sacraments” by Archbishop (now Cardinal and head of the CDF) Gerhard Müller. It’s online at the Vatican website: http://bit.ly/1k8DVgg
2. The publication of “Recent Proposals for the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried: A Theological Assessment” by a group of eight expert theologians, 7 of which are Dominicans. It, too, is online: http://bit.ly/1n64emz
3. The announcement of the planned publication – due in October – of “Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church” by five Cardinals and four other scholars: http://amzn.to/1qAz5WX
–
Sure, things could get ugly at the Synod. But it’s all in God’s very capable hands.
Dear Louie,
In gratitude for all you’ve done for the Church we forced ourselves to read more of JPII’s stuff which you posted here, complete with his usual metaphysical-gobbledygook .
___
We endured the tiresome process: Read a word, Stop. Eliminate 41 of the 42 modernist meanings by recalling Church teachings, repeat until what the Pope should be saying with clarity finally emerges..
___
So here you go: Our version of Catholicism for Dummies:
Unspoken Premise: (Like Marley), Original sin left us all dead to begin with
___,
— Because of His Merciful Love, God became a man to redeem ALL men.
-We are ALL related to Jesus AS men, just as we ALL are related to our first parents-Adam and Eve.
-(so far so good. – only ones left out are feminists and anti-creationists who apparently are not saved, so sorry.).
___
– So Jesus Redeemed ALL men (i.e. paid the price for each man’s salvation) by offering Himself as our Ransom through his passion and Death on the Cross.
____
Because we have all been redeemed, we can now all be brought back to life (be saved from death)= ( achieve salvation).
___
That is done through an expressed desire for Baptism (you or your Catholic care-takers if a baby), which gives you Sanctifying Grace (SG), making you smell really nice so people want to be with you, which causes unity, peace and much hugging .
___
At the age of reason, you accept and profess belief in the Church’s teachings and willingness to keep the Commandments, and stay smelling really nice–more hugs and peace and unity.
___.
If you sin mortally, you lose SG and begin to stink causing disunity, because even though everyone still loves you they can’t stand the smell. So you must repent sincerely and go to Confession to receive new SG to smell really nice again, restoring peace and unity and joy and more hugs..
___
(The baptism of desire thing is up to Jesus, being exceptions to the rule, rare as they might be)
(and we’ll leave Angels out of this discussion for now) (They’re no-bodies)
____
Now about that Oktoberfest :
— If your kids came and pestered you to give them poison to drink, you’d say:
___
a. Wait, let me talk to your mother next month and get back to you on that. or
b. No. Go clean up your room, and don’t ask me that again.
____
If you say a. A social worker will be by to pick up your kids in an hour, and a judge will tell you what your jail sentence will be for criminal neglect,
… Your children will shortly be placed with foster parents, and counsellors..
.
If you say b. you’re okay and can keep your job.
____
Apply that to the Pope. We’re done here. 🙂
http://zensoftware.co.uk/blogresources/2011/09/head_in_sand.jpg
Somebody’s finally talking our language!
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=head+in+sand+photos
Read this on another blog site today and I can’t for the life of me remember which one, as I would love to give them a tip of the old hat.
Changed the wording to reflect my feeling regarding modernist, people who wish me the sign of peace, atheist, people who take communion in the hand, pagans, people who talk very loudly when they come into church, heathens, those that love them some altar girls, whatever and who just adore this pope.
“I GET IT. Francis is your Jesus, I know, now do a shot of bleach and take some buckshot to the face.”
I am just plain sick of these people and I don’t care what anyone thinks about what I just said.
We need in this Church…MEN!
Oh yeah.
Pray the Rosary…Seriously!
I doubt it. Voris has been attacked by the establishment. His Bishop wouldn’t allow him to use the name Catholic in his work. You don’t become a tool of modernist Bishops by publicly attacking modernist Bishops. It’s not good for the Modernist establishment to publicly state that a benevolent Catholic Monarch is the best form of government and non-Catholics shouldn’t vote. Hardly! I think MV’s deal is FEAR. Plain and simple. He FEARS that being disobedient to the Pope is being disobedient to Christ’s vicar and by extension disobedient to Jesus. To be fair, it is something drilled in Catholics head that one is subject to the Pope under pain of DAMNATION. That aside, it also seems obvious that MV has a bit of a pride issue. I bet if someone gave him an honest discussion about why he shouldn’t be afraid he may listen. But who has?
MV makes a great punching bag by just about everybody.
If anything, MV’s proclivity to defend the Pope may be because he has worked so hard to tear down Protestant arguments against the Faith and Papacy. (Which he has done a good job). Perhaps to swallow his pride now and overcome his fear would make him look like fool, in his mind. And…. It doesn’t seem like he has been a revert for very long either. He may have bitten off more than he can chew by starting apologetics. He needs prayers.
——-
Of course, as usual, I will probably get pummeled for writing what I did.
Ecumenism is simply a useful tool to distract the masses who have been intentionally kept ignorant of the Faith and moral reason, and seemingly justify the ever-greater outrages against the Faith and the mission of the Church. The notion seems to have successfully rendered impotent a great many soldiers of Christ.
P.S. I don’t think it’s MV that makes Traditionalists look like extremists but rather maybe whacky conspiracy theories such as MV being a modernist establishment shill to usher in the one world religion. You do realize you write this things on a public forum for the world to see and you’re not sitting in your living room chatting with friends right?
The things that The Vortex constantly rails against (rightly) are the very things Pope Francis does or supports.
Voris had a valid point, actually. The Pope is not going to remove all the modernist Bishops. So each one of us should be attempting to make a difference at the local level. There are Traditional communities doing this now. In my diocese there is a group of young Traditional folks working to bring the Traditional Mass back and turn people on to it….and the Archbishop has worked with them. It been baby steps but it’s a start. And more realistic then thinking the Pope will do anything.
You know the answer to your rhetorical question, but here’s mine:
—–
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/blog/2013/10/23/a-brief-response-to-fr-z.html
—–
Those who call the Society “schismatic” are either ignorant or (more typically) just looking for a cheap shot.
Of course, the worse aspect of the realization that what we’re looking at here is the nascent One Religion (and that’s surely what this is) is that we’ve got a long, long way to go – it’s not even off the ground yet, and we know that it IS going to come to fruition.
—–
It’s my children I really fear for.
Voris is surely no *witting* tool of the Establishment but, at the end of day, he really is doing their work, because he constantly distracts his fans from the root cause of this Crisis.
—–
As I’ve said before, unlike the professionals who would put their living in jeopardy by actually preaching Catholicism and calling a spade a spade, Michael’s issue seems to be more genuine – his emotions, not his wallet.
—–
But, in the end, he does not know or properly understand actual Catholic teaching about the person of the pontiff. The notion that it is forbidden to ever criticize the pontiff is absolutely preposterous and completely flies in the face of any understanding of Catholic teaching and theology.
—–
“He who is not for Me is against Me.”
A Catholic Thinker, I totally agree with what you said about Voris! It’s refreshing to hear a voice of reason.
So Voris’ valid point is that we should withhold all criticism of the Bishop of Rome since he “isn’t going to do anything”? Under what set of invalid assumptions does that make any sense?
—–
We should crucify any bishop save this one who says anything un-Catholic? Man, I thought Weakland was bad – and, to be sure, he was among the WORST of the hierarchy – but even he never said things like “I’m not interested in converting Protestants to Catholicism”.
—–
Mr. Voris has, in the present at least, lost it. Under that “Benedictine Respite”, his praxis was perhaps sensible, or at least could appear so as the insensibility of his core position was hidden, but now, he’s worse than irrelevant.
Voice of reason being you of course. 🙂
FYI, I speak as one who watched Voris for many years and admired him.
—–
He’s chosen the wrong side of this issue and, like anything with anyone, the longer he goes on the more difficult it will be for him to admit he was wrong and reverse course.
—–
We need to pray for him.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
We know EXACTLY how you feel. We’ve seen this coming for the last 40 years, step by step, and most of the people we tried to reach went into denial or dismissed us as loco because we were ahead of our time with what we saw..
___
We wrote a letter to Pope John Paul II once, begging him to Consecrate Russia in union with the Bishops, while our children were still young, and another one when our eldest was fighting in Iraq 20 some years later, amid road-side bombs, alongside the Euphrates River still praying for the Triumph of Mary’s Heart and helping the Catholic chaplain set up Mass on Sundays.. It was surreal. The Euphrates was something we just read about in Revelations, not somewhere where our darling was supposed to be getting shot at. Home safe years later, now our grandchildren are your kids’ ages, and we’ve reached THIS stage of things, realizing that souls are far more important than bodies.
____
We’re praying for everyone, and encourage you to do the same. Re-read the letters to the 7 Churches in revelations, and notice that God’s plan is to spare some of His more Faithful, and keep them from the worst of the tribulation. We’ll ask that he include you and your family in that plan, and all other faithful young parents as well. Pray most of all for conversions, as that is always God’s intention whenever He chastises. He still calls people to come to Him, and let go of this world, making Him your all and everything. That’s harder to do when your young. But if you work at it, it will see you through this with your Faith more solid than ever. Sorry if we’re preaching. What you said, just touched our hearts.
___
If we have to give our lives, we’re better ready now, than we’ve ever been.
But also keep in mind that Our Lady said prayer and sacrifices can mitigate chastisements
____
People were letting off steam about Michael Voris again, above, but at this point we just wish he’d come out of it, because he’d be a great one to lead us through whatever comes. What a waste. Pray. and attend Mass.
____
Now we need to get down to analyzing the Book of Revelations, Matthew 24 and 25, Ezechial, Daniel, Isaiah, and all the Letters that refer to it.
Of course the bottom line of all of them, is hang on to the Faith, and be ready to meet God face to face. Penance, Confession.
Don’t forget, Our Lady said a time of Peace is coming. That has to fit into it all at some point. This Could be just a preview of the real thing.
Not sure we followed your whole train of thought here, but what we did get is a very frustrated person, telling the modernists to go kill themselves?
If so, and if you’re Christian, you need to remember what Jesus teaches about praying for those who persecute us. The law of love isn’t just for friendlies.
God Bless..
We agree, but think it’s a combination of “typical Irish” and diabolical disorientation. Michael went to Fatima and pledged himself to Our Lady before he started his apostolate. Our Lady told Sister Lucia, and spoke about it again at Akita, that the Devil was going after consecrated souls more than at any other time.
That does explain how somebody so sighted could suddenly become so blind to the fact that he needs to sound the alarm despite the Chair this person is sitting in. And that that is not only OK with God, but his duty.
St. Michael, defend him, personally.
As the perfect complement to John Vennari’s article, please watch the video “Occupy Vatican: Bracing for the Synod on the Family” over at the Remnant.
–
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/component/k2/item/845-occupy-vatican-bracing-for-the-synod-on-the-family
–
“The Remnant Forum’s Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara break down Instrumentum Laboris—the working document for the coming Synod on the Family in Rome. Question: Are the revolutionaries who broke the Church in the first place really in any position to fix it now?”
–
Christopher Ferrara repeatedly makes the point that the next phase in the revolution is an assault on Church teachings on morality. This is the one area that was considered more or less out of bounds as the Vatican heirarchy officially implemented changes in the Church “in the spirit of Vatican II”. And now that final fortress wall is about to be breached and the demonic army will come rushing through to attack the inner sanctum of the Church. The Holy of Holies.
–
So that is why I refer to the upcoming Oktober revolution as the “synod on sex” rather than the “synod on the family”. The theme of the “modern crisis” of the family is simply a propaganda ploy to bring the sexual revolution into the Church.
–
The popular media likes to portray the Church as being “obsessed with sex”, but actually they are the ones obsessed with sex and only cover the Church when it relates to how Church teachings impede the progress of the sexual revolution.
–
And of course bergoglio infamously chimed in and said that the Church was “obsessed” with issues of morality such as abortion and “homosexual marriage”.
–
bergoglio and “friends” have chosen the issue of “communion for the divorced and re-married” as their perfect propaganda tool in which they can put into practice the world’s largest “situational ethics” therapy session.
–
“How do YOU feel about that?”
“How does that make you FEEL?”
“What would YOU do when faced with this situation?”
–
God? Commandments? Dogma? Tradition? Even the teachings of Christ are thrown out in this phony excercise of mass “group therapy” where the unwitting guinea pigs are the Catholic faithful worldwide.
Kyrie eleison!
Holy Mother Mary, pray for us!
What if your criticism leads some to join the schismatics?
God bless you guys!
I don’t agree that MV is under diabolical disorientation. I believe he eventually came to crossroad he probably never thought he would. He now has to sound the alarm against what he defended for years. He spent years combating Protestantism and was awakened by the evil within. Then once he followed the rabbit hole ….uh oh.
I think he is paralyzed by fear.
From Wikipedia article on “Situational ethics”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
Situational ethics, or situation ethics, takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards. In situation ethics, within each content it is not a universal law that is to be followed, but the law of love. The Greek word used to describe love in the Bible is “agape”. Agape is the type of love that shows concern about others, caring for them as much as you care for yourself. Agape love has no strings attached to it, it seeks nothing in return. you love someone completely unconditionally.[1] Early proponents of situational approaches to ethics included Kierkegaard, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Jaspers, and Heidegger.[2]
–
Specifically Christian forms of situational ethics placing love about all particular principles or rules were proposed in the first half of the twentieth century by Rudolf Bultmann, John A. T. Robinson, and Joseph Fletcher.[3] These theologians point specifically to agapē, or unconditional love, as the highest end. Other theologians who advocated situational ethics include Josef Fuchs, Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Paul Tillich.[4]:33 Tillich, for example, declared that “Love is the ultimate law.”[5]
–
Fletcher, who became prominently associated with this approach in the English-speaking world due to his eponymously titled book (Situation Ethics), stated that “all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love” in the particular situation,[4]:30 and thus may be broken or ignored if another course of action would achieve a more loving outcome. Fletcher has sometimes been identified as the founder of situation ethics, but he himself refers his readers to the active debate over the theme that preceded his own work.
I’ve followed Voris a long time as well. I first saw Voris on local cable. It was his One True Faith series, which was fantastic. What he was saying blew my mind. Nobody spoke boldly like that against Protestantism, on a TV show!
I also participated in a live studio audience once. I’ve met him and found him pleasant. This issue is difficult for me.
Dear James The Lesser,
We too, love Michael Voris, and were so impressed we were sending gift subscriptions to our family and friends-who are all still listening to him.
___
Like you, we thought he was the boldest, most outspoken, honest, informed Catholic we had ever heard, and a real gift from God to the Church.
We’re still members and listen on and off because it’s so painful to hear and see what he’s doing right now.
____
You may be absolutely right about what’s going on with him. We don’t look at Diabolical disorientation as any kind of mind control or possession, but as a kind of blind spot such as so many of our priests and Bishops and Cardinals and now the Pope seem to have going, where they are focused on some objective that seems ultimately for the best to them, while we all know it for what it is–opposed to what God wants for His Church.
____
Right now MV is doing that. He’s convinced what he’s chosen is right, and determined to stick with it. But it goes against prudence and even charity for those who need warning against the harm the Pope’s views do to the unwary.
Souls will stay out of the Church listening to him. Michael has worked SO hard and so long outing hidden dangers like this–that it’s unnatural for him to make a decision like this and still be doing it even now, after that Papal video to the evangelicals, and the words Don’t Proselytize, etc.
____
That’s why we’ve been urging people to pray harder than ever for him.
Whether the Devil has some kind of abnormal part in it or not, prayer will always be one of the best remedies. We don’t think anyone will get close enough to actually talk to Michael. But we’ll see.
Dear Michael,
It’s probably good to post information with lists of people who have bought in to these phony philosophies about love, just so folks can get familiar with the names, and be alerted when they see them in other contexts.
___
What’s obvious to us about this whole issue, is well explained in the first few chapters of Dietrich Von Hildebrand’s book “The Charitable Anathema”.
It basically shows how many ways the idea of love is perverted, when it is misused as an excuse to comfort those whose greater need is Truth, to save themselves from Damnation.
___
He links it with this idea of love showing unity at all costs, and tells of a Bishop who came to him, asking him to reconcile with a churchman who was publicly opposing his views in the press at the time. The Bishop claimed that unity mattered more than their public dispute. Von Hildebrand was risking his life at that time, publishing articles against the Nazis. He turned the Bishop down and told him all his reasons, and the Bishop kept insisting unity was more important.
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
We just read the above link, (and BTW love the black background -it’s so easy on the eyes)
We wonder what you think about Cardinal Muller’s statement Dec 22, 2013, (this was taken from catholictruthblog.com)
claiming, “The canonical excommunication due to the illicit ordination was lifted from the Bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church” ___
Please accept the fact that we are trying to understand and not to denigrate the society in any way. We are very impressed by the many upstanding testimonials the SSPX has received regarding its devotedness, sincerity, and convictions which we ourselves hold dear.
Especially impressive is what Mr. Matt said: ___
” it is hardly difficult to recognize that for more than forty years the SSPX has been guided by men driven by three primary concerns: the defense of doctrine, the preservation of Catholic Tradition, and the good of souls.”
___
That is high praise, indeed.
the preservation of Dogma and Church teachings,
MMC: What you have just described is NewChurch = genetically modified ‘catholicism’. If anyone wants to know where it ends up, I suggest you watch, ‘Alien: Ressurection’.
“who have been intentionally kept ignorant of the Faith and moral reason”. This is a fact. And if those ignorant who don’t refuse God’s grace in order to nourish themselves with His Knowledge, they come under the sledge hammer of the hell-mouth-kissers faster than you can say ‘Saint Expedite!’
Of course, what Voris says is true ‘don’t disobey the Petrine office’. But which ‘pope’? St Peter? St Felix II (martyred under the Arians); St Leo II who ridded the Church of the heresy that Christ had only ‘one will’? Or Pope St. Pius 1st or St Pius V? St Pius IX? St Pius X? – scourge of modernists? Pope Leo XIII – promulgator of that hideously and uneceminiacle Syllabus of Errors? And what if a claimant to the petrine office disobeys it? Silly me. What Voris means is don’t disobey any claimant, no matter how antichrist, to the chair of St Peter, because that will seriously damage your credibility with the anti-credible and the paycheck they provide. What other reason could their be? faith? Um, nuh, because Faith would demand immediate criticism for the purposes of correction, which aim is the saving of souls.
“don’t naively believe the… [anyone] and follow him into hell and heresy”. Excellent motto.
“In this new “religion” anything goes except one thing , You cannot claim to have a monopoly on the Truth.” Exactly; therefore anyone who makes the claim that Church does not have the ‘monopoly’ on Truth (Christ Who Established Her and Lives in Her in Time) is a heretic. I recall one Bergoglio proclaiming such heresy.
James – regarding ‘conspiracy nuts’ you would have to include Pope Pius VII, Pope Leo XII, Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI, all of whom warnings about those conspring (most notably freemasons) against the Church:
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/conspiracy.htm (to be fair, none of them issued grave warnings with regards to a neo-con by the name of Michael Voris who mixes great amounts of true Catholic bitters with his partyline strychnine.
–
p.s. “the encyclical Pacem in Terris (‘Peace on Earth’ by John XXIII/Ronalli) is a vigorous statement of Masonic doctrine.. we do not hesitate to recommend its thoughtful reading.” (quoted from the ‘Masonic bulletin’, the official organ of the Supreme Council of 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Masons in Mexico, ‘May 1963’, in ‘The New Montinian Church’ by Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, pp.147-148)”
Quick question, James. Did Christ come to make us worship papal claimants above the Sacred Transmission of Faith, the True Apostolic Body and the proper excercise of the Petrine Office? Because if Christ didn’t come to make us worship papal claimants who contradict the faith, what’s your problem?
–
‘scuse me, that should have been ‘issued warnings about those conspiring’.
Dear Indignus. The reason I posted the information from Wikipedia on “situational ethics” is to point out the obvious. Which is that bergoglio employs “situational ethics” whenever he appeals to “mercy” in order to change or ignore clear Church teaching in the area of morality.
–
“Situational ethics” is a very powerful and highly effective propaganda technique for changing moral values of individuals as well as for influencing whole societies.
–
The basic propaganda technique is to over-emphasize some extreme special case and then apply any conclusions drawn from this to a more general case. This is done to gain public sympathy in order to sway public opinion on a controversial topic.
–
For example there was a recent case of a woman in Ireland that had some sort of problem pregnancy. (I don’t remember the details.) The secular press used this particular extreme “situation” to argue for legalization of abortion. The press focused the whole abortion debate on this one particular extreme case in an attempt to create sympathy for the cause of legalized abortion in general through the natural sympathy with this woman’s difficult “situation”.
–
If you think about it I’m sure you can come up with your own examples on “controversial” moral issues such as “homosexual marriage”, IVF, contraception, etc.
–
Also, you should be aware that “situational ethics” is used in the school system in areas like “sex education” or “drug prevention” programs. It is well documented that these “drug prevention” programs actually increase drug use among students.
–
But the main point is that the whole “synod on sex” is a gigantic excercise in “situational ethics”. And that bergoglio is a master at using this propaganda technique to further the VII revolution. In fact his infamous “who am I to judge?” mantra is an expression of “situational ethics”.
–
I was unaware of the “Christian roots” of “situational ethics” until I read the Wiki article. That in itself is shocking. It is especially shocking that this has the backing of some Catholic theologians because this is an anti-dogmatic approach to morality. It totally undermines Catholic teaching.
–
In fact it was condemned by Pope Pius XII and later (in 1956) prohibited from being taught at Catholic seminaries by the Holy Office which referred to “situational ethics” as “the new morality”.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y4759nkMFq0C&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=pope+pius+xii+situation+ethics&source=bl&ots=lfCZhP76dK&sig=je_ApqRGBpQuwhNFpDHAJBaH_F0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=91_cU5H5EMXMsQTL1oGwDA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAw
–
No doubt that Louie could tell us how “situational ethics” has been incorporated into the texts of Vatican II.
“Christopher Ferrara repeatedly makes the point that the next phase in the revolution is an assault on Church teachings on morality.” Folks like Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara are Catholics in it for the long haul – like St Paul, to ‘win the race’. Therefore, how on earth can such marathon runners think it feasible to accept that the ‘revolution’s’ ‘assault on Church teachings on morality’ is a cannon being loaded by the so-called ‘vicar of Christ?’ Does no one see how insane such a suggestion is?
–
The youngest son of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II (Henry was less than fond of the Petrine Office which reminded him that God was greater) John, hated Popes reminding him of his duty as a Christian king (John was a power hungry gold-digger of sorts). So the Pope (Innocent III), issued an interdict against the whole kingdom of England – suspending the actions of the Church until John accepted the Pope’s choice of Archbishop for England. While is it unreasonble to think not a single Catholic sacrament took place under the interdict, certainly the major Cathedrals/sites of pilgrimage were left to dry up. John held out for six years (what a guy), but then the voice of the Catholic populace won out (John had to concede to a higher power, just as the pope must bow to a Higher Power) = john accepted the Pope’s choice of Archbishop (and the intrigues continued, business as usual – at least the pope made him work for it). Why would a pope do such an horrendous thing as, in theory, cut off the sacramental grace from an entire populace until the errant King bowed to Christ? Because the Papacy is a monarchical ‘office’, that exists under the sovereignty of Christ the King of Heaven and Earth and everything. So if a so-called Catholic King is refusing that top-down authority, the Pope had a solemn duty to insist on Christ’s Rights. And yet we now have papal claimants who insist on everything but Christ’s rights (a bottom up if you will (stole this from one of Mr Verrecchio’s talks)), yet, those same claimants, use the office as an excuse to play tyrant over Truth. What was my point? A ‘tyrant’ like Innocent III, starving the Cathedrals of England of sacramental grace until their nominal king paid proper homage to Christ and His ministers, is Catholic, utterly. A tyrant, a ‘revolutionary’ who plans an ‘an assault on Church teachings on morality’, is not Catholic. Am I making any sense?
Appreciate another clear Catholic reality-check, Louie. The quote of Wojtyla is a doozy – “every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ” = utterly antichurch, the ‘logic’ of which completely renders the Bride of Christ ‘worthless’ (reject the Bride, reject the Bridegroom).
–
John Vennari wrote re the document: “It is a thoroughly Conciliar manuscript. There is no mention of any document from the Church’s magisterium prior to Vatican II. Apart from Scriptural citations.” Of course there isn’t, because the was ‘no church’ according to the antichrist concilliar church prior to the antichrist concilliar church. The Synod’s purpose is to ‘sanctify ‘problems’ otherwise known as sins, in order to, with the help of the useful idiots’ ‘reaction’, impliment a new ‘solution’ – that being to establish the new religion whole within the edifice of Christ’s Church. But Christ doesn’t dwell in a dried out husk. ‘Let Us depart’, proclaims God, the Most Holy Trinity. “And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat.” This is what is in store for those who cling to the prodigal ‘church’ of ‘utter confusion, lack of unified vision, overemphasis on trends of the times, rejection of bedrock doctrine’ and refuse to return to the House of the Father where there is order, wisdom, unity, eternal Truth and the bedrock of True doctrine.
–
Vennari asks this question: ‘Why then are Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Baldiserri and Pope Francis considering the heterodox Orthodox model, instead of repeating the solemn teaching of the infallible Council of Trent?’ Because they live and preach denial of the ‘solemn teaching of the infallible Council of Trent’ – they are apostates (assuming they ever really were Christian). John Vennari also asks ‘Why not avoid unspeakable confusion and scandal?’ Because their raison d’être is perverting souls with their ‘unspeakable confusion and scandal.’ If we would wake up and smell the brimstone = the new religion of Vatican II is a religion ‘without taboos’ because its a very public and very unashamed contemporary version of the old ‘Hellfire’ club. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Caves
–
Perverting natural law, perverting marriage, perverting baptism – gee, satan must be laughing up a storm.
–
p.s. yes, acknowledgements to Mr Vennari for having enough of a steely Catholic stomach to wade through the sewers of such an ‘Instrumentum Laboris’.
Dear indignus,
I’ll take up the response on this, since I’ve studied canon law at the Pontifical Universities at Rome. Muller, in plain language, is full of it. In the Code of 1983, there is no such thing as the distinction between canonical excommunication and sacramental excommunication; they are the same thing. The old distinction existed in the old code. Now adays, there is no longer the excommunication ad vitandum, to which Muller seems to be refering, only that which has the sacramental effect. Why, delegates of the Apostolical See have attended SSPX Masses, and the faithful are allowed to fulfill their sunday duties and receive communion from SSPX priests. Even priests of their order are allowed to celebrate mass in churches and Basilicas, and even at times at St. Peter’s.
Muller is just trying to position himself in ecclesiastical politics by saying things that he has no right to say, to cause problems, because he does not want a full reconciliation. No suprise, that one who says the BVM was not physically a virgin, would say so. The man is a foul mouth blasphemer and heretic, and ignores the obligations of the 1st canon of the Synod of the Lateran held in the 7th century, which is still binding upon Roman clergy. Therefore, it is he who is excommunicated not the SSPX.
Voris, it is widely said, flipped after a talk with Cardinal Burke. Unfortunately for Voris, he did not understand that when speaking with a Cardinal, what you hear is rarely theology, and more often political. He’s been duped into believing that if you hold the political line and avoid imitating St. Paul at Antioch, you will be a faithful son of the Church. I think he is in good faith, but he seems too weak a character to exit from his public position without an extraordinary grace. And it is Cardinal Burke who will have to answer for his soul on Judgement day.
p.s. Louie said: ‘Given that the rebelliousness of churchmen bent on building nothing less than an entire world of their own making is exponentially greater than that of those who attempted a mere tower, so too will be the chastisement that is certain to follow.’
–
Baruch 3.4 “… O Lord Almighty, the God of Israel [the Bride of Christ – the Holy Catholic Church], hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel, and of their children, that have sinned before thee, and have not hearkened to the voice of the Lord their God, wherefore evils have cleaved fast to us. Remember not the iniquities of our fathers [VII?], but think upon thy hand, and upon thy name at this time…Because for this end thou hast put thy fear in our hearts, to the intent that we should call upon thy name, and praise thee in our captivity, for we are converted from the iniquity of our fathers, who sinned before thee. And behold we are at this day in our captivity [Novus Ordo protestantism] whereby thou hast scattered us to be a reproach, and a curse, and an offence, according to all the iniquities of our fathers, WHO DEPARTED FROM THEE, O Lord our God. Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life: give ear, that thou mayst learn wisdom [Dogma and Doctrine of the True Faith]. How happeneth it, O Israel [the Bride of Christ], that thou art in thy enemies’ land?…Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom. For if thou hadst walked in the way of God, thou hadst surely dwelt in peace for ever….This is our God [Christ], and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of Him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel [His Bride] His beloved. Afterwards He [the Word made flesh] was seen upon earth, and conversed with men [upstart ungrateful little critters who really think they have surpassed the ‘Word’].
“Folks like Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara are Catholics in it for the long haul”
I really wish I had your confidence in these men; but since the SSPX has chosen reconciliation at any price; when it comes, and when Bergoglio founds his own new religion, will Matt and Ferrara go along? I was particularly shocked at the invention of another insult, based on the name of the one Bishop in the Church who has never comprimised with new rome, used by the go-along-with-the-SSPX-no-matter-what-the-cost-crowd. I think, rather, that the fathres of teh Society of Marcel Lefebvre founded last will at Avrille, are the ones in it for the long run. I think that if their Bishop friend ordained them all Bishops and sent them into the world as Missionaries, we would soon see the restoration of every diocese; since there are so many of faithful who do not have access to the Sacraments without comprimises. The whole vigor and restoration of the Catholic world is hanging upon them, in a sense.
Here’s a hypothetical situation:
_______
So if the SSPX would one day decide that they are in fact Evangelical Pentecostals, they would instantaneously become Francis’s favorite flavor.
________
I think that if someone told Francis that when they offer the Mass, they are actually speaking in tongues, it just might pass. Voila, problem solved. 😉
________
Besides, excommunications are so …. last century. 🙂
You mean by it being a terrible movie?
And if silence led to the schismatics?
Dear Roman Watcher:
You write: “I really wish I had your confidence in these men; but since the SSPX has chosen reconciliation at any price; when it comes, and when Bergoglio founds his own new religion, will Matt and Ferrara go along?”
________
My question is, has the SSPX chosen reconciliation?
________
What I think one has to be careful of when making statements like the above, is not to “inject” ones own “prejudices” into prima facia assessments.
________
The objective facts of the matter are that the SSPX has not folded and has not reconciled with conciliar Rome. And no matter how many “secret meetings by chance” are encountered, only to be written about by ‘inside sources’ subsequently to the meeting, does not prove that the SSPX has changed their position.
_________
Furthermore, the issue is not one of reconciliation, but rather one of safety. There are structures withing the Catholic Church which would allow the SSPX to reconcile, while maintaining their “non-negotiable” positions relating to ecumenism, collegiality, religious freedom etc., and above all, the ability to publicly assess VII critically. However, the modernists do not want the SSPX to obtain an acceptable resolution, but rather want to force the SSPX into the EC where they can be wiped out a la FFI. And from where I sit, the SSPX is not going to commit suicide just for the sake of obtaining regular status with modernist Rome.
________
And finally, unless you know something that I and the rest of us don’t, there is no sense in engaging in the disinformation campaign whose aim is to cause descent within the SSPX ranks. Please keep in mind, that if not for the SSPX, we would still be at the pre indult phase of restoring the Bride of Christ and returning to the One True Faith. Furthermore, it is the SSPX that serves as the insurance policy that has allowed the development of the EC, FFI and the situation in the diocese of Ciudad del Este just to name three. And only a robust SSPX (closing in on 600 priests) is holding back a complete suppression of Catholicism by modernists in Rome.
_________
We are witnessing how easy a total suppression can be executed…….
“There are structures withing the Catholic Church which would allow the SSPX to reconcile, while maintaining their “non-negotiable” positions relating to ecumenism, collegiality, religious freedom etc., and above all, the ability to publicly assess VII critically.”
Really? And what would those be. Please cite anything from the old or new Code. I would really be amazed to learn something I have never heard before…
Salvemur, that’s quite the leap you just made. And it’s the sort of blanket response that has become typical. My comments were about blog posters that implemented Voris as some sort of NWO agent. A Catholic Thinker understood, sorry you didn’t. If you have facts that Michael Voris is a freemason with the goal of destroying the Church please present it.
Christopher, would you agree that some need to be fed milk first?
“I plead with you! Never, ever give up on hope, never doubt, never tire, and never become discouraged. Be not afraid.”
St John Paul II
I will add a bit to Roman Watcher’s excellent reply (and his qualifications certainly exceed my own – I’ve studied canon law on the internet!).
—–
We could point out that Muller’s statement flatly contradicts what his predecessors and others of equal or greater rank had said about the same subject. We could also point out that it carries no official import whatsoever – it’s clearly a personal opinion.
—–
This might be a tangent, but we could also point out that Cardinal Muller has de-facto denied the dogma of the Virgin Birth. (As usual, maybe not *quite* directly – just undermining it completely in the modernist way.)
I’m not sure if you were serious or not, but one can never fail to act for fear of an illogical response on the part of others – if this were a rule of moral law, ecclesiastical law, or divine law, the universe wouldn’t work, so to speak.
—–
Should Paul have withheld his scathing rebuke of Peter for fear of having Catholics flee the Church or deny Peter as pope?!
—–
In fact, moral and ecclesiastic law REQUIRE a pontiff’s public errors to be exposed and denounced, by clergy AND faithful.
—–
Voris’ actions are worse than cowardly – they are sinful if he is aware of these things. (Of course, I tend to think he is inculpable; he believes he’s doing the right thing.)
—–
Rebuke of the sinner is a corporal Work of Mercy, and one of the ways in which one *participates* in the sin of another is via silence.
Oh please! If the Society was ready to reconcile at ANY price, clearly they’d have done so! They just had a great opportunity, which they rejected, out of need.
—–
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/a-response-to-the-sspx-resista/
THE INTERVIEW and “situation ethics”
OR “all you need is love”… and mercy
–
In the first interview granted by bergoglio to the press which appeared in America Magazine the topic of “the divorced and remarried” and other “problematic situations” were discussed.
http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
–
I will try to demonstrate how bergoglio applies “situation ethics” in responding. And how in so doing he attempts to circumvent Church teaching on faith and morality.
–
BTW. The title of the article is “A Big Heart Open to God”. This fits right in with bergoglio’s theme that “all you need is love”… and mercy.
–
Here is the excerpt with my comments inserted. I also highlight the use of the word “situation” with asterisks.
=============
I mention that there are Christians who live in ***situations*** that from the point of view of the church are irregular or somewhat complex, Christians that, in one way or another, live with open wounds. I mention the [situation of] divorced and remarried, same-sex couples and other difficult ***situations***. What kind of pastoral work can we do in these cases? What kinds of tools can we use? [Can we use situation ethics?] The pope signals that he understands what I mean [we both know I mean situation ethics] and he responds:
–
“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing [with love and mercy], even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ [an example of a “situation”] because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this [actually it DOES]. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge [that situation]. By saying this, I said what the catechism says [NOT really]. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person. [This is an expression of the anti-dogmatic teachings of situation ethics.]
–
“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality [another situation]. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ [All you need is love] We must always consider [the situation of] the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the [particular situation of a particualar] human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their ***situation***. It is necessary to accompany them with [love and] mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing [in the particular situation rather than relying on Church teaching and dogma].
–
“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case [according to the particular situation] and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy [and love] motivates us to do better. I also consider the ***situation*** of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That [situation in this case the] abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do? [Apply situation ethics and take a merciful, loving approach while ignoring Church teaching? NO!]
–
“We cannot insist only on issues [situations] related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. [Because we have to apply situation ethics instead.] I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues [situations], we have to talk about them in a [situational] context. The teaching of the church [dogma], for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but [BUT I don’t believe in dogma — only situation ethics — and therefore] it is not necessary to talk about these issues [situations] all the time.
–
“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent [some are more important than others depending on the situation]. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently [dogmatically and consistently, rather the situation must be taken into account]. Proclamation in a missionary style [using situation ethics] focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things [not dogma]: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn [with love and mercy] , as it did for the disciples at Emmaus [interject an unrelated biblical reference]. We have to find a new balance [by taking into account the situation]; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church [tradition and dogma] is likely to fall like a house of cards [if not we will push it to fall by introducing situation ethics], losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel [of love and mercy]. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant [, anti-dogmatic]. It is from this proposition that the [“im-” or “a-“]moral consequences then flow.
=============
You get the idea…. see also Wikipedia article on “situational ethics”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Situational_ethics
One example of the egregious effects on faith and morality of the Pope’s words and deeds opposing same: http://en.gloria.tv/?media=642117 (the open promotion of the great moral perversion of sexual relations between persons of the same sex!) Once a person has accepted this abomination, his moral discernment is badly damaged and he is likely to slide further into immorality and into heresy/apostasy. Catholicism is both faith and reason. To ignore this most widespread and deadly phenomenon whilst purporting to fight all serious attacks against faith and morality, is to appear to acquiesce to it, and to contribute to leading countless souls towards perdition. One cannot ignore egregious objectively evil words and deeds by the pope (published and republished to the Faithful and the world, to the resounding applause of the enemies of the Deposit of Faith and morality) and claim to be working for the good of souls and Our Lord’s Holy Church – that is patently absurd. Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . .
Dear Roman Watcher:
First of all, I would be the last person to promote or even suggest a reconciliation for the SSPX with conciliar Rome at this moment. My personal opinion is that the Holy Ghost’s “chess board” is ideally set up right now, with the SSPX outside “regular status”. This situation keeps the modernist’s at bay, which is allowing the flourishing of the TLM inside the diocesan church structures. Furthermore, the SSPX’s present status also has a preventative effect on Francis and the modernists. Notice how they have kept their hands off the EC, while they are ruthless with the religious communities outside the EC, case in point is the situation with the FFI. But also notice, that Francis had to call in (for one of his not so secret meetings) representatives of the FFI when the seminarians mutinied. If the main FFI remnant mutinies, which is could be a many as 350, they could come over into the SSPX fold. Once this starts happening, the entire EC fascade will start collapsing. Please keep in mind that the FSSP still does not have a bishop after all those years and the countless promises.
_______
Having said the above, I also think that as A Catholic organization, the SSPX needs eventually to reconcile with Rome. Now let’s be honest, this could take a long time, but at the end of the day, the SSPX IS Eternal Rome. They have to come back into the structure so that the forces of Good can retake that institution. And to return, they have to reconcile. And to reconcile they need to be able to put a “SAFE” structure in place that will protect them against any subversive operations that the modernists will no doubt throw at them. Now, I am not an expert in the area, but I have come across the opinion (from a reputable source) that a Papal Personal Prelature could be one possible solution that could eventually provide the SSPX with the level of comfort needed to wage that ultimate battle.
________
Concluding, I think we all need to keep in mind that this is going to be a long one. The modernists are not going to experience a collective epiphany and return to the One True Faith any time soon, if ever. Therefore, a strategy firmly grounded in “Romanita” needs to be the basis for any action.
S.Armaticus – bingo on all counts. Of course, the Society DOES want regular canonical status – precisely because they are Catholic, always have been, and always will be – but cannot accept it at the price of the compromise of Truth, which is what the price is now.
—–
They “cleave to Eternal Rome”, recognize the supreme pontiff (Cardinal Ratzinger once even thanked them for this (!)), and have always treated overtures from the Vatican in the best possible light, with charity, but with prudence.
—–
And, of course, it is modernist Rome, not the Society, that have departed from the faith. Modernist Rome meaning churchMEN, not the Church.
A Catholic Thinker, I think you are on the mark in regards to Voris. I can’t, or won’t, defend his position to not speak out against the actions of the Pope….especially when he has a great avenue to do so. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around it and perhaps l’ve been thinking out loud too much. I just can’t explain or defend it. When you’re hit with a reality you need to face that reality.
While my earlier comments are still awaiting moderation (?), I thought I’d pass along a link to an article I read recently. Written by C. J. Malloy and entitled “Catholic Ecumenism: Towards an Integration of Faith, Hope, and Charity”, it takes a “hermeneutic of continuity” position on Catholic ecumenism. Granted, that fact alone is likely to prevent some here from giving it a fair reading, but I found it to be an honest attempt which is worthy of consideration.
–
http://www.hprweb.com/2014/07/catholic-ecumenism-towards-an-integration-of-faith-hope-and-charity/
Dear salvemur,
What you point out here seems to us the HEART of the matter.
____
We can completely set aside MV’s reasons are for his choice to avert, deflect, hide criticism of the Holy Father, and consider him a living Saint if you will, stopping all criticism of him personally.
___
We are still left with the fact that his global influence matters, because of the false image his words now create, that , there ARE too many Church teachings from other Popes we must give MORE credence to, for the very simple reason that they taught the Truth, and the most simply educated Catholic child, who knows their Catechism, can tell that this Pope is teaching things that directly CONTRADICT Truth.
____
Indignus,
Your long and not so direct response to my question, was sufficient for me. You see, though you perhaps don’t want to say it, that in the Catholic Church there never has been nor is there a canonical structure which allows legitimate dissent in matters of faith. Everyone has the same right to dissent in matters which do not bind, so there is no specific canonical structure for that. If, however, one would propose such a thing, it would be a progressive step to make of the Church a big-tent for any who wanted to believe what they wanted to believe, and actually would promote what Bergoglio seems to have proposed at Caserta. That is why, I posed my question. And that is why there is no question of reconciliation or canonical regularization, untill the modernists renounce modernism and confess it as a heresy and error, and admit that V2 is not binding on anyone at all, and in toto, should be rejected as it provides only dangerous formulations which are harmful to the Church and a notion of faith, church, sacrament etc. which is not compatibile with what She has received from Christ through the Apostles and Sacred Tradition.
That being the case, why have so many priests who hold such an opinoin about the non-utility of reconcilation or recognition prior to such an abjuration on the part of the modernists, get kicked out of the SSPX? If it is because obedience to human superiors is more important than guarding the faith, then we have returned to the error of the modernists, who put human authority and opnion above revelation.
Sorry a line got cut out somehow when the above posted.
… are still left with the fact that his global influence matters, because of the false image his words now create, that we have a shepherd we can safely Trust and follow, even in what he doesn’t promulgate officially.
And yet Michael Matt makes a point of stating, in his video on Common Core, that he “does not attend SSPX Masses.”
(Reply to Catholic Thinker, 10:33 pm)
Come on, James, stop “reasoning” like MV! Reply to your 11:35 post: What if Jesus had not said this because he feared some might leave him? “[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.”
On Friday October 3 on the eve of the “synod on the family” (aka “the synod on sex”) Hollywood will release the movie “Left Behind”.
http://www.movieinsider.com/m10845/left-behind/
Storyline:
–
Follows Rayford Steele (Nicolas Cage) who is piloting a commercial airliner just hours after the Rapture when millions of people around the globe simply vanish. Thirty thousand feet over the Atlantic, Rayford is faced with a damaged plane, terrified passengers, and a desperate desire to get back to his family. On the ground, his daughter, Chloe Steele (Cassi Thomson) is among those left behind, forced to navigate a world of madness as she searches for her lost mother and brother.
–
The “synod on sex” will take place from Sunday, Oktober 5 to Sunday, Oktober 19.
–
There will be a total Lunar Eclipse on October 8. It will not be visible in Rome, but will be visible in the Far East and the Americas.
–
What message (if any) do you think that Hollywood is sending by timing the release this film to coincide with the eve of the gathering of bishops worldwide in Rome which was announced a year in advance by jorge bergoglio on October 8, 2013?
=============
=============
“Pope calls synod to discuss families, divorce and remarriage”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1304231.htm
–
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The predicament of divorced and remarried Catholics will be a major topic of discussion when bishops from around the world meet at the Vatican in October 2014.
–
The Vatican announced Oct. 8 that an extraordinary session of the Synod of Bishops will meet Oct. 5-19, 2014, to discuss the “pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization.”
–
The pope had told reporters accompanying him on his plane back from Rio de Janeiro in July that the next synod would explore a “somewhat deeper pastoral care of marriage,” including the question of the eligibility of divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion.
–
The announcement of the synod came amid news that the Archdiocese of Freiburg, Germany, had issued new guidelines making it easier for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion.
–
The Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, said that such matters were more properly dealt with at a church-wide level, “under the guidance of the pope and the bishops.”
–
“For persons or local offices to propose particular pastoral solutions runs the risk of generating confusion,” he said. “The Holy Father is placing the pastoral care of the family at the heart of a synod process that will be larger, involving the reflection of the universal church.”
–
The October 2014 gathering will be an “extraordinary general session” of the synod, which according to the Code of Canon Law is held to “deal with matters which require a speedy solution.” It will be composed for the most part of the presidents of national bishops’ conferences, the heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the heads of major Vatican offices.
–
Only about 150 synod fathers will take part in the session, which will run for two weeks, Father Lombardi said, compared with about 250 bishops who attended the three-week ordinary general assembly on the new evangelization in October 2012.
Dear Matthew. I’m very interested in reading your earlier comments that are “awaiting moderation”. My experience is that those comments will remain in limbo forever — or at least until the Second Coming… 🙂
–
I would suggest re-submitting your comments and chopping off the leading “http://” to the links in order to get them to pass through the filter software.
–
BTW, I think the limit on comments in a message is two.
I think his only point is that he can claim complete objectivity. He does not mean to imply he would *not* attend SSPX Masses. The guy rubs shoulders with the Society in a myriad of ways, one being that some of the folks that write for his paper are SSPX Mass-goers.
I take my place on the side of Truth. It appears that most viewing Voris’ site would have been weaned off of milk awhile ago. Michael and his team are currently slogging through all the sludge which is rising over the boot tops since they first planted the Manifesto AND maligned any that disagreed. (The sludge being that which he’s refrained from correcting and the reams put forth by those attempting to excuse or nuance it with their verbal contortions.) He may have taken that position due to the many outrageously disrespectful attacks against the Pope strewn all over the net, or some kneejerk reaction to the belief that attacks on the Pope are attacks on the Papacy. But since the Papacy is a major dividing line to Christians either being inside or outside the Church, MV seems to want to enforce impeccability to uphold infallibility. (Notwithstanding his treatment of CARDINAL Dolan, which though usually well-deserved, is atrocious.) His current Vortex which places the Pope too far away to correct his disobedient bishops doesn’t address our main point of anguish. Where we used to be able to try to hold our bishop accountable to what the Church’s laws and rules are, now he can just point to the Pope and say, “It’s alright by him, what’s your beef?”
One for the “you just can’t make this stuff up”category: Francis is preparing a statement about….. aliens…. as in the extraterrestrial kind. 🙂
______
And no, this is not an Eye of the Tibor story.
______
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/08/vatican-preparing-statement-on.html
_______
Money line:
“Pope Francis is reportedly preparing a major world statement about extraterrestrial life and its theological implications. Rosana Ubanell from Voxxi News today reported that due to advances in scientific detection methods for the discovery of extraterrestrial life, Pope Francis wants to be ready with a statement about “First Contact”.”
________
Personally, I think the bishop of Rome needs to make “first contact” with a psychiatrist.
_________
On a PS, You just have to wonder what is going through the minds of the cardinal electors right about now.
“In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much “In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, nonetheless, the teacher of life… We feel we must disagree with these prophets of doom who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.”
St John XXIII
Toward Christian Unity, Opening Address at the Second Vatican Council, October 11, 1962
I believe Dietrich Von Hildebrand used love as an excuse to redefine the meaning of marriage. It appears to me that he was the most in need of Truth when it came to understanding and promoting the traditional Catholic meaning on marriage.
Thanks for all of the responses re: Michael Voris. The real heart of all of this is my sadness and loss at having someone (MV) who I so depended on for sanity, hope, and leadership in this epic war be lost in confusion. I have seen his zeal, his courage, his utter love for Our Lord and Lady. He is my brother and I miss him. I can’t tell you how he brought such light into the utter darkness of this war over the years. I owe him for that…which is one of the reasons why I still am a premium member of CMTV…although it’s tough to stomach the pro-JPII and Francis garbage…I don’t watch any of the newer shows b/c of it. But I miss him…I miss his sense of sanity and truth…cont’d
I don’t know what is going on with MV…if it’s fear or pride or a spiritual director or something completely different. But I know this: he needs our prayers. Sooooo…who would be willing to do a special novena for him? Or maybe saying a rosary? With the intention of opening up his eyes and healing whatever is blocking him from speaking the truth in boldness yet with charity when it comes to the Popes. He is our brother…and has done SO much for us over the years…he means well and loves Our Lord and His Church…let’s put our rosary beads and prayers to work, yes? Let me know who is interested:+) God bless you all~
Everywhere I have sought peace and not found it, except in a corner with a book
― Thomas à Kempis
Dear Roman Watcher:
First of all, I just want to say that I very much enjoy reading your posts. They are very well thought out and without doubt come from an excellent Catholic formation.
_____
Having said the above, I think that where we disagree, it is in no small part due to my lack of the depth and breadth of knowledge that you possess. The way in which I try to compensate for these delinquencies is by applying basic common sense.
_______
Which brings me to why I wrote the above.
Because of the following:
“And that is why there is no question of reconciliation or canonical regularization, until the modernists renounce modernism and confess it as a heresy and error, and admit that V2 is not binding on anyone at all, and in toto, should be rejected as it provides only dangerous formulations which are harmful to the Church and a notion of faith, church, sacrament etc. which is not compatible with what She has received from Christ through the Apostles and Sacred Tradition.”
___________
And my question is the following: What chance is there of the above scenario playing itself out if the modernists are just left to their own devices?
________
Hint: I think it was Woody Allen who famously said that ” Eternity is a very long time”.
Carl E. Olson, a convert from fundamentalist protestantism, wrote a killer exposé in 2004 of the “Left Behind” series and other writings by Tim LaHaye.
–
Olson writes:
“The Left Behind books and their non-fiction companions are filled with poor writing, bad theology, and anti-Catholic bigotry. It’s best to leave them behind and rely on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church when studying the end times—or anything else.”
–
The following short excerpt is where Olson’s article gets really interesting and relevant to the bergoglio papacy.
============
============
[Tim Lahaye writes in 1995] “A lot of Catholics were confused, because while many remained, some had disappeared—including the new pope, who had been installed just a few months before the vanishings. He had stirred up controversy in the church with a new doctrine that seemed to coincide more with the ‘heresy’ of Martin Luther than with the historic orthodoxy they were used to.”
–
[Olson explains] In other words, the new pope is secretly Raptured despite being Catholic because he embraces the views of Martin Luther and has therefore renounced Catholic teaching. So those Catholics who reject the Catholic Faith can be “saved” and Raptured, with the logical conclusion being that Catholics who are loyal to the Church are not “saved,” are not true Christians, and will not be Raptured.
============
============
Yikes! And these are the type of protestants that bergoglio says are our “friends”. The original “Left Behind” novel was written by Tim LaHaye in 1995. Who could have imagined at that time a pope like bergoglio ….. ? A pope who does not even meet the most minimal standards in order to be defined as a Catholic. A pope who is more at home with protestant evangelicals, jews, muslims…. than with faithful Catholics.
–
You just can NOT make this stuff up. There is much more in Olson’s article. I highly recommed reading it in its entirety for a taste of what our protestant evangelical “friends” really think about Catholics — with the exception of traitors like bergoglio of course.
+ + +
Mary, Help of Christians, pray for us!
+ + +
In 1572, the Islamic Ottoman Empire intended to invade Christian Europe. Pope St. Pius V called Christian armies from all over Europe to defend the continent and asked the believers to pray to Mary in order to help the Christians. The defeat of the Muslim Turks was attributed to the intercession of Mary under this title.
–
Having requested all Christendom to pray the rosary during the battle, this devout son of St. Dominic, consequently instituted the feast of the Rosary to be celebrated the first Sunday of October in honor of Mary, “Help of Christians.”
+ + +
ATTENTION!: The first Sunday of October is the 4th. The same day that the “synod on the family” will commence. Please pray your rosaries that day and ask for the intervention of Mary, Help of Christians!
+ + +
Oh, how we could use a truly saintly pope like St. Pius V today….
http://truthtoponder.com/2011/05/12/pope-st-pius-1540-1572/
–
He is called the Father of the Catholic Reformation and savior of Christendom!
–
The two great and constant worries for him were the struggle against the Protestants and the Ottoman Turks. He constantly tried to unite the princes of Christendom against their hereditary enemy, who sought to destroy Christendom.
–
He eventually excommunicated Elizabeth of England and supported the cause of her imprisoned cousin, Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, writing her in prison to console her.
–
Not only did he reform the religious orders, but he had imprisoned bishops who refused to live in their dioceses, insisted on regular Sunday religious instruction, regular attendance by children to instructions, establishment of seminaries, ordered bishops to visit their parishes and make regular visits to Rome. In 1570, he approved of a common liturgy and missal.
+ + +
Hail Mary! Full of Grace… pray for us!
Dear Roman Watcher,
Thank you, we are very grateful for your analysis and comments here.
____
It appears to us that the accusers of the SSPX are not above getting “stuck in the past”, when it provides misleading support for unfounded claims that most people would not think to question; while the members of this association continue to live up to their pledges to respect the present authority, defend Sacred Tradition as Unchanging Truth, and are only in an “irregular” relationship with Rome, because Rome is out of “union” with those.
___
While “even a blind squirrel finds an acorn occasionally” in this case, there are no acorns in sight, and the blindness of Cardinal Muller and his promoters is devastating, as is the power he has been given and by whom:
___
His heretical beliefs regarding Our Blessed Mother are abundant, and this one against the Holy Eucharist stands out in its clarity: In 2002, Müller, in his book “Die Messe – Quelle des christlichen Lebens” [The Mass – Source of the Christian Life], speaking of the Eucharistic Sacrament, writes that,
___
HERESY:
“the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”
2002 PUBLISHED HERESY:
“We now have communion with Jesus Christ, through the eating and drinking of the bread and wine. Just as in an interpersonal relationship, a letter can show the friendship between persons and illustrate the affection of the sender for the recipient.” ..
2002 PUBLISHED HERESY:
“The nature of these gifts can be clarified only in their relation to man. The essence of the bread and the wine, therefore, must be defined in an anthropological way
____
2002 APPOINTED BISHOP by Pope John Paul II (in November of 2002),
In the German Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Müller was
Deputy Chairman of the Ecumenical Commission and within that:
MEMBER OF FAITH WORLD CHURCH OF THE COMMISSION.
____
2009, Member of the Pontifical Council for Culture.
2012 Congregation for Catholic Education On the same day also to the
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
and also in 2012 named prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope Benedict XVI, –as such, he is also
ex officio president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the International Theological Commission, and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. elevated to Cardinal 2014.
_On 19 February 2014 he was appointed a member of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.
___
[YIKES!] *** Müller has written more than 400 works on dogmatic theology, ecumenism, revelation, hermeneutics, the priesthood and the diaconate.
___
Müller was a pupil of Gustavo Gutiérrez, the “father” of Latin-American liberation theology, with whom he has a long and close friendship.
___
[While he says he rejects mixing Marxist principles with theology,] he ended one interview about liberation theology…. On the other hand we must ask ourselves sincerely: How can we speak of the love and mercy of God in face of the suffering of so many people….In the last analysis this is possible only if we are also willing to be with the people, to accept them as brothers and sisters, without paternalism from on high”
____
We have all seen how the Vatican continues to try to inter-mix this legitimate concern for care of ALL the poor, with acceptance of ALL that anyone believes in a way that dissolves any understanding of the necessary differences between the two..
____
And in that regard, Muller’s “without paternalism from on high” is, in direct contrast to who Our Lord says “Who is my brother……”he who keeps the Father’s Commands” ]
and the inspired word of St. John (1:12-13 says), as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.] Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God]
____
Our Conclusion is that this heretic has been given free reign and great power and has used it to attack and destroy right understanding of Truth, and those who have promoted him despite the public knowledge of that, should be denounced for that, as well. Here’s one for the list of those who need to be deposed.
___
Thank God for the sources of truth on the internet, available for anyone with eyes that can see. This publication of the ACTUAL WORDS of heretics IN THEIR BOOKS is the opposite of the sinful gossip Pope Francis spends so much time denouncing, which harms reputations unjustly and is a sin against charity.
___
Most likely it would be the cause of his removal by a Church Council some day, if there are enough Catholic Faithful left among our hierarchy to depose him for his heretical views, or challenge them to the point where he repents and recants all of them. Perhaps that is why he is so worried about the sin of “gossip” while urging Catholics to put Dogma and Doctrines on the back burner, and focus on Unity without them.
Yes, this is the kind of inane stuff that I and many others were subjected to in the 1970s and 1980s in the name of Catholicism – “How does that make you feel?”; “Feelings are neither right nor wrong (so just go with them)”. I rejected this false “catholicism” but thankfully, I was quite aware that there was a true Catholicism that was being grossly misrepresented to me and other young people. However, many were not so aware of the true Catholicism, even though many were aware at one level or another that what was being taught to us was not good, not in conformity to right reason. They would have realised enough to reject what was being foisted on us, but not enough to find and assent to the trueunchangeable Faith.
Here’s the source you need to answer your question
— Remnant Article declaring Matt’s total support and that he would not hesitate to take his kids to an SSPX if he didn’t have a TLM center run by priests who recognize the abominations going on etc…
REMNANT NEWPAPER ARTICLE
WEDNESDAY, FEB. 5, 2014
“WHAT WOULD JESUS DO….WITH THE SSPX”
Dear A Catholic Thinker and/or anyone who knows…
Unlike the heretical writer-Bishop/now Cardinal Muller,
two other priests, Fr. Paul Nicholson and Fr Z, both claim the SSPX priests have no “juridical authority” to forgive sin, and Father Paul takes Michael Matt to task for his (above) support of the SSPX asking why he would take his children where they can’t have their sins forgiven..
http://frpaulnicholson.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-welcome-matt-to-atheism.html
___
Do you think their position is related to what Cardinal Muller stated, or is this jurisdiction question something else entirely?
Dear S. Armaticus. I know it is very tempting to just go with your initial gut reaction and conclude that bergoglio is a kook or moron based on some of the things he says or does. But I am more and more convinced that there is a “method to his madness”. And that we should not underestimate his mental capabilities and his evil cunning.
–
Freemasons are the ones that are usually very interrested in scientifically establishing that there is extra-terrestrial life. The reason is simple. It could be interpreted as proof that the biblical creation story is a myth. (Although this does not necessarily follow.)
–
Actually it is interesting that there is NO scientific proof of extra-terrestrial life and yet scientists maintain a dogmatic faith that such life exists. Even more important from an anti-Catholic freemasonic point of view would be to establish that there is extra-terrestrial intelligence at the level of human intelligence that excercises free will and therefore would put into question the validity of Christ. Of course they don’t stop to consider the possibilty that these extra-terrrestrials could already be Christians! That’s because they are ideologues (although they would never admit this) and therefore facts must conform to their ideology and not the other way around.
–
The U.S. space program is an excellent example of how freemasons are very interested in space exploration and have pushed for government funding. Again, this is driven by their anti-Catholic ideology.
–
For example there is a picture here of Buzz Aldrin who was the second man to walk on the moon presenting a masonic flag that he took with him on that moon trip.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2013/11/27/bro-buzz-aldrin-reports-back-to-the-house-of-the-temple/
–
Now I can hardly imagine that this was done without the consent of NASA officials. Can you? A slight change in weight could throw off orbital calculations. Space was at a premium in the Apollo spaceship. Any materials would need to be tested for how they would react in the low pressure of space…
–
Could Buzz Aldrin have just smuggled on board a masonic flag? And wouldn’t he face some sort of reprimand once this became public knowledge?
–
Anyway, bergoglio’s interest in aliens is another sign to me that his interests line up remarkably well those of freemasons — and even more remarkably are at odds with the interests of the Catholic Church
Dear MMC
We’re with you on getting Michael back with open eyes, and will offer daily prayers and extra sacrifices to that end..
Dear Anastasia,
We believe you misinterpret his writings, and have fallen victim to others who have done the same. Have you opened a Forum yet on this?.
Ah, but doesn’t that depend on how many of them are really from this galaxy?
🙂
@ S. Armaticus and Michael Leon,
We’ve been thinking about how “they” could use the whole alien thing to pull off the entrance of Anti-Christ while “calling down fire from heaven as people watched” and all… and on a whim a while back searched for Vatican and aliens and found this:
___
Guy Consolmagno, planetary scientist in the Vatican observatory, remarked:
“God is bigger than just humanity. God is also the god of angels. Any entity, no matter how many tentacles it has, has a soul.”
Adding that they would Baptize any alien who asked for it.
___
We know that demons can manifest as angels of light, etc. so the world could be being prepared to receive them not as demons, but as more separated-by-light-years “brothers and sisters.
_____
(Of course we ARE biased in that we don’t think there are any, personally. )
The above reply was @ S. Armaticus #21
🙂 WE COME IN PEACE 🙂
-Vaticana documents the Vatican Observatory Research Group’s (VORG) endorsement of the astrobiological project and theological revisionism in expectation of extraterrestrial contact.
___
In light of our extraordinary exposé concerning the Vatican’s plans for the arrival of an alien savior, the unexpected election of Pope Francis comes into a brilliant new focus.
___
As a young adult, Bergoglio earned a master’s degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires and had scientific ambitions prior to entering the Jesuit order. When the current leader of the VORG, José Gabriel Funes, S.J., also from Argentina, entered the Jesuit order, one of the three examiners was Bergoglio.
___
Funes, who astounded the world with his essay The Alien is my Brother, is infamous for invoking St. Francis of Assisi as an apologetic for accepting ET, “To say it with St. Francis, if we can consider some earthly creatures as ‘brothers’ or ‘sisters’, why could we not speak of a ‘brother alien’? He would also belong to the creation.”
___
In other words, Funes and the VORG are leading the charge to accept extraterrestrials at face value even arguing they could be morally superior to humans.
******LIVE LONG AND PROSPER-ALL! ********
Maybe the Vatican Observatory Research Group (VORG)
should now be renamed as the
Bergoglio Observatory Research Group? aka The (BORG)
“RESISTENCE IS FUTILE ! “
It was a hideous flick if ever there was one. I was referring to the genetically modified alien-non-human-‘human’ thing that ended up getting sucked out into space – I think that’s where new church is headed.
James, I don’t mind using comments as segues. If conspiracy nuts is on the table I like to point out the fighting real conspiracies is what the Church does. Thought someone might find it interesting.
Once again a VERY strong case can be made for the opposite side:
—–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0515-c-jackdon-sspx-confession-valid.htm
—–
THIS – what we have right now in the Church – is the very reason that supplied jurisdiction exists!
—–
Keep in mind also that as the above article notes even the Vatican recognizes the fact that Society priests can absolve.
I should probably add that Fr. Paul Nicholson is a complete crackpot, and Fr. Z has an anti-SSPX agenda. Fr. Z is no traditionalist.
S.Armaticus, I think the answer to your query is Our Lady: the modernists don’t have “eternity” to run amuck; Her Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Dear Lynda. What you are describing regarding “Feelings are neither right nor wrong (so just go with them)” reminds me of the techniques of psychologist Carl Rogers. This seems to be closely related to “situation ethics” and is another propaganda technique that is used to destroy Catholic teaching on morality.
Rogerian psychology encourages people to explore their “feelings” and to “liberate” themselves. This was introduced into the Catholic Church in a grand social experiment with the support of bishops with predictably disastrous results — lesbian nuns, homosexual priests, sexual abuse of minors.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/COULSON.TXT
This was followed by increase in extra-marital sex, increase in divorce, legalization of abortion, “homosexual marriage”. This is what secular society refers to as sexual “liberation” — all part of the grand sexual revolution which really took off in the 1960s following Vatican II and its opening to the world.
Carl Rogers and his associates (such as Dr. William Coulson — a Catholic) claim that this damage to the Church was not deliberate or intentional. I have very strong suspicions that it actually WAS a deliberate attack on the Catholic Church and her teachings on morality in order to advance the sexual revolution and simultaneously destroy the Church.
So here we are with bergoglio’s Oktober “synod on sex” fast approaching and the prescription to solve the problem seems to be “more of the same”. More of the same “aggiornamento” which has done incalculable damage to the Church and to society and to individual souls.
And the irony is that despite all of this exploration of “feelings” in a vain attempt to “feel good”, all the outward signs are that even on the physical level we are less “happy” as a society. On a spiritual level our suffering as a result of our wholesale separation from God — the source of Love — is the greatest tragedy in human history.
In the space of 50 years and over the course of a few generations, so much of the great work of the saints over the course of 2000 has been dismantled throughout the world….
Dear Lynda. I whole heartedly agree and thank you for the link to the article on the “Francis effect” on the “gay pride parades.”
Dear Salvemur, or anyone interested with an answer,
Maybe we’re a bit fuzzy on this one, but why is everyone, including you saying Jesus didn’t “REDEEM” ALL men? It seems to us the redemption (ie paying the price so we wouldn’t have to— aka ransom) was accomplished by his suffering and death, and God’s will is that no one be lost..
____
Salvation is another thing, you have to do what is necessary to take advantage of the gift Jesus offers everyone, including desiring it, being Baptized, keeping the Commandments, living the Christian life (unless you die before the age of reason), working out your salvation with fear and trembling, repenting of Mortal sin to avoid Hell…etc…
____
It’s like a mega- billionare bought everybody a free ticket to Disneyland, but you have to go there and show your’re ID to claim it and get in.
_____
Can you fill us in on why we’re wrong if we are?
Redemption and Salvation both mean ‘deliverance from sin’. Christ accomplished for always, His victory over death at Calvary and ‘reconciled all things to Himself’, in that no where and no one could ever be beyond the grace to accept redemtion/salvation. But, as you say, this must be sought by us. We are not vegetables that Christ should simply pick us and throw us in salvation storage, we have free-will. We can use it claim Christ’s victory as our own by submitting to His right to rule over us as our chosen King, or reject Him, thereby instantly choosing the father of lies as our ‘king’. Wojtyla’s and all universalists’ claims basically deny free-will, they deny any choice and any enemy (within or without), they deny divine justice and the ransom demaned for both original and actual sin. In essence their ‘god’ – that is the god of universalism, doesnot partake in divine justice – their model has absolutely no need for Divine Justice. But the True God is perfect and therefore He is perfect justice and the demands of such justice must be met by us through choosing to submit to Christ’s victory. This why the appalling situation of so-called representatives of Christ encouraging those who flout Christ’s victory is the work of the father of lies.
Dear A Catholic Thinker,
One read gave us the general ideas. It will take a few more to get it down.
First impression –it sounds as if there are two ways a penitent has no worries–
a. either he doesn’t have a clue about the controversy, or
b. he “asks” for the Sacrament.
if we got that right. In either of those, then the Church supplies jurisdiction.
What else is there?
–our nagging questions are related to several other points, but overall it made us want to pray really hard for this whole mess to get resolved asap.:
The doubt that must be in the minds of anyone going for those sacraments, must be a tremendous weight, because of all the contradictory opinions floating around, including among high authorities. We assume the “irregular” situation is the cause of it all, and the Society sees that as the one thing that cannot be compromised for the sake of the Church.
__
One other question- regarding Fr. Nicholson. Are you aware Michael Voris has him doing the childrens’ catechism shows.? What’s the reason for the crackpot
opinion?
“HERESY:
“the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.””
.
## How is any of that heresy ? The second sentence is a proper acknowledgement that the Consecrated Gifts that were formerly bread and wine, become thereafter the sacramental signs of the Eucharistic Presence of the Glorified Lord.
What he is denying, is the error of Caphernaitism, which mistakes the Eucharistic Presence for something “gross and carnal” and cannibalistic, whereas It is real, true, and substantial: just as the council; of Trent teaches that it is.
It is a substantial Presence: He is Present, in the manner proper to a sacrament; the Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is not eaten in the way one would eat meat; the Sacred Host is eaten, so that we may be able to have access to the (otherwise wholly inacessible) Presence of the Glorified Lord. It is the material object by which the immaterial Presence of the Glorified Lord is made available to us as our Food.
The Cardinal doesn’t spell everything out – but he is not speaking heresy either.
======
“2002 PUBLISHED HERESY:
“We now have communion with Jesus Christ, through the eating and drinking of the bread and wine.””
.
## As far as it goes, that is quite correct; and is borne out by what is said about knowing the Lord “in the breaking of the bread”, as at Emmaus in Luke 24. Granted, there is more, much more, to communion with Christ than that – but one can’t say everything on the subject; that would need many hundreds of pages.
.
“Just as in an interpersonal relationship, a letter can show the friendship between persons and illustrate the affection of the sender for the recipient…”
.
If that is taken as an analogy, rather than as a description, there is no problem in those words. If there is any doubt as to someone’s intention, the most favourable construction possible should be put on someone’s words.
The accusation of heresy is too often made, when, if there is any fault in what is said (which is often not the case), the appropriate criticism would be, not that a statement is heretical, but that it would be open to some milder criticism. To brand something as heretical is only the gravest note of theological censure – there are several others; 9 altogether, IIRC.
To call X a heretic is like calling X a traitor or or murderer; if X is a criminal at all (and that is why there are courts of law: to avoid the evil of vigilante justice), X’s crimes may be far slighter than X’s accusers suppose; or may even be non-existent. All this is something I need to remember as much as anyone.
Dear salvemur,
___
We were working off the top of our heads, but after reading your answer, we checked on-line and found this:
___
What’s the difference between redemption and salvation?
Catholic Answers Apologist
Basically, redemption is collective and salvation is individual.
By his passion, death, and resurrection, Christ redeemed humanity collectively from slavery to sin and from the debt of punishment mankind — as a whole — owed due to sin. Each and every person, Christian or non-Christian, is redeemed because he is a member of the human race.
____
Salvation is the application of redemption to individuals. Although a member of redeemed humanity, and therefore himself redeemed, a person can freely choose to deliberately reject the graces won for him by Christ and go to hell.
____
St. Joseph Catechism puts it this way:
. “After the fall, [God] buoyed them up with the hope of salvation, by promising redemption.
____
It doesn’t appear to mean the same thing in either of these sources, which is why we thought John Paul II may be being misread a bit here.
Dear Jimmy,
We labeled each one HERESY because that is the what they were labeled on the sites from which we took the information, and we wanted to make sure that anyone coming across them on this blog later, didn’t mistake them for actual Church teaching.
_______
Regarding your above objections, we went back to the sites to see what they said in defense of their statements, and found these:
___
Tradition in Action”
We believe that a man who denies these two dogmas of the Catholic Faith – the perpetual virginity of Our Lady and transubstantiation – is a heretic. Otherwise, the word heretic would lose its meaning. Therefore, Archbishop Müller fits this definition perfectly.
____
Rorate Coeli:
pius.info: What do you have to say about Msgr. Bux’s declaration that the explanation of Bishop Müller concerning the Eucharist was only to avoid a certain Capharnaism?
___
Fr. Gaudron: Also in this reaction I can only see a pretext. Bishop Müller does, in fact, talk about transubstantiation, but his explanations stay within the theories of transfinalization and transsignification, theories that Pope Paul VI. had rejected for being insufficient in his encyclical Mysterium fidei, Sep. 3rd 1965.
_____
There are multiple other accusations listed about heresy regarding Dogmas of the Virgin Mary and other topics.
____
Regarding the things you wrote, we don’t pretend to be theologians, nor do we contradict the teachings of the Council of Trent, leaving the remaining questions as to whether you have properly applied those teachings where these sources have not. But at least your views are represented as well, and perhaps some of the more informed and educated posters here, may be able to step in and give their opinions as well.
_____
God Bless you.
_____
p.s.
It did occur to us to wonder about the statement regarding the real flesh, as we recall several Eucharistic Miracles in which the real flesh appeared before doubting priests and people, as an answer to prayer about belief in transubstantiation. We wonder why God would do that, if your understanding is correct, and it is not intended to be just that?
_____
Also, Jesus’ words that My flesh is real food, My blood real drink, were the cause of many walking away, and His asking if his disciples were Scandalized.
which seems another indication that people took it to mean real flesh, although we do not presume to interpret Scripture in any way contrary to the Church.
A Catholic Thinker,
I totally agree. Our Lady has made us a promise backed up by the greatest miracle worked since the Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven. If we do not have hope in the restoration, we have lost the faith. St. Alphonsus said that there are 2 kinds of heresy, both based on the rejection of a truth which God has revealed. There is heresy in the common sense, the post baptismal rejection of a revealed truth. Then there is heresy before God, which is the rejection of any truth revealed privately to the individual, whether by himself or in the company of others, or through many witnesses. Such is Fatima. Once you, whether you be catholic or not, see that only God could be behind the messages and events of Fatima, then you are obliged under the penalty of mortal sin to believe it whole and entire, by divine Faith, such that is you even doubt it, it is a mortal sin; because you are spurning evidence which can only be of God. Once a soul does that kind of disbelieve, faith in public revelation would soon unravel, since many things testified to in scripture are based on much less verifiable evidence. Who for example can speak to the 500 disciples who saw Christ risen from the dead? But at Fatima we have 70,000 witnesses. And I count myself blessed to have spoken to an elderly portugues woman who was at Fatima on the day of the miracle. So I have no doubts that Her Immaculate Heart will triumph, and I am personally convinced that the slaughter fortold of the Pope at the foot of the Cross, will befall Bergoglio on account of his perfidy, and on many catholics who went along with his planned apostasy… If the hieararchy and religious only had made devotion to the Immaculate Heart the center of their religious being, then someone like Bergoglio either would never have been elected, or he would have not lost the right path…and everything in the world would be much different.
Well yes, they need to be fed Truth. But if you’re silent on the matter, they actually could end up adopting the errors being promulgated which are heavily Protestant, and could lead to a complete ignorance of the Faith. Voris simply cannot just be silent on the issue, it’s a Conspiracy of Silence all over again.
Regarding the liceity of confessions given by the SSPX…
First you have to understand that by ordination, a priest receives the power to forgive sins. A priest is to be the representative of his bishop. So generally, the principle is that a priest does not lawfullly (or licetly) confect a sacrament unless he is doing what his bishop allows him. Even if unjustly faulted and denied by his bishop, he cannot licitly confect the sacraments, because strictly speaking, licitly means lawfully, it does not mean justly or rightly.
So a priest, unjustly and wrongfully suspended or denied faculties, could validly and uprightly confect them, with the proper conditions met.
So, when catholics who resist modernism are denied ordination, and are ordained by SSPX bishops, then obviously, they do not licitly in the strict sense confect any sacrament, but more correctly, it is the Pope or bishops who do not justly deny them faculties, but do so motivated by error and heresy…
If a bishop is the ordinary of a diocese, but a public manifest heretic, then obvisouly all priests who confect the sacraments in their diocese do so lawfully, because before God the diocese is sede vacante, even if Rome refuses to act to declare the fact.
The same in the Church, when the Pope refuses the sacraments in the old rite to all catholics without excuses, then all priests celebrating in the old rites have before God the moral right to celebrate and confect, and thus, your confessions with such are valid and not sinful.
If the Catholic Church would establish administrative canonical proceedures such as the granting of faculties to confect the sacraments in such a way as to restrict upright actions and allow immoral ones, simply because the immoral ones fit their politics or the upright ones do not, then the Church would become the congregation of the Pharasees condemned long ago by Our Lord.
Thus, it is of divine faith that all Catholics consider the matter such, that any priest, who is denied faculites for unjust reasons, has the moral right and does before God lawfully confect them, because to conclude otherwise we would have to abandon Our Lord’s teaching about the criteria upon which we are to posit or omit religious acts, esp. those He established in the Church.
Let’s be reasonable. What bishop on earth right now gives more scandal than Bergoglio? I’d like to hear Voris try to answer that one….
Dear Mr Leon, what you say is true.
Dear Roman Watcher,
Assuming the “Catholic Church” in your hypothetical is not the infallible Church proper, but the fallible Hierarchy acting wrongfully on her behalf; your explanation helped us see the bigger picture. Our initial thought about all this happened to be the same as your first statement, that upon ordination a priest receives the power to forgive sins. Our reaction is still-“what a mess”, but with more of a hope that a clear path is still visible to the average sheep, with less worry about being in error regarding confessing to an SSPX priest..
___
BTW, we’re wondering what your thoughts are on the “controversy” we stirred up with our HERESY comments, as Jimmy’s reply (#24) illustrates.
We were not aware of the existence of the teaching he cites from “Trent”,
and it did leave us wondering if there is more to all of it than those we quoted realized. We’d appreciate your thoughts, if you care to address that.
______
Such absolutely stunning naivety, which would fly in the face of all Christian wisdom and praxis even if it *wasn’t* uttered in the middle of the most decadent century since the Resurrection, can only be properly termed “diabolical disorientation”.
Yay Indignus! I will join you in prayer for MV:+) And I welcome others here to post that they will too:+) God bless~
What is curious is that the scientific community is far from united in belief that extraterrestrial life exists. Those will a brain see that, even though there is not even any workable theory for biogenesis (the development of life from non-living matter), if it is possible (and of course most believe it is), it is so incredibly unlikely to occur that the odds are against it, even considering the likely very large number of planets with climates amenable to life.
—–
I minored in physics, and I recall that the textbook used in my astrophysics course conjectured that it is more likely that intelligent life does *not* exist elsewhere in the universe. This was in the early 90s.
I’ve stood in the presence of the incredible Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy.
—–
Under *normal* conditions, the “accidents” of bread & wine remain. What the Miracle shows is what exists when those accidents are removed.
—–
Transubstantiation, being a theology Mystery, is behind the ability of man to fully comprehend. While I’m not sure Cardinal Muller’s words are heretical, at least he is not using language precise enough to convey the reality, and the language does smack of some sort of “symbolic” (heretical, Protestant) understanding. However, given how important nuances of language are in this topic, perhaps there is a problem with translation, and/or he didn’t express himself well.
—–
In any case – does it matter? It’s a fact that the new Rite of Mass downplays the Real Presence and another fact that belief in and understanding of it is incredibly low among modern Catholics, including clergy.
Of course I meant to say “theological Mystery” above.
It is interesting how the discussion here on Louie’s latest post just keeps going on & on to more & more topics.
—–
I guess this situation will prevail until he has a new post, at which time we’ll load-up the caravans and drive a block down to the next campsite.
Dear RW,
I’m waiting with hopeful anticipation, but not holding my breath.
Michael Leon, I think you’ve nailed it as far as Bergoglio’s moral framework of choice being situational ethics (as described in the Wikipedia excerpt you provided, including its Protestant intellectual lineage). As a clever subversive, Bergoliio will never openly promote situation ethics, since if he did the jig is up. Nonetheless, it’s another example of the neo-modernist tactic of using praxis to overcome doctrine, though still puzzling why it works, since it’s so blatantly hypocritical. On the other hand, an old priest friend used to say, “Most people would rather die than think.”
Trent does teach that in the consecrated species there is TRULY, REALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY PRESENT the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord.
However, Muller, who is too learned to claim ignorance, wants to affirm that a substance can be present without its proper accidents, and thus denies that materially the Body and Blood are present in the species, and that the BVM is physically a virgin after the birth of Our Lord.
Both his assertions are blasphemous and heretical, because of this. Once Trent and the Synod of the Lateran have defined the matter, it is not licit to reinterpret the terms, but that understanding which the council fathers and which the magisterium throughout the ages has held, must be held to. Muller is a modernist out right.
As for the distinction between proper and secondary accidents: what is proper cannot be absent with the substance being present, but what is secondary can be. Thus, you wife can dye her hair, and is still your wife. But, if during a home invasion someone lops off her head, she is dead, and the corpse is not your wife, but was of your wife.
Thus, the virginity of Our Lady requires certain physical characteristics, when understood in the sense the Church has always affirmed. To deny any of those characteristics is heresy. Thus the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the sacrament are not just empty terms, and the substance of Christ’s Humanity is just as much present as them. Muller cannot hide behind the phrase “materially”, because the body and blood are material in respect of the human nature. The same misunderstanding is had when some deny that Our Lord is physically present, because they assume physically includes the manifestation of all the atomic structures which are visible as at Lanciano. In the truth of the Sacrament, you cannot deny the substance or proper accidents, only the secondary accidents, since in the Sacrament, we do not see the color of Jesus’ skin or hair; but Who is present, is certainly present with His Skin and Hair, and all the rest of His Body, for a body is not body without these. The difficulty is that being present circumscriptively and being present sacramentally, suppose 2 kinds of existential manifestation of the proper accidents. In circumscriptive presence, as in you and me right now, the substance and proper and secondary accidents are visible and existant. But in the sacramental presence, the substance and proper accidents are not visible, but with the secondary they are existant, for otherwise, one would have to posit that one Christ is in Heaven, another on Earth in the Sacrament.
Since the proper accidents of Our Lord’s sacred Humanity are existent in the Sacrament, it follows that one cannot say, “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”
(the Remnant version: BTW, the folks at the Remnant know their German)
Body and Blood mean proper accidents, and thus material components; if Muller wants them to mean something else, then you cannot quote Trent to affirm what he says.
In short, I think Muller is playing a game; he knows well that “materially” has one sense in Catholic theology, another in modern physics; and that “in reality” means a lot less in modern speech, than in theology of philosophy. Either he is a ignoramus or a charlatan trickster who wants to play a shell game. In any event, his nomination as head of the CDF was a great offense against the Divine Majesty. I know a holy religious in Italy, who after his nomination says received a vision of the BVM, weeping most bitterly on account of it. I believe his vision is true. He told me that Our Lady’s sorrow is so great, it is like a tremendous wind off the desert in the heat of August, burning everything and drying up all joy and gladness.
Dear A Catholic Thinker, Does it matter.
In the way you put it –compared to the problem of lack of belief in Real Presence, -can’t think of anything more important than that.
___
But on the other hand, yes, it matters because we can better help ourselves, our families and others if we can tell the wolves from the shepherds and the hidden lies from the truth.
___.
And since we find ourselves right now, with more instinctive trust in those who oppose the Higher-ups in the Hierarchy, we must be careful not to do them any injustice. Their other actions may not seem to merit such consideration, being as harmful to souls as they have proven to be; but we, ourselves change when we let our standards go, for whatever reasons—-fatigue, frustration, or prejudicial judgment tendencies–like guilt by association. Pope Francis’ and even Benedict’s appointees right now, for instance, are not men we would tend to trust.. yet Chris Ferrara talks about Muller as one of the more conservative Cardinals about to attend the Synod….
.
To complicate matters, when we see something that looks like heresy and sounds like it, and they say,” No, I believe just as you do, You’re just to ignorant to really understand my words.” , we know there may be truth to that , but we also have Pius X’s warnings about modernist gibberish and how deliberately they change the meaning of words to deceive.
____
It matters inasmuch as the wolves and falsehoods we can identify help others not to put their trust in bad ideas or follow those who will betray them. For now, we’re giving it a rest.
___
On a more pleasant note, we found some happy reminders while reading about the difference between cannibalism and Eucharist:
. That He Whom we consume is ALIVE, not dead, and instead of Jesus becoming part of us, WE become part of Him with every Eucharistic reception..
Good Sunday thoughts.
And yes, this one has gone on a while 🙂
Dear Roman Watcher,
Awesome response.
God Bless you.
Dear Jimmy
This is copied from higher up in response to indignus questions re your post: from
Roman Watcher August 3, 2014 5:57 pm
Trent does teach that in the consecrated species there is TRULY, REALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY PRESENT the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord.
However, Muller, who is too learned to claim ignorance, wants to affirm that a substance can be present without its proper accidents, and thus denies that materially the Body and Blood are present in the species, and that the BVM is physically a virgin after the birth of Our Lord.
Both his assertions are blasphemous and heretical, because of this. Once Trent and the Synod of the Lateran have defined the matter, it is not licit to reinterpret the terms, but that understanding which the council fathers and which the magisterium throughout the ages has held, must be held to. Muller is a modernist out right.
As for the distinction between proper and secondary accidents: what is proper cannot be absent with the substance being present, but what is secondary can be. Thus, you wife can dye her hair, and is still your wife. But, if during a home invasion someone lops off her head, she is dead, and the corpse is not your wife, but was of your wife.
Thus, the virginity of Our Lady requires certain physical characteristics, when understood in the sense the Church has always affirmed. To deny any of those characteristics is heresy. Thus the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the sacrament are not just empty terms, and the substance of Christ’s Humanity is just as much present as them. Muller cannot hide behind the phrase “materially”, because the body and blood are material in respect of the human nature. The same misunderstanding is had when some deny that Our Lord is physically present, because they assume physically includes the manifestation of all the atomic structures which are visible as at Lanciano. In the truth of the Sacrament, you cannot deny the substance or proper accidents, only the secondary accidents, since in the Sacrament, we do not see the color of Jesus’ skin or hair; but Who is present, is certainly present with His Skin and Hair, and all the rest of His Body, for a body is not body without these. The difficulty is that being present circumscriptively and being present sacramentally, suppose 2 kinds of existential manifestation of the proper accidents. In circumscriptive presence, as in you and me right now, the substance and proper and secondary accidents are visible and existant. But in the sacramental presence, the substance and proper accidents are not visible, but with the secondary they are existant, for otherwise, one would have to posit that one Christ is in Heaven, another on Earth in the Sacrament.
Since the proper accidents of Our Lord’s sacred Humanity are existent in the Sacrament, it follows that one cannot say, “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”
(the Remnant version: BTW, the folks at the Remnant know their German)
Body and Blood mean proper accidents, and thus material components; if Muller wants them to mean something else, then you cannot quote Trent to affirm what he says.
In short, I think Muller is playing a game; he knows well that “materially” has one sense in Catholic theology, another in modern physics; and that “in reality” means a lot less in modern speech, than in theology of philosophy. Either he is a ignoramus or a charlatan trickster who wants to play a shell game. In any event, his nomination as head of the CDF was a great offense against the Divine Majesty. I know a holy religious in Italy, who after his nomination says received a vision of the BVM, weeping most bitterly on account of it. I believe his vision is true. He told me that Our Lady’s sorrow is so great, it is like a tremendous wind off the desert in the heat of August, burning everything and drying up all joy and gladness
P.S to A Catholic Thinker
We just re-posted Roman Watcher’s response to us at #24 above
because it blew us away. We see this a gift from God. We can see the truth in it, but would never in a million years have been able to grasp it all ourselves, much less articulate it so well. It explains what our gut reactions were telling us.
God Bless us all with Truth.
Dear RW,
— Stunned and grateful —
I wonder if a Venn diagram would be even possible to keep track of who’s who, when and on which truth or heresy.
And so the notion of “the multiverse” is concocted. Cosmology is not scientific.
ATTENTION ANASTASIA: I wanted to let you know that I recently read this piece:
—–
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/b7282ce62e35b3fc7fdcf8f4105b2511-247.html
—–
And now have a better understanding of what you were trying to get across regarding priestly celibacy some time ago.
Well said, Roman Watcher, August 3, 5.57 p.m. Of course, Cardinal Muller knows the dogma on transsubstantiation and how what he says differs from it. He seems often to try to rationalise teachings of the Church to make them more acceptable to non-believers.
@ Michael Leon, Matthew et all interested:
… been looking for this Since July 20th when he died.
PALMER FUNERAL–guess where?
Tony’s funeral will be held on Wednesday 6th August at 4pm
(Please note that the exact time may be subject to slight change, so we kindly ask that you check back here regularly for further updates.)
It will be held at:
____
ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC Church
South Parade Bath BA2 4AF United Kingdom
___
http://thearkcommunity.org/
Apparently you guys are not the only “lunatic fringe” asking these questions:
🙂
http://lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=449240
“first news said he died then UK hospital said hes not dead and left hospital three hours after he was admitted. could this bishob be the antichrist? would he appear as raised from the dead missing an eye? how important bishop like him has no big news of his death, funeral or what happened to him. no one knows if hes alive or dead. all the distraction in the world could be to hide the true identity of this man who could be the antichrist. something not right about this man.
IF, I’m going to post a reply here lest it get lost above, on the topic of the licitness of SSPX confessions. Once again, I am supplementing Roman Watcher’s excellent post in which he explored the distinction between validity & licitness and pointed out that while the former is a given in the case of the Society, the latter is really nearly as clear for someone with a command of the Faith who sees the present crisis clearly. (I would make this a private communication if I had a way to do so.)
—–
I am responding to you mainly because I sense you may be discerning whether or not to attend Society Masses (and hence go to Confession there).
—–
While I’m not normally in the business of attempting to pull people from indult/FSSP/ICK Tridentine Masses to the Society, as one who attended an ICK parish for five years, switching to SSPX about 16 months ago, what I can say is that the fullness of the Catholic Faith resides here. Our ICK parish was great in many ways, but it is a fact that ICK priests’ hands are tied: they are not allowed to speak freely about the crisis, and in the end this is to the detriment of the faithful. (This is all the more true now that Francis has taken the helm!)
—–
The question regarding licitness of the Sacrament of Penance was actually foremost on my mind when I attended my first SSPX Mass. While the information presented by this article:
—–
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0515-c-jackdon-sspx-confession-valid.htm
—–
and it’s follow-up are great, in the end, the intellectual aspect only takes one so far. So, what I wanted to relate – we finally come to the point – is this: I had a spiritual experience at the end of my first Confession to a Society priest that left no doubt in my mind that my sins had been absolved. Now, to be sure, this does no one but me any good, but, I thought that relating it might be encouraging to you.
—–
(I now sound like a Protestant, relying on emotion for spiritual truth – Pope Francis would be proud. No, actually, such things DO have a place – they just don’t take the place of Church authority or reason.)
Dear ACT — I really enjoyed reading your posting on valid confessions earlier, and due to the length of this blog I think it’s good to repost it here, (before we pack up the wagons and move on 😉 ). It’s explanation of “common error” seems to beg the question of why there is a requirement of jurisdiction from the bishop if the Church will supply it regardless. Is this a loophole of which Fr. Paul and Fr. Z are unaware or do they just choose to ignore it? The Remnant also has a follow-up rebutting Fr. Z’s and Dr. Mirus’ response to the link here: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0531-c-jackson-sspx-confessions-part-2.htm which was interesting. In any case, it seems the safest way out would be to post a sign on the confessional that before saying “Bless me Father for I have sinned”, say “Father, will you hear my confession?”
— God Bless.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Sorry to disappoint, but our questions were based on our love for the Church and a desire to know what’s happening, so we can understand it all better,and guide people in the right way whenever possible. In a way you are right though, as that entails eventually coming ,to decisions about it, and we have greatly appreciated your willingness to answer our many questions..
_____
Our indult TLM is in a dangerous part of town (of course) but a few old and very Catholic priests take turns tending a little Catholic flock, and make it well worth the effort–it’s like somebody air-lifts us to another planet while we’re there—a real oasis.
___
Our dream for the future is to have what we find in this little group of TLM Catholics, in every Church on earth. And the work of priests such as those you describe, may be what makes that possible in the very near future.
___
We pray for Our Lady’s Triumph. God Bless you and yours..
No disappointment whatsoever! It sounds like you are quite fine where you are. God bless.
Question One: Why bother with rules of jurisdiction? Why because, of course, ecclesiastical law serves a purpose! Most of the time – normal time – it is all we need.
—–
However, the law serves the faith, and not vice-versa; God is not bound by it. (Similarly, perhaps, though He has ordained the Sacraments the *normal* vehicles of salvific grace, He is not bound by them; thus while water baptism is necessary for salvation in the general sense, it is not necessary in every specific case.)
—–
State of necessity is written into canon law for a reason, and supplied jurisdiction exists for a reason (well, for several reasons actually). In the former case, again, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, if we don’t have a general state of necessity now, there is no such thing.
—–
Second question: Why do these professional priest apologists ignore these points? Generally, I think, yes, it is because they don’t want people to even be aware of such things; they don’t want people to go down these paths. They don’t want to have to argue that, no, there actually really isn’t any state of emergency at all, you silly Traditionalists – just as Francis is lighting the drapes on fire behind them…
Wojtyla’s teaching is certainly heresy, he goes against the magisterium when he says, “every man without any exception whatever- HAS BEEN redeemed by Christ” – here’s why; the Council of Trent declares, “the preternatural gifts enjoyed by our first parents in the state of innocence are not restored by the merits of Redemption, as Christ wishes us to suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him.” They ARE NOT RESTORED BY THE MERITS OF REDEMPTION.
–
First off redemption and salvation most certainly do both mean ‘deliverance from sin’. As for the separation you suggest, Traditional Catholic teaching conflates the two. “Though the office of Saviour is really one, it is virtually multiple: there must be an atonement for sin and damnation (redeemer/ransom), an establishment of the truth so as to overcome human ignorance and error, a perennial source of spiritual strength aiding man in his struggle against darkness and concupiscence (the redeeming virtue of Christ).”
–
Christ being the ransom is the mediator of all redemption – mediator – not enforcer. “Canon iii of Session V (Council of Trent) says anathema to whoever claims that original sin is cancelled otherwise than by the merits of one Mediator, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and canon x of Session VI defines that man cannot merit without the justice through which Christ merited our justification. The objects of Christ’s merits for us are the supernatural gifts lost by sin, that is, grace (John, i, 14, 16) and salvation (I Cor., xv, 22); the preternatural gifts enjoyed by our first parents in the state of innocence are not, at least in this world, restored by the merits of Redemption, as Christ wishes us to suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him (Rom., viii, 17). St. Thomas explaining how Christ’s merits pass on to us, says: Christ merits for others as other men in the state of grace merit for themselves (III:48:1).” Unless we are in a state of grace Christ’s ransom is simply not applied to us. The Catholic teaching is no one lies “outside the redeeming virtue of Christ.” Wojtyla said, ‘“every man without any exception whatever- HAS BEEN redeemed by Christ” teaching that the virtue of redemption is applied automatically, contradicting Trent, they are opposing doctrines. Further, Christ’s purpose as redeemer according to the Magisterium is ““For the perfecting of the saints, . . . for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph., iv, 12); again this contradicts Wojytla’s concept which requires nothing of his ‘everyman’.
–
Here’s more on Wojtyla’s religion: Who did Wolytja say Christ was? 22/10/78 First homily of Wojtyla – “please listen once again, today in this sacred place [St Peter’s Square], to the words uttered by Simon Peter. In those words is the faith of the Church. In those same words is the new truth, indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man: the son of the living God—”You [men] are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
–
Evangelium Vitae: ‘The Gospel of life is something concrete and personal for it consists in and of the very person of Jesus…the Gospel of God’s love for man; the Gospel of the dignity of the human person; and the Gospel of life, are one single and indivisible Gospel. This is why man – living man – is the primary and fundamental way for the Church.’
–
Another Wojtyla quote, ‘so that consciences can be freed in the full truth about man, who is christ’. 22/02/84
–
To repeat, Wojtyla said, ‘“every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ”. The Church teaches, “the preternatural gifts enjoyed by our first parents in the state of innocence are not, at least in this world, restored by the merits of Redemption, as Christ wishes us to suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him.” They ARE NOT RESTORED BY THE MERITS OF REDEMPTION.
p.s. the above in response to Indignus at comment #13.
In short redemption/salvation require our participation. Wojtyla’s concept is not Catholic. No surprise there.
It’s worth repeating the Church’s response to the church of man rubbish preached by Wojtyla: Pope Saint Pius X E Suprimi Apostolatus: “this according to the same apostle [St Paul] is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist; man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned [viewed with contempt] God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. ii., 2)
The assertion that intelligent extra-terrestrial life exists, is a dogma of the freemasons, who wish to utterly deny and undermine revelaed Cosmology.
For Catholics, we can agree that there is intelligent extra-terrestrial life. It is called God and the Angels! We however know by absolute divine authority, that in Creating the world, God made man according to His Image and Likeness. Intelligent life, therefore, is a creation of God, not something that arises by chance, as the secularists would want in their false religion.
Those “theologians” who hold that God might have, since He could have, created other worlds and intelligent races, ignore the whole cosmology revealed in scripture, wherein man alone is the corporeal species made in God’s image (a biblical phrase which means intelligent life). It also asserts that God made the Earth to be lived in (which is another way of saying that He has not made anywhere else to be lived in).
The mere fact that the Lord made the universe in such a way that even with absolute mastery of the physical forces it would take 100,000 years to reach the nearest star, makes it quite obvious that reality confirms Scripture and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, in showing that God never intended man to settle on other solar systems, and as scripture says, God made the Earth to be dwelt in.
As for the logis which says, the probabilites are that life exists elsewhere: this logic is based on evolutionism, which holds that random chance without intelligent intervention is the cause of life and of intelligent life. Which is atheism repackaged as religion.
So it does not matter if there are infinite worlds, there is no intelligent life without God’s wiling it. And He has made clear in Sacred Scripture that He has not willed but to make man in His image. As for the thesis that nevertheless he may have cause non-intelligent life to arise on other words, so as to plant gardens for the human race to live in in future ages, this supposes that everything God does is for us (a humanistic concept not a Christian one), or that the Second Coming is miliions of years off (since it would take that much time to reach the other solar systems), and this is a supposition based on the denial of the truth of the Christian religion, because with its widespread acceptance, Christians will no longer live and act as if Christ is to come and return tomorrow, which according to Scripture is the way we ought to live, totally for Christ.
The hard reality is, that space and all other planets except the Earth, is a very harsh environment, is empty and is lifeless, and was made to be that way. Space is not some alternate material heaven to which to aspire; it is an empty cold abyss, like the sea, the bottom of which was never intended to be man’s home.
Thus, declarations of the kind which Bergoglio is planning is just another showpiece that comes from a mind which has lost all sense of Christian revelation and cosmology. A completely pagan enterprise….
http://biblicalfalseprophet.com/2014/07/30/sspx-and-franciscan-friars-of-the-immaculate-will-refuse-to-follow-the-heresies/
Sorry, but you are very wrong. Redemption is NOT salvation. Redemption means that Jesus opened the gates of Heaven and made it possible to be with God for eternity. It is potential. Salvation means that you actually obtain eternal life. Salvation needs our cooperation, while redemption does not. Hence indeed all men are redeemed but not all men are saved.
As for the completeness of redemption:
“The priest is the minister of Christ, an instrument, that is to say, in the hands of the Divine Redeemer. He continues the work of the redemption in all its world-embracing universality and divine efficacy, that work that wrought so marvelous a transformation in the world…” (Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii)
And then quoting Trent he continues:
“…our Lord and God, although once and for all, by means of His death on the altar of the cross, He was to offer Himself to God the Father, that thereon He might accomplish eternal Redemption; yet because death was not to put an end to his priesthood, at the Last Supper, the same night in which He was betrayed in order to leave to His beloved spouse the Church, a sacrifice which should be visible (as the nature of man requires), which should represent that bloody sacrifice, once and for all to be completed on the cross, which should perpetuate His memory to the end of time, and which should apply its saving power unto the remission of sins we daily commit…” (ibid.)
It would seem that one must avail oneself of the fruits of redemption that “its saving power” should be applied.
Thus Sacrosanctum Concilium quotes the Secret of the ninth Sunday after Pentecost in describing the liturgy as that “through which the work of our redemption is accomplished.”
If the work of redemption “continues” and is being “accomplished” presently in the Church Militant even among her members, how can one outside of this Mystical Body of Christ be said to be “redeemed” as if the work is finished?
Dear salvemur,
___
We spent some time researching just now, because it was such a surprise to us to find ourselves arguing with you about what seemed to us such simple basic concepts as redemption and salvation.
___
Turns out the Church’s general definition of redemption is split into two: objective and subjective. They use the objective one, when comparing it to the concept of salvation,– too often (IOHO) without mentioning the subjective. Result: total confusion and the reason we ended up discussing 3 different things with you, thinking we’re only talking about 2.
___
(Rorate Coeli posted a great explanation of this from a Traditional Priest, who uses Fr. John Hardon’s Catechism to explain it. We cut examples to get to the basics, but if you want to read it here’s the link)
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-you-saved-no-but-im-working-on-it.html
_____
So here is our new understanding as a result:
REDEMPTION:
__
1. OBJECTIVE: Redemption for all men takes place objectively when the price is paid. That happened on Good Friday-for everyone without exception..
__
2. SUBJECTIVE : Redemption takes place for the individual when they submit to Christ and His Church… when the objective is applied to the subject. (apparently your usage–linked with salvation)
_____
SALVATION– takes place upon death.
To be saved ourselves, we must receive the (subjective) Redemption of Christ into our souls. This does not happen by itself… we have to co-operate with God and His Church.
_____
CONCLUSIONS: “Are all men redeemed? ”
__
“Objectively speaking, yes. Christ won the war!”
___
“Subjectively speaking, no.” (apparently your use)
___
” If any man wants to start working out his salvation, he must start by being baptized… otherwise, he remains paralyzed… unable to do ANY supernatural good…since all men do not give themselves over to be baptized… and enter upon the narrow path, the consecration at Mass says, “for many” rather than “for all”. Even though the war has been won, Christ is still fighting battles for individual souls! And many are unwilling to rise up and fight!”
___
And taking that one step further:
— “Are WE (Catholics) redeemed -subjectively YES, since we have been baptized.”
–Are we Catholics SAVED? NOT YET…since we are not yet dead… not yet crucified with Christ. To think otherwise, one enters into presumption. And presumption is a sin against the Holy Ghost… the worst evil there is, for it does not allow one to repent. … : “He who perseveres to the end will be saved.”
===============
Keeping the commonly used objective use in mind, our point about how the Pope’s comment was taken seems a valid complaint, but using the subjective definition, so does yours. (agreed?)
___.
Where does that leave us? With the obvious conclusion that definitions matter, but still (for our part) unable to explain how the Pope applied them in a way that let to him Kissing a Qua’ran. and scandalizing millions at Assisi, and worst of all leaving most “Catholics” and the rest of the world thinking the Church suddenly reversed it’s teachings on Salvation–which is what you seem to be addressing.
____
We personally don’t feel equipped to identify and counter all the false theology and false philosophy out there. But If you are one who is, then we hope this distinction we just presented will be of help to you, and we humbly offer it for that purpose.
_____
We feel more sure-footed discussing the ACTIONS modernists take which are obviously wrong, and their simpler words, like – “We Catholics are called to evangelize the gentiles, not the Jews”, and “we are not out to convert anyone just to present a unified witness…”. No metaphysics required.
But God Bless anyone, including you, who is willing and able to take on the rest as well.
p.s. @salvemur
If what we just outlined regarding redemption, was what you were trying to say to us, please forgive our misunderstanding your words-which just goes to prove our point about why we try to stick to simpler concepts. (knowing when to fold?)
🙂
So, Protestant ‘Bishop’ Tony Palmer’s funeral will be held in a Catholic Church? Why am I not surprised? Even in death, the man is being used to promote ecumenism. The more time passes, the more compassion I feel for Mr. Palmer.
What Roman watcher says re– Michael Voris being influenced by Cardinal Burke seems a most likely cause for his current behavior..
___
As his diehard fans (like us) will recall, after Benedict resigned he frequently seemed to ”go bananas” on the subject, sounding more like a campaign manager doing promo pieces whenever the name Burke passed his lips and literally gushing about what a great Pope he would make, even though he said it was a long-shot. So it stands to reason Burke’s advice might be to him, akin to obeying a good Pope.
We are always open to being convinced we are wrong by evidence that proves it, but just repeating an opinion can’t accomplish that.
p.s. to Louie and all;
We found this most helpful regarding this subject:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-you-saved-no-but-im-working-on-it.html
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Thank you for letting me know. You have made my day.
Deo gratias.
Dear Roman Watcher,
That is without a doubt, the most compelling argument we have ever read on these subjects. No exaggeration. Thank you!
____
We’d never fallen prey to the “gospel of evolution” or its tangents, but until now, we had no answer other than our instinctual beliefs for the arguments that God “could have” created other populated planets, which would then make them part of his act of Redemption.
___
Our being made in His image had occurred to us, but not in the exclusive sense you suggest here and also apply to his making of the earth as our home.
___
Though Genesis doesn’t use the word “alone” in revealing that man is made in God’s image, what you say about everything else pointing to that, provides excellent food for thought.
___
It seems every day we read this blog site, we get more insights to help us understand God’s revealed truths.
___
Guess we shouldn’t be that surprised, as St. Paul says the Holy Spirit gives His gifts to Whom he will in order to build up the Body of Christ and for the edification of its members, and most here seem to be in pursuit of truth and holiness. But would that make us evangelical, charismatic Catholics?.
___
You should not say that all men are redeemed, but rather that Christ redeemed mankind, or in Christ all are redeemed. To say, that all men are redeemed, or have been redeemed, is to imply something more than Christ has redeemed mankind…because “all men” does not equal “mankind”. When you say that Christ redeemed mankind, you speak of the race as a whole; but when you say “all men” and then use the passive construction, all men are redeemed, rather than Christ redeemed all men, you only compound the problem, because “all men”, especially in the passive construction according to customary use in all Western Languages signifies each and every, not the totality….
Therefore, Indignus, I think you are right to criticize Wotyla. But as he spoke Polish, which is a very linguistically different language, and since he graduated from the center of modernism at Rome, the Angelicum, he might be partly heretical and partly ignorant. Certainly to say that all men have been redeemed is even worse than to say, all men are redeemed; the “have been” the compound perfect signifies a completed act pertaining to the subject, whereas the “are redeemed” using either the imperfect or the present, signies the totality….
I agree therefore, that one who says that all men have been redeemed in Christ is suspect of heresy. You certainly cannot say that Christ has bought back all men from the power of the Devil, but that He gave His life as the price of that purchase, which purchase is only effected when the individual accepts Him in faith and penance and charity.
Our 3 favorite books: Scripture, The Imitation, and Padre Pio’s “Listening to God” 🙂
This is in response to the discussion of Cardinal Müller above (#4, #25, #26):
–
Dear Indignus, Roman, Lynda,
–
As someone who is fluent in German and familiar with German culture, I can perhaps offer some insight here. To understand the German theologians – Cardinals Ratzinger and Müller being prime examples – one has to understand the impact modern science has had on secular culture, particularly in Europe. Since the reign of Pius XI and his opening of the Pontifical Academy to Protestants and Atheists, the Church has – sometimes quietly, sometimes vocally – acquiesced to the authority of modern science in many areas of human interest which were traditionally informed by Church teaching. Prior to that, the Church had faced centuries of ridicule from the secular scientific establishment for – among other things – remaining adamant in the dogma that the universe had a beginning in time, for it was the overwhelming consensus among scientists that the universe had simply always existed. With the advent of Big Bang cosmology, which claims to prove that everything did, in fact, have a beginning in time, the Church felt hugely vindicated. Pius XI, who closely followed the developments of science, felt that a new age had arrived, in which the findings of modern science would remove all obstacles to a rational faith in God. So impressed were Pius XI and Pius XII with the new theories that they were willing to overlook theological ‘details’ – such as the billions of years the theory required, or the fact that the Big Bang was accepted as a theory by the scientific community precisely because it promised to explain the development of the world without recourse to supernatural causes, i.e. the God of the Bible. Yes, one could argue for “god” on the basis of the Big Bang, but what kind of god? A “first mover”, a “prime cause”, a “grand architect” – hence the vociferous approval of Freemasons – but not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the Triune God. It was soon proposed – first by Protestant theologians (predominately in Germany), and then by Catholics – that Genesis, while presenting core theological truths which were consonant with modern science, such as that God is the “creator” (i.e. the one who lit the fuse on the Big Bang), is ultimately a benign “myth”. And this, when you strip away all of the lofty rhetoric, is precisely the kind of faith Cardinals Ratzinger and Müller offer modern man. It is a faith which measures theological truth by its ability to harmonize with the findings of modern science. Every dogma is subjected to that criterion, which is why Ratzinger says that the “theological import” of Christ’s resurrection ultimately has nothing to do with whether or not He actually, physically resurrected – though, of course, he will not openly deny that such was the case – and why Müller says that the Blessed Virgin’s perpetual virginity is not really dependent upon her being an actual, physical virgin – though, as with Ratzinger, he will never flat out deny the dogma. Of course, they will never deny the dogma outright. Instead, they try to make it irrelevant, a heuristic phenomenon particular to a bygone age in the life of the Church to which we must give our assent to as a matter of form, but upon which we should exercise every intellectual and rhetorical device conceivable to man in order to adopt it to the modern scientific consensus.
–
(Sorry for the long post. I could write pages on this particular topic, and I condensed it as much as possible.)
Dear Roman Watcher,
Thank you for the wording correction re: using “mankind” v/s “all men”. etc.
We checked back and found that we did accurately quote it from the link we posted, and it surprises us that the author would not have made that same distinction, being a priest.
But he wrote:___
“Are all men redeemed? Objectively speaking, yes..
___
We checked a few more formal sources and found them using only the forms you recommend, confirming your advice, so thank you again, it is good to know.
=======
We also see that you wrote,
” I think you are right to criticize Wotyla. But as he spoke Polish….
and have to wonder if you mistook our meaning at some point, as rather than criticizing him, we were instead defending what the Pope wrote about redemption, as being official Church teaching, (against several posters’ accusations that it was deliberately misleading and heresy)
Our point being that his use of the term was in the objective sense, and therefore correctly applied.
___
We did end by criticizing his later actions in “Kissing a Qua’ran. and scandalizing millions at Assisi, and worst of all leaving most “Catholics” and the rest of the world thinking the Church suddenly reversed it’s teachings on Salvation”
___
You may have taken that last line to refer to his writings, but we intended it only to point out the results of those aforementioned ecumenical scandals.
Dear Matthew,
Please do not apologize for the length of your post, as it is so pertinent to the ongoing discussions and helpful in our pursuit of truth.
___
We recall your mentioning this once before, and the fact there seems to have been a general willingness to overlook the impact of these theories on what has taken place in the Church. Perhaps the evidence is now making it harder to ignore, –much like the Fatima prophecies of “doom and gloom” .
___
The connections you point out make perfect sense, and would account for some of the “wild abandon” that seems to have been taking place instead of the slow, methodic pace we were accustomed to seeing the Church take regarding novelties of any kind. After all, who needs to wait for serious, methodic, cautious study, when you can consult the latest scientific theory to answer religious questions?
___
Though it may be more indirectly related, that less-cautions approach to verifying truth may also be part of the reason we’ve had “saints” popping up recently, like weeds after a spring rain. (which in some cases seems more like a rush to give Vatican II a more dogmatic scentl-by association)
Fascinating stuff-can’t wait to hear what others have to say about this..
____
Dear Indignus,
–
As Louie has just posted another blog, this discussion will probably end here. Nonetheless, I’d like to pass on the following:
–
A book by the name “Papal Addresses to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences” – available freely online – is rather instructive in this matter. It documents – either by reproducing verbatim or through succinct summary – every papal address made to the Academy from Benedict XV down to and including John Paul II. It – quite inadvertently – documents the slow but steady retreat of the Magisterium on matters where science and theology intersect.
–
Today, the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences happily gives recognition and public platform to men such as Dr. Stephen Hawking, who boldly asserted that “Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” How can the result be anything other than utterly catastrophic to the Catholic faith when the Pontifical Academy maintains men such as this for “esteemed members”?
–
As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe that the crack through which the smoke of Satan entered the sanctuary was in the field of exegesis in general, and the interpretation of Genesis in particular, and it happened prior to Vatican II. For those interested, please see my post “On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture” in the forum:
–
https://akacatholic.com/topic/on-the-interpretation-of-sacred-scripture/
Robert Sungenis’s and Robert Bennett’s, Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right, The Evidence From Modern Science, is a very comprehensive look at what scientific observation actually shows with respect to the universe and Earth’s place in it. It also shows how most of what’s represented as scientifically-discovered knowledge is simply speculation dependent upon metaphysical ideas, for example, opposed to God and creation.
Dear Roman Watcher, very well said (again!) Are you ordained to Holy Orders or do you teach theology? You ought to have a teaching platform in the Church.
The scientific method of attaining knowledge of the natural world can never contradict the Catholic Faith. However, what is misrepresented as “scientifically proven” can obviously do so. Most of what is represented to the world as scientifically observed fact, is not that but rather speculative models based on false philosophical positions. For instance, Hawking admits that he chooses the heliocentric model over the geocentric model (both geometrically equivalent) on the basis of his antipathy to the Earth and thus Man, being in a special place, or “modesty” as he terms it.
Louie is actually addressing perhaps THE most critical issue of the day: the universalism of “Saint” John Paul II “the Great” (Fr. Pacwa’s adulation). This is not for the timid of heart, my friends. To enter where Louie treads is a great plunge into the truth. May I offer a collection of Pope John Paul II’s statements from Redemptor hominis?
“Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council…
…The opening made by the Second Vatican Council has enabled the Church and all Christians to reach a more complete awareness of the mystery of Christ, “the mystery hidden for ages”69 in God, to be revealed in time in the Man Jesus Christ, and to be revealed continually in every time.
…Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the “abstract” man, but the real, “concrete”, “historical” man. We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery.
…this is “each” man, “the most concrete” man, “the most real”; this is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother.”
Pope John Paul II, Redemptor hominis, 1979
“…utterly new way, quite unknown previously…”
“…to reach a more complete awareness of the mystery of Christ…”
“…with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery.”
“…this is “each” man …in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ…”
Astonishing when you isolate the novel phrases. And for me personally, frightening.
Indignus: No apologies necessary. One great grace about having heretical creeps in Rome is that one has an acute opportunity to learn just how clear and beautiful the Faith truly is. As for being ‘equipped’, I think as soon as one starts to think the authentic Faith is beyond comprehension to a person with a reasonable level of education, that should be a reality check that the modernists are, unfortunately, doing their job too well. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1914), the Papal Encylicals (pre ’58), the Council of Trent, scripture (with a little help from Haydock), the preaching of the saints don’t expect me to be a genius to know what the truth Faith is.
p.s. above response to comment above (‘reply’ would load) For what it’s worth, splitting hairs into infinity about contended defenitions is what modernists love to do and it obscures the plain point of Wojtyla’s theology – he, on the one hand, preached universalism with a ‘Christian’ bent, in his quote specifically he preached universal redemption bereft of human participation. The Church, on the other hand, makes it plain: a positive free will response is part and parcel of the of our redemption. ““The preternatural gifts enjoyed by our first parents in the state of innocence are not restored by the merits of Redemption, as Christ wishes us to suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him.” This teaching had its imprimatur in 1914 – and yet in 1979 Wojtyla simply denied it and made up new one.
Excellent comments, salvemur.
Dear Lynda,
–
As Vatican I taught: “Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.” (Dei Filius 5:5-6) For this reason, the council declared: “Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.” (Dei Filius 5:9)
–
Despite these strong words, the post-conciliar Vatican has done everything in its power to accommodate the theory of evolution short of proclaiming it dogmatically. They willfully ignore the pronouncements of Lateran IV, the Provincial Council of Cologne, and Vatican I which make the acceptance of evolution – even so-called ‘theistic evolution’ – impossible for faithful Catholics. (For more information, please see my post in the ‘All Things Catholic’ forum entitled “Are Lateran IV and Vatican I Relevant to Evolution?”)
–
It is certainly true that there can be no contradiction between true science and the true faith, for both the Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature have God as their author. Catholics, however, have done little more in the way of defending traditional teachings on creation than repeat that phrase. The net result is that secular science has been given the power of authority, and theology simply has to make due with whatever gaps remain in the secular worldview. There is no vigorous defense, no bold proclamation, no comprehensive counter-attack being made. Instead, our theologians and exegetes are openly promoting the heresy that Genesis is merely a “theologically profound myth”. This, despite the explicit warnings and prophecies of St. Peter that precisely this would take place in the last days (2 Peter 3:3-10).
Dear Matthew, What you say is true.
Again, I recommend to all, Robert Sungenis’s and Robert Bennett’s book, Galileo was Wrong, The Church was Right (Vols I and II, The Evidence from Modern Science; Vol III, The Evidence from Church History).
Cheers. It’s helpful to know that, despite my dodgy grammar, sometimes the point is clear!
Dear salvemur,
We agree with you fully. What we meant by not feeling “equipped” was not in reference to the simple truths of our Faith, but regarding the fuller knowledge of those who have, in addition to that, the experience and skills to COUNTER the nonsensical blatherings of modernists– because they have read, studied and dissected THE particular writings and teachings being discussed, and are able to point out exactly why they are poisonous garbage, without making false assumptions about them.
___
When we haven’t first studied something, we find we’re more likely to jump on a statement taken out of context that sounds like error, without really understanding it and occasionally make an argument they or their followers can then use as proof they are unjustly attacked through prejudice and/or, “misunderstood due to ignorance, and then use that to garner sympathy and more support for their errors…
___
That can happen -not leaving room for correction– in posting things that get recorded as these do here, available for future readers. While we avoid doing that, don’t worry, when it comes to things like receiving the Eucharist in mortal sin, we have no such qualms or reservations, and you’ll hear our LOUD objections. 🙂
Ecclesiastical law is always subject to Divine Revelation and Divine Law – it exists to serve same.