https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi5BSuX1h0I&feature=youtu.be
Link to YouTube if you cannot watch above.
Showing posts with label Men of Goodwill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Men of Goodwill. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Ecumenism is The Enemy of Christ and His Church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi5BSuX1h0I&feature=youtu.be
Link to YouTube if you cannot watch above.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Pope Francis: Hermeneutic of Continuity? A Refutation of Tom Hoopes...
All of my comments are in red. Most, worth noting,
are not my own comments at all…simply presentation of hundreds of years of
infallible Church teaching. The original author’s comments, Mr. Tom Hoopes, are
in the grey.
Pope Francis made the same point in his
interview with America: “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. By saying this, I said what the catechism says.”
To test the “Pope Francis wows with the
Catechism” theory, I looked at some of the other “shocking” Francis comments to
see if I could find them in the big green book. Here are a few of them.
What he needs to understand, first and foremost, is that the new
Catechism in itself is flawed. It has many ambiguities and/or direct
contradictions with previously propagated tradition. So with that being said, I
will refute these each with previous papal teaching and we can, in the very
least, ask ourselves why century old teaching was suddenly changed and seen as
obsolete/no longer relevant or valid.
1. The Freedom of Man
“Each one of us has his/her own vision of the Good or even
of Evil. We must encourage him/her to move toward that which he/she sees as the
Good.”
That’s the proper translation, we learn via
Simcha Fisher, of the previously reported quote from the La
Repubblica interview: “[E]veryone has his own idea of good and evil
and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them.”
That may sound relativistic to our ears
… but the radical freedom of man, and the trust that God can guide it, is
central to Article 6 of Part Three of the Catechism, on the Moral Conscience.
One key paragraph:
1778 “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human
person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to
perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he
says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and
right.”
Leo XIII, Libertas
Praestantissumum, 1888, #30
Another liberty is widely
advocated, namely, liberty of
conscience. If by this is meant that
everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted
by the arguments already adduced. But it may
also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God
(good) and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle,
obey His commands. This, indeed, is
true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God...the kind of liberty
the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy...which the martyrs
in vast numbers consecrated by their blood.
>> What is crucial to note here is that Leo, echoing the same
words since Trent and well before, is saying that the idea that all men are
free/ought to be free to worship (or not worship) however they please is a
fallacy. This does not mean that men can be coerced to be Catholic. Not
at all. When Leo condemns said unrestricted liberty of
conscience/religion, he is saying that with respect to the public square (not
privately). Indeed, the only true freedom is that which comes from being within
the bosom of Holy Mother Church because it is Christ alone and the Truth who He
is that “sets us free.” (Jn 8:32). Also crucial here is that Leo clearly states
that the will of God is what is good…not the will of the man or his
flawed/malformed conscience. It does not matter which translation of what is
presented above is used, both are patently wrong. We absolutely must NOT
encourage others to move toward their own personal “vision of the Good.” Why? Because
there are many, many (most) people whose visions are severely skewed. This is
why abortion is legal, contraception, porn, prostitution, premarital
fornication, divorce and remarriage, homosexual unions, etc. etc. etc. Leo saw
all this coming in a big time way. Popular sovereignty is sufficiently refuted
by Matthew 7: Enter ye in at the narrow
gate: for wide is the gate, and broad
is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few
there are that find it!
Most people are wrong. Plain and simple what this is saying. Most
follow the skewed, malformed conscience rather than infallible Holy Mother
Church.
More quotes:
Leo XIII, Libertas
Praestantissumum, 1888, #16
...when duty and
conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but
force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check.
1 Corinthians 4:4
For I am not conscious to
myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is
the Lord. (DRB) / It is true that my conscience does not reproach me, but that is
not enough to justify me: it is the Lord who is my judge. (NAB)
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus
of Errors, 1864, #15
Every man is free to
embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he
shall consider true – CONDEMNED
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus
of Errors, 1864, #77
In the present day it is
no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only
religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship –
CONDEMNED
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus
of Errors, 1864, #55
The Church ought to be
separated from the State, and the State from the Church – CONDEMNED
Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam
Suam, 1964, #104
[Atheists] are quick to
make use of sentiments and expressions found in our Gospel, referring to the
brotherhood of man, mutual aid, and human compassion. Shall we not one day be
able to lead them back to the Christian sources of these moral values?
>> This one is VERY worth pointing out because it is becoming
more and more evident that Francis is even contradicting his post-conciliar
predecessors. He has no desire to convert atheists. He, in his own words, just
wants to “go out and meet them where they are.”
Pope
Leo XIII, Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, 1878, #5
if any one of sound mind
compare the age in which We live, so hostile to religion and to the Church of
Christ, with those happy times when the Church was revered as a mother by the
nations, beyond all question he will see that our epoch is rushing wildly along
the straight road to destruction...while in
those times which most abounded in excellent institutions, peaceful life,
wealth, and prosperity the people showed themselves most obedient to the
Church's rule and laws.
My personal favorite quote:
Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus , 1900, #13
The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of
man." Let it hear something of the rights of God.
2. Infallible Flock?
“And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in
matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in
credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of
the faith of all the people walking together.”
Thus said the Pope in his America interview.
I checked him in the Catechism, and found this:
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith
handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a
share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People
of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly
adheres to this faith.
Pope Benedict is a good guy to
talk to if you’re concerned about the sensum fidelis(also, Lumen Gentium 12).
>> Refer, first of all, back to Matthew 7
and also to Matthew 16:18. Christ setup the Church on Peter, not on the entire populous
of baptized believers. We don’t need to look any further than the First Vatican
Council.
>> Collegiality, which is the root of this
evolving notion of the infallibility of the entire body of the Church, destroys
the unity of the Church. This is precisely why Pope Benedict, on more than one occasion,
admitted that he had no power outside of the four walls of his Vatican
apartment. Just stop and look at all the chaos and scandal in the Church. One
surely cannot be so naïve as to think that Benedict or John Paul II did not
know anything about all the problems (liturgical abuses, pederasty,
homosexuality, etc.). They knew…they just couldn’t do anything about it because
the stigma of collegiality had already taken over. No longer a monarch, the
Pope has no say unless some bogus collaboration of Episcopal synods has
unanimously agreed on something. The USCCB has disobeyed Rome in the past, and
that’s just the tip of the iceberg. All kinds of other CCB’s in other countries
have done much worse. Just take a look
at this:
Nowhere in Church history has there ever been a
teaching that the entirety of the “people of God” are infallible.
The infallibility of the papacy, however, has been
clearly defined:
First
Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4, #7,9
7.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on
Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted
office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be
kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the
sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the
whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand
firm against the gates of hell.
9. …we
teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff (not the collectivity of bishops and/or faithful) speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the
exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of
his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or
morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance
promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer
willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by
the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So
then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this
definition of ours: let him be anathema.
>> More can be found at the link below by
Fr. Peter Scott with the problems in Collegiality:
>> Finally, a note on this idea that the
People of God are infallible “in believing, through a supernatural sense of the
faith of all the people walking together.”
Pope
St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, #22
According to the principles of the Modernists,
[the Sacred Books] may be rightly described as a collection of experiences...it
is all mere juggling of words. For if we take the Bible, according to the
tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men...what room is
there left in it for inspiration?
>> In a roundabout way, Pope Francis is
suggesting a measure of existentialism, that life is about experiences and that
truth is measured insofar as it is experienced by the masses together. This is
entirely false. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.” Alpha and Omega. God from God, light from light. Independent
of man and before all ages, before man.
3. Proclaim Jesus, Not “Small Minded Rules”*
“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in
small-minded rules.* The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus
Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of
mercy above all.”
That last sentence is almost a pastoral
mission statement of Pope Francis, and his emphasis on mercy has caused great
consternation to some. They worry that mercy becomes “indifference to sin” in
practice. That is a debate in the Church that has raged in from the Prodigal
Son’s older brother to the Kurt Waldheim
controversy to today.
But Francis is of course absolutely right that
the Church is here to proclaim Jesus above all, never the rules above Jesus.
The whole Catechism section on evangelization is helpful. I’ll give you just
the first words of each paragraph here:
·
425 The transmission
of the Christian faith consists primarily in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order
to lead others to faith in him. …
·
426 “At the heart of
catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the
only Son from the Father …
·
427 In catechesis
“Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,. . . is taught – everything else is
taught with reference to him …
·
428 Whoever is called
“to teach Christ” must first seek “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ
Jesus”; he must suffer “the loss of all things. . .” in order to “gain Christ
and be found in him”…
·
429 From this loving
knowledge of Christ springs the desire to proclaim him, to “evangelize”, and to
lead others to the “yes” of faith in Jesus Christ ….
*It is important to note that this is a
separate part of the interview from his discussion of teaching about abortion,
contraception and marriage in context. Those are not “small minded rules” to
Francis, as evidenced by his words the day after the interview was published:
“Each child that is unborn, but is unjustly condemned to be aborted, bears the
face of Jesus Christ.”
** And while we’re on the “small-minded
rules”, the Wheat & Weeds blog’s indefatigable attention to Pope Benedict
is paying off. Wheat &
Weeds uncorked this great old Benedict quote to show that anyone
mad at Francis should have been mad already:
Said Benedict: “We should not allow our faith
to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details, but rather,
should always keep our eyes in the first place on the greatness of
Christianity.
“I remember, when I used go to Germany in the
1980s and ’90s, that I was asked to give interviews and I always knew the
questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception,
abortion and other such constantly recurring problems.
“If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church
is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the
impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions,
and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore
consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith – a
commitment from which we must not allow such situations to divert us.”
“Francis is of course
absolutely right that the Church is here to proclaim Jesus above all, never the
rules above Jesus.”
>> Can not everybody see what a silly statement this is? Are
we to believe that one can separate the Law from the Lawgiver? The truth from
the Truth? Can light be separated from light? “Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor.
1:13)
Let’s just turn to John 14 to see how big of a deal Jesus’ “rules”
were:
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth
me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my
Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
>> IF WE DO NOT KEEP CHRIST’S COMMANDS, WE DO NOT LOVE HIM.
Jesus Christ has NOT “saved you” if you persist in sin. And ignorance of
what is truly right or wrong is not sufficient to save you unless you are
completely and utterly invincible…and I would venture to say that nobody in the
first world, with internet, television, books, etc. can be considered so
invincible.
>> Let’s see what Pope Eugene IV said at the Council of Florence
about the role of the Supreme Shepherd and his DUTY to proclaim the “rules”:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, 1435. Session 22
He should not aim at gain,
but cherishing all with paternal charity he should esteem them not as subjects
but as sons and daughters. Since he
has charge of their spiritual and temporal well-being, he must watch to get rid
of all factions and seditious groups...which breed destruction to both
souls and bodies...he should appoint cardinals or prelates of untarnished
reputation who will seek not financial gain but justice and peace for their
subjects.
>> How about Pope Pius XII, a little more recent?
Menti Nostrae - Thoughts
for the Clergy of the World (1950) #63,89
63. Let your apostolic
zeal shine with benign charity. If it be necessary -- and it is everyone's duty
-- to fight error and repel vice, the soul of the priest must be ever open to
compassion. Error must be fought with
all our might, but the brother who errs must be loved intensely and
brought to salvation… he
who to please men would gloss over their evil inclinations or be indulgent
about their incorrect ways of thinking or acting, thereby prejudicing Christian
teaching and integrity of morals, would be betraying his ministry.
89. It must be added that
the priest who is the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the
world" must labor mightily for
the defense of the Faith by preaching the Gospel and confuting the
doctrinal errors opposed to it which are disseminated today among the people by
every possible means. But these
errors cannot be efficaciously fought if the unassailable principles of
Catholic philosophy and theology are not thoroughly known.
>> Indeed, there is no spreading or defense of the Gospel
without Christ’s Commands from the Gospel.
>> To quote His Exellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, “Pope Francis
has made it known from early on, almost immediately, that he wanted to be
different.” But Pope Pius XII made it know that there ought to be no room for “uniqueness”
in the life of a Pope:
Ad Sinarum Gentem - On the
Supranationality of the Church (1954) #18,20-21
18. The holy pastors, therefore, are not the inventors and the composers
of this gospel, but only its authorized custodians and its divinely constituted
heralds…[We] ought to repeat the words of Jesus Christ: "My
teaching is not my own, but his who sent me" (John 7. 16)...We are not
teachers of a doctrine invented by the human mind. But our conscience obliges
us to embrace and follow what Jesus Christ Himself taught, and what He solemnly
commanded His Apostles and their successors to teach.
20. Being most certain
that this doctrine (whose integrity We must defend with the help of the Holy
Ghost) has been divinely revealed, We repeat these words of the Apostle of the
Gentiles: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel
to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema"
(Gal. 1.8)
21. You can easily see,
Venerable Brothers and beloved sons, why he cannot be considered a Catholic or bear
the name of Catholic who professes or teaches differently from what We have up
to this point briefly explained.
Pope
Leo XIII, Inimica Vis, 1892, #7
Sufficiently weighty are
the words of Our predecessor Felix III in this regard. "An error which is
not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.... He who does not oppose an evident crime
is open to the suspicion of secret complicity." (Pope St. Felix
III - “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to
suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men—when we can do it—is
no less a sin than to encourage them.”)
Pope Leo I
He that sees another in
error, and endeavors not to correct it. testifies himself to he in error.
Pope Julius III, Council
of Trent, Session XIII, 1551, Ch. VIII
It is not enough to
declare the truth unless errors be exposed and repudiated.
>> How about more from Sacred Scripture?
He that justifieth the
wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God. (Prov
17:15).
For this was I born, and
for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth.
Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice. (John 18:37)
4. Love, not Legalism
“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants
everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of
the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for
disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’
those who stubbornly try to recover a
past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view
of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”
Rejecting ideology, even religious ideology,
is another central teaching of Francis. And it’s a critically important
teaching for our time, which turns everything into ideology. It is also a
teaching of the Catechism.
1972 The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act
out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers
the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of
freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of
the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and,
finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who “does not know what
his master is doing” to that of a friend of Christ – “For all that I have heard
from my Father I have made known to you” – or even to the status of son and
heir.
And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. (Luke
1:50, Magnificat)
>> The quotation at the end from the Catechism, #1972, is
talking specifically about the OLD LAW. That which was abnegated, made obsolete
(Hebrews 8:13). Ironically, the Catechism is saying this, yet the last 5 Popes
still claim that the Old Covenant of the Jewish people is still valid and was
never rendered obsolete. They still praise them for their practice of the Old
Law, for circumcisions and Bar Mitzvah’s, etc.
That could be treated in an entirely different response, but just
Google something like “Pope sends his warm wishes to Rabbi” and you’ll find
plenty.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum, 1896, #9
It is then undoubtedly the
office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its
integrity and purity.
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus
of Errors, 1864, #5
Divine revelation is
imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress,
corresponding with the advancement of human reason – CONDEMNED
>> We of COURSE
absolutely do have “doctrinal security.” We do not long for it. We have it.
Infallibly handed down through the ages. If Pope Francis is rejecting this notion,
he is anathema of his own accord and “already condemned by his own judgment.”
(Titus 3:10-11).
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium
Animos, 1928, #6,8
The Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also
exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles...If
our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the
times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the
object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain,
that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even
incompatible one with another?
Pope
Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950, #15
[Modernists] assert that
when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found
to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the
concepts of modern philosophy.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis
Cognitum, 1896, #9
Origen writes: "As
often as the heretics allege the possession of the canonical scriptures, to
which all Christians give unanimous assent, they seem to say: `Behold the word
of truth is in the houses.' But we should believe them not and abandon not the
primary and ecclesiastical tradition. We should believe not otherwise than has
been handed down by the tradition of the Church of God"
Pope St. Pius X, The Oath Against
Modernism, 1910
I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us
from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and
always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical'
misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another
different from the one which the Church held previously.
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus
of Errors, 1864, #80
The Roman Pontiff can, and
ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and
modern civilization – CONDEMNED
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi
Dominici Gregis, 1907, #13
Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This
is strongly affirmed by the Modernists...Blind that they are, and leaders of
the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have
reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and
the true nature of the religious sentiment.
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi
Dominici Gregis, 1907, #17
Gregory IX., addressed to
some theologians of his time: "Some among you, inflated like bladders with
the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed
by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the
philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but
to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric
doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the
servant."
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi
Dominici Gregis, 1907, #26
Evolution in the Church
itself is fed by the need of accommodating itself to historical conditions and
of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is religious
evolution in detail. And here, before proceeding further, we would have you
note well this whole theory of necessities and needs, for it is at the root of
the entire system of the Modernists, and it is upon it that they will erect
that famous method of theirs called the historical.
>> Finally, the Oath of the Pope as detailed in the
Council of Florence:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, 1435. Session 22
I will firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the
tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers...and
to defend and preach it to the point of death and the shedding of my blood...I
promise also to labour faithfully for the defence of the catholic faith, the
extirpation of heresies and errors, the reform of morals and the peace of the
Christian people.
5. The Changeable Church?
“Human self-understanding changes with time, and so also human
consciousness deepens. Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death
penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the
truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment.
Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in
understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once
effective, but now they have lost value or meaning.”
Pope Francis’ words here might seem to be a
rebuke of dogma, but they are in fact a mainstream expression of the Catholic
belief in the development of Christian doctrine.
>> There is a big difference between “development”
and “evolution of” or “changing of.” Hence this ongoing debate of hermeneutic
of rupture vs continuity. Again, same quotes:
Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896, #9
It is
then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to
propagate it in its integrity and purity.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950, #15
[Modernists]
assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way
will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being
expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy.
Pius
IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #9
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...errors which
wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
Pope
St. Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, 1910
I
sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the
apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in
the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation
that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the
one which the Church held previously.
Pope
Julius III, Council of Trent, Session XIII, 1551, Ch. VIII
it is
not enough to declare the truth unless errors be exposed and repudiated, it has
seemed good to the holy council to subjoin these canons, so that, the Catholic doctrine being already
known, all may understand also what are the heresies which they ought
to guard against and avoid.
If
any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the
house nor say to him, God speed you. (2 John 1:10)
Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896, #9
Irenaeus
too says: "The doctrine of the Apostles is the true faith...which is known
to us through the Episcopal succession...which has reached even unto our age by
the very fact that the Scriptures
have been zealously guarded and fully interpreted."
As the Catechism puts it:
94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage
of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:
·
“through the
contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;
it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed
truth”.
·
“from the intimate
sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”, the sacred
Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”
·
“from the preaching of
those who have received, along with their right of succession in the
episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.
Pius
IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4, Pastor Aeternus
"The
Holy Spirit was not promised to the
successor of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit they might
disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the
revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might
faithfully set it forth."
Pius
IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #3
If
anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of
knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which
is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him
be anathema.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950, #15
[Modernists]
hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts
but only by approximate and ever changeable notions…
Pope
Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, 1907, #54
The
dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion
and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of
Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ
latent in the Gospel. – Condemned
Pius
IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14
[the]
meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been
declared by Holy mother Church, and there
must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of
a more profound understanding.
Pope
St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907, #28
Pius
IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies,
and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the
Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or
some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human
efforts...Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual
and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason.
So there it is, a few Catechism lessons from
Pope Francis.
I know that listening to Pope Francis can make
us uncomfortable. I like how Phil Lawler put
it: “Yes, the Pope makes me uncomfortable. As well he should.”
Speaking to the theologians at Benedictine
College I know that some of them appreciated the precision of theological
language they got from Pope Benedict. But they also appreciate the pastoral
lessons they get from Pope Francis.
Both are in the Catechism.
Please join me in praying for the Holy Father, Pope Francis, that he may turn the ship around and begin to restore the Church to her former glory, which can only be done by correcting the errors of the last half century once and for all.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Cardinal Burke Takes on the Modernist Agenda? I wish...
 |
| http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-takes-on-the-modernist-agenda/ |
The photo above is a screen capture from National Catholic Register. The title struck me, so I had to take a look.
Obviously one of the primary discussion topics of those who attend Mass at SSPX chapels is the topic of "Modernism," one which the patron of the Society wrote of frequently and vehemently condemned as the "synthesis of all heresies."
He imposed the "Oath Against Modernism" to be sworn by all active clergy, and of course wrote perhaps his most famous work Pascendi detailing every type of Modernist error from practical, theological and philosophical fronts.
One of the chief assertions of Traditionalist Catholics in general is that the Modernists hijacked the Second Vatican Council and are chiefly responsible for the ruin in the Church over the last 50 years.
So, given the title, I wanted to see what His Eminence, a proponent of the Council, had to say about the problems plaguing the Church and the world today.
As an aside, please let me make it clear that I have no desire to detract or calumniate His Eminence in any way.
In fact, while I am for the most part unfamiliar with Cardinal Burke, I have heard from a number of Traditionalists that he is among the more orthodox in the College, favorable to the Tradition and at least "sympathetic" (as was Pope Emeritus Benedict as it seemed) to the Society of St. Pius X (though unfortunately confused about the severe nature of what is happening in the Church - video available here).
The link to the article by Edward Pentin can be found beneath the screen capture above.
I would like to point out that in no way do I suppose to proclaim that everything post-conciliar is negative and/or influenced by the Modernists. In fact, I typically find that in reading any post-conciliar text (whether formal or informal), there is typically there within what could be called "the good, the bad and the ambiguous."
So without further ado...
THE GOOD
“A thinly disguised population-control agenda is steadfastly at work in the sheep’s clothing called ‘maternal health,’” he said. But the agenda, he noted, “actually has nothing to do with maternity and nothing to do with health [speaking of abortion and contraception].“One only has to read the daily newspaper or turn on the television for the evening news to know that Christians holding to the truth of the moral law is no longer tolerated by many and that the secularist agenda...
He called for “strong, supportive and traditional families, with a mother and father who love their children unconditionally,” as well as women and mothers who uphold the virtues of “purity, chastity and modesty and respect for the integrity of marriage and the family.”
You will notice certain key words I have underlined right on that image: "people of goodwill, human dignity, New Evangelization" (should have been underlined anyway, oops).
THE AMBIGUOUS
(Stepping out of order)
Cardinal Raymond Burke has rallied all people of goodwill to take a firm stance in protecting and promoting human dignity...
“We cannot be deceived,” Cardinal Burke said. “There is no greater issue facing human dignity today than the relentless attack on human life, the integrity of the human body.”
“If people do not acknowledge the dignity of all human beings without exception, the common good, authentically understood, can never thrive,” he said.
The cardinal called for a movement “toward a New Evangelization regarding human life."
“The transformation of hearts by which one truly believes in the dignity of all men, without boundary, is the most fundamental means of a New Evangelization,” he said.
I have bolded and underlined three terms above which all hit the headline screen capture at the start of this post.
- Human Dignity (mentioned 12 times in this essay)
- New Evangelization (mentioned 6 times)
- People of "Goodwill" and "the common good" (mentioned 3 times)
I would make a wager with anyone that he could not turn on EWTN radio for more than 30 minutes to any program without hearing at least one of those three mentioned (throw in with those "social justice, religious freedom, conscience rights" and you have hit the full gamut of post-conciliar hot words). There is currently an ad running right now that hits all of those words following the words "You believe in [social justice, freedom of religion and conscience, etc.]..."
The reason why those words above are ambiguous:
- What does human dignity mean?
- What in the world is the "New Evangelization?"
- What makes a person of "goodwill" versus of "bad will?" Who is of "bad will?"
In addition to the two aforementioned works of Pope St. Pius X, another shorter encyclical was written by the Holy Father called Notre Charge Apostolique (Our Apostolic Mandate) in 1910 condemning the Sillonist movement. The Sillonists were those in France who had joined under the pompous attempt at the elevation of man as supreme arbiter of good and evil, strongly imbued with the virulent ideals of the French Revelution, namely: LIBERTÉ (Liberty), FRATERNITÉ (Fraternity), ÉGALITÉ (Equality).
This encyclical will cover the problem with the phrase "HUMAN DIGNITY."
Here are some excerpts:
[Modernists] have a particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood; and, in an attempt to justify their social dreams, they put forward the Gospel, but interpreted in their own way...they flatter themselves with the idea of raising human dignity.
The Sillon has a praise-worthy concern for human dignity, but it understands human dignity in the manner of some philosophers, of whom the Church does not at all feel proud. The first condition of that dignity is liberty, but viewed in the sense that, except in religious matters, each man is autonomous...A socio-political set-up resting on these two pillars of Liberty and Equality (to which Fraternity will presently be added), is what they call Democracy.
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas...
...At the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of [Modernists] on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness...? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity?
A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity...Yes, we can truly say that the [Modernist plan], its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
It is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
ONE WORLD CHURCH PAINTING?
 |
| Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the "Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue" |
Whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross...these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.
The false and seductive platform of "human dignity" was warned about by several Popes prior to the Second Vatican Council, not just St. Pius X.
Looking at the movements within the Church since Vatican II, it escapes me how anyone can bring himself to read the above text and then find it entirely reconcilable with everything being promoted in the last 50 years.
Whether intended or not, this promotion of the phrase "human dignity" has led to the flatulent elevation of man exactly as Pope St. Pius X said it would. It puts into the minds of men that they themselves need to more deeply understand the grandeur of their own existence, planting at least on some subconscious level that he is either just as good as everyone else or perhaps even better.
But this belief is nothing other than the manifestation of pride and vanity.
The Litany of Humility by Merry Cardinal del Val (Sec. of State to Pius X) gives us a true understanding of the dignity of man, one which is rooted in complete and utter self-abnegation and a living out of Mark 8:34.
One may begin to understand the right order of his place in the universe when he proclaims in the mirror each morning, "Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
THE NEW EVANGELIZATION
First of all, the title alone prompts one to ask, "what was the old evangelization, and why do we need something new?"
I first heard this term a few years ago when I initially came back into the Church. People my age kept talking about it over...and over...and over. Typically when you have been exposed to a topic numerous times, you begin to be able to infer what it means and what it is all about. With this particular subject, the inverse happened: I found myself getting more and more confused.
I finally asked a few friends about it. None of the answers really had any lucidity, and no two answers were the same.
Go ahead and do a Google search for the term, and you will find a number of posts by the likes of Fr. Robert Barron, the USCCB, or Catholic.com.
It just comes across as vague nonsense, and notably missing is any reference to the Church Militant or calling upon our Confirmation Virtue of Courage.
Catholic Answers actually had an entire show on this topic, and Dr. Scott Hahn at least touched on it a bit:
This is a 9 minute video. And all he says could be summarized with the following: "We are all called to be missionaries on some level."
That's great, and it's true. But what is "New?" Specifically, what are we called to do differently?
At the 2:48 mark, he spouts out an entirely fallacious argument that the post-conciliar Church has been more "Evangelical" because, according to him, First Vatican Council doesn't mention "evangelization" once whereas Second Vatican Council mentions it over 150 times.
This is a Class A Post-Conciliar Red Herring on multiple fronts:
a.) Vatican I was not called to be about the Church's missionary spirit; it was called largely and almost exclusively to call light to the nature of the Papacy and its Infallibility
b.) Vatican I is about 9,000 words; Vatican II and all its documents are over 185.000 words covering far more subjects. Just as a side note, and just to put the latter in perspective, the Council of Trent - considered to be the preeminent dogmatic council in Church history covering any and all topics - was only 85,00 words.
c.) I have all of the Vatican II documents pasted into one massive Word document. The combination of the letters "evangel" (so as to include evangelize, evangelization and evangelical) are only found 80 times (not 150). "Evangeliz" only 35. And "evangelization" only 3 times. This simply shows that the nature of what he is stating is not entirely factual/accurate.
d.) Saying that just because Vatican II uses this word "evangelization" means the Church has taken on a new attitude toward the world is discounting all the martyrs and missionaries in Church history back to Her birth on Pentecost. The word "evangelize," except in the case of the "four evangelists" et al., perhaps simply was not part of common lexicon. However, that does not diminish the overwhelming missionary spirit of the Church for the 1900 years prior to the Council. In addition, one need only go to the Catholic Relief Services web site to find out that today's "evangelization" is no longer about conversion to the One, True faith but rather about humanitarian relief and the propagation of Western socio-economic ideals. Right on their web site, you do not need to be Catholic to work as a missionary for Catholic Relief Services.
Now, Dr. Hahn mentions that the real "blossoming" of this New Evangelization was with the promulgation of the papal encyclical Redemptoris Missio in 1990 by Pope John Paul II.
So it is perhaps prudent to take a look at some of what is proposed in that encyclical.
#8 The Second Vatican Council replies to those concerned with safeguarding freedom of conscience: "The human person has a right to religious freedom.... All should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
>> For more on why this is wrong, just check out my last post Religious Freedom? How about a Catholic United States instead...
>> This declaration flies in the face of Traditional 1900 year Catholic teaching and says that no one should be forced to act against his conscience...within due limits. Here we get again into the ambiguous of the Council, but the result is that pure EVIL is allowed to be given equality of place in society like the practice of satanism and witchcraft, abortion, pornography, contraception, divorce, etc. These "due limits" are never clarified, and the result is a sugar coated chaos ball.
#17 The Church's task is described as though it had to proceed in two directions: on the one hand promoting such "values of the kingdom" as peace, justice, freedom, brotherhood, etc,, while on the other hand fostering dialogue between peoples, cultures and religions, so that through a mutual enrichment they might help the world to be renewed and to journey ever closer toward the kingdom.
>> Remember the quote from Notre Charge Apostolique? "[Modernists] have a particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood...A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity."
>> Also, "mutual enrichment?" This suggests that the Catholic Church has something to be learned from false religions or from outside of her, some way to be enriched by other beliefs or cultures. This idea was expressly condemned by Pope Pius XII in On the Ecumenical Movement (1949): "What is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside..."
#25 It is the Spirit who is the source of the drive to press on, not only geographically but also beyond the frontiers of race and religion, for a truly universal mission.
>> Transcending the frontiers of religion for a more truly universal mission? Remember in Notre Charge Apostolique when Pope Pius said they were trying to form a "One World Religion?"
This video (LINK) regrettably says it all. Pope John Paul II paying homage to a pagan who, in spite of every possibility, never converted. Proclaiming "respect for the unique dignity for every human being...a NEW WORLD ORDER, a civilization of love, can be achieved..."
Finally, the topic of "men of goodwill" and the "common good."
The Traditional and Authentic Catholic teaching is that the common good is for men to first and foremost reach their intended final destination of Heaven - eternal life.
This takes complete precedence over the temporal life, though it certainly does not mean the temporal is to be ignored.
The Church has always promoted both the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy, but the former is more important than the latter.
Better a man be baptized, die and go to heaven at age 18 than never convert, live a life of comfort and health and die and go to hell.
This is perhaps best summarized by Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863)
God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness
of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth..."
Much like New Evangelization leads to the logical question of "why and what was the old?," speaking about "men of goodwill" leads one to ask "what does this mean and who are the men of ill will?"
Our Lord said in Mt 12:30: "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." Since we believe in "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism," and that the Catholic Church is the "one true Ark of Salvation," we may logically conclude that all those outside of the Church are - whether intentionally or unintentionally - "enemies" of the Church and therefore of Our Lord and his Salvific Mission. This being said, there are undoubtedly those who try, following the activity of actual grace in their lives, to do God's will. However, the Church teaches that all actual grace in a non-Catholic's life is given by God for the express intent of leading him or her to the one true Ark.
Our Lord said "seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened." So, in a certain sense, though God be the final and sole arbiter of each man's eternal destination and of his conscience and deeds, our Lord has told us that if we are truly seeking, aka "of goodwill," we will find aka "be baptized / converted to Catholicism."
Now, the men who were - up until 1983 - openly declared to be enemies of the Church, of complete ill-will, and even "servants of Satan" were Freemasons. Not all Masons, but really the sect itself and its leaders.
Here are some comments from Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry:
Custodi di Quella Fede (1892)
#4 The satanic intent of the persecutors has been to substitute naturalism for Christianity, the worship of reason for the worship of faith, so-called independent morality for Catholic morality, and material progress for spiritual progress...
#8-10 Masonic patriotism is no less than sectarian egotism which yearns to dominate everything...this sect tries to overthrow the Catholic Church and to cut off its divine sources...pride, greed, and sensuality...three concupiscences...spread slowly...masonry is an enemy of God...We have loudly repeated the warning.
#15 Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.
Contrast these comments with the last formal declaration by the Church on Freemasonry:
Cardinal Ratzinger (CDF) - Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry (1983)
"It is certainly not necessary to emphasize that following the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church too is pressing in the direction of collaboration between all men of good will...
...the community of good will, that is, in the Masonic fraternity."
One must ask himself, how does a sect of Satanic libertines suddenly, 100 years later, become a community of good will???
So, back to the original subject...Cardinal Burke takes on the Modernists.
I don't see any formal decree being put together and promulgated with canons like the Syllabus of Errors. All I see are Church representatives, His Eminence among them, defending - as She always has - the lives of innocent human beings (the unborn) and of the sanctity of matrimony (though its sacramental nature has been largely perverted over the last 50 years).
This is hardly the fierce battle against Modernism. This is simply one of the last remaining good fruits hanging, clinging to the branches of a tree which has been uprooted and replanted in radioactive soil now putting forth inedible, poisonous apples.
I will probably need to go back and revise/edit this post later...but for now, Pax Christi sit semper Vobiscum.
http://tylernethercott.blogspot.com/2013/05/resist-modernism.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)