Modernism


As a spineless Balthasarian worshiper of the Hegelian Kirkengeist it is natural that Ouellet (like his Germanic twin Schönborn) should betray those fighting for the truth of the faith against the corrupt men who have taken possession of the Roman Curia. For them there is no untainted Gospel preached by the apostles from the beginning never to be believed differently, never to be understood in any other way. Instead, there is the self-realisation of “the God who is history” (in Kasper’s words) through the institution of the Church (which, for them, replaces the role played by the Prussian state for Hegel). This allows them to change their beliefs to suit the needs of ecclesiastical advancement without scruple. This allows Ouellet to call the criticism of the pope blasphemy and insinuate that Viganò is not in communion with the See of Rome because he has had the temerity to expose the immoral acts of its bishop.

On the purely tactical level his strategy is to scream insults as Viganò while conceding his central allegation to avoid the difficulty that Viganò is telling the truth.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-denounces-accusation-against-pope-but-confirms-key-point-1538912551

“In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s allegations of sexual abuse, and has claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.”

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/ex-nuncio-accuses-pope-francis-of-failing-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse

 

 

As everyone is aware Pope Francis has ordered the insertion of a new section into the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
_______________________
[1] Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.
>
As is also well known, scripture and the entire tradition of the Church teach the admissibility in principle of the death penalty. The admissibility in principle of the death penalty is thus a dogma. It rests upon Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4 as unanimously interpreted by the fathers and the teaching office down to 2013.
>
If the new 2267 denies the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty then it is heretical and Pope Francis must be forced to recant or be deposed.
>>
It is obvious, given Pope Francis’s other comments elsewhere, that what he means in this new passage is that bad rigid Catholics in the past held that the death penalty is licit in principle but now we understand the Gospel better and see that it neither is permissible nor ever was. The consideration about ‘more effective systems of detention’ simply removes a factor which mitigated the guilt of the preceding error and now does so no longer. ‘Human dignity’ is the reason for the inadmissibility in principle of the death penalty and more effective systems of detention are the occasion for our perception of this. This is clearly heretical on the material point and modernist in the nature of dogma.
>
However, the passage does not have to be interpreted in this way. It could be read to mean that more effective systems of detention are the reason for the inadmissibility here and now (and only here and now) of the death penalty and a greater consciousness of human dignity (perhaps in reaction against the culture of death) is the occasion for our perception of this contingent inadmissibility.
>
This second interpretation is quite licit for a Catholic to hold. However, it is quite wrong for this view (that the death penalty is illicit at this moment because of contingent circumstances) to be taught in a magisterial document. This is because the question of whether the death penalty is licit here and now is a contingent question of the application of principles to particular circumstances of the civil order and such questions are proper to the laity. While the pope is free to have opinions on such subjects he may not express them as pope for as pope he is forbidden to wield the temporal sword except in necessity. Sadly, St John Paul II’s 1997 text is also guilty of this misuse of the teaching office.
>
Thus it is possible for a Catholic to hold that the view presented in the new CCC2267 is (if taken literally and in isolation and then interpreted in a very particular way) reconcilable with dogma. Nevertheless, the passage is not thereby acceptable as teaching because the expression of an opinion on this subject in an official capacity by the pope is ultra vires and, indeed, a usurpation.
>
On the other hand, the only authority cited in the new section is “Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017” and in this address Pope Francis remarks:
>
“It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity.  It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.”
>
This statement is indeed heretical and it is the only ‘authority’ cited for the new CCC2267. Pope Francis personally must therefore be interpreted as denying the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty. It is consequently impossible to avoid the conclusion that Pope Francis must be forced to recant or deposed and any Cardinal who now omits to take this step sins gravely by omission.

“….to have kept her body in perfect continence or to have practised the virtue of chastity in an exemplary way, while of great importance with regard to the discernment, are not essential prerequisites in the absence of which admittance to consecration is not possible.”

 

In an utterly amazing piece in the National Catholic Register Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk denounces Pope Francis’s response to the German Bishops’ intercommunion proposals and ends by observing that “the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” and quoting the passage from the Catechism that describes the deception of the Antichrist at the end of time.

Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.

I don’t know if the pope can be the Antichrist (or the false prophet). It might to be simpler just to accuse him of teaching heresy and get rid of him! If he is the Antichrist or the false prophet I don’t suppose he will be going anywhere soon. Saint Willibrord pray for him!

Next Page »