(1) TRUTH
This document begins with what a loyal Catholic might call a suggestio falsi, but a non-Catholic would identify as a couple of lies.
This Pontiff writes that the Lord "is a blessing for all humanity, a blessing that has saved us all, and he is the Eternal Word with whom the Father blessed us while we were still sinners (Romans 5: 8)".
The word 'blessing' and its cognates, crucial to the argument currently being deployed by the pope, do not occur in the text of S Paul.
We/us' could mean either 'all humankind' or 'we who are Christians'. Since this paragraph begins by writing about "us who are justified by Faith". I see no reason to force down S Paul's throat the idea that the passage is 'universalist' and applies to all men.
The Bergoglian text refers to us "all". Sine, in here argument here, S Paul does not once use this word, I see no evidence to support the Bergoglian determination to shove the word in, and to do so twice.
It is true that this section is taken from a papal catechesis of two or three years ago, but I cannot see what difference that makes. Are we all supposed to spend our time with a fine toothcomb going through every word this man utters in order to check that he isn't interpolating some notion which, in a year or two, will be Magicked into his Magisterium?
(2) UNTRUTH
These 'unliturgical blessings' are ... apparently ... to be carefully arranged without ritual or formalities or anything that might confuse them with official blessings or unions.
Yet it seems to be envisaged that a priest might participate. Why? A priest is an official minister of the Church, of the Christian Community. Even if he wears no formal indication of priestly identity, the mere fact that he has been brought in to participate means ... that he is priest and is functioning qua priest; because he is known to be a priest.
There is something very profoundly dishonest going on here. Cardinal Mueller has spoken of sacrilege and blasphemy ... and how right he is. But I think there is something even wickeder happening; a criminal plot to destabilise the entire concept of Truth; to destroy the very notion of a distinction between Truth and Untruth.
This clearly bears the mark of the Great Father of Lies himself. At this point, if we were not before, we are well into the pontificate of 1984. We are, in S Paul's words, "not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places".
How much of this pontificate will need to be disentangled to sort out the Papal within it from the Diabolical?
8 comments:
There are some people who connect Ps. 133:3 to a prophecy of Jesus as Messiah, because it says "There [Zion] the LORD commanded the blessing, the life forever."
So in that way, I guess you could take The Blessing as a Messianic title.
But it does not say that, so any connection to Bible verses is a happy coincidence.
And some people are going to willingly choose death forever, not bowing their heads to receive the Blessing. So....
Honestly, as a layperson born in the Seventies, I just tend to wait and ignore this kind of thing. There has been so much of it, and so much of it has eventually gone away after just staring silently at it for long enough. But it is a great waste of time and patience, and not good for the salvation of souls.
You know... If you look at the context of Rom. 5:8, the parallel of "while we were sinners", in Rom. 5:10 is "while we were enemies."
God was trying to reconcile with us, and He loved us first and always; but I don't think He blesses His enemies, except in a "the rain falls on the just and unjust" way.
The introduction to Fiducia Supplicans, says: "Since “the Roman Curia is primarily an instrument at the service of the successor of Peter, our work must foster, along with an understanding of the Church’s perennial doctrine, the reception of the Holy Father’s teaching". This does seem to introduce all and any of the words uttered by a reigning pope as a parallel source of Catholic teaching alongside the "the Church's perennial doctrine". My mother always said that she didn't need to ring the pope every morning to know what Catholic teaching is today. Cardinal 'Touchy-feely' Fernandez (how his crocodilian smile gives me the shivers!) obviously thinks she was wrong about that. Actually, this is just one example of intellectual 'sleight-of-hand' going on in that document which sneakily undermines the whole edifice of Catholic teaching.
Thank you, Father, I have been waiting to see if anyone else believes that a Priest by his ordination ceases to be a 'private' person, but is a 'public' person: in that he, the priest, now is an official 'ikon of Christ and His Church'.
This is what happens when you get a Pope imposed on the Church by usurpation.
It's the doctrine of Free Will, crashing full force into Papal Infallibility.
He is not fooling anybody, because you cannot make a fool out of
God. Let him continue to play games with the truth. He is only exposing himself,
and his cretinous minions, for what they really are.
It occurs to me that another dishonest thing about Fiducia supplicans is the idea that these "blessings" are okay as long as they are informal and spontaneous. That still does not distinguish them from other sorts of blessings conducted within the Novus Ordo establishment, because these are mostly non-liturgical and spontaneous. Whether they're blessing water for the fonts or rosary beads, many priests (at least in my locale) just make up their own blessings as they go, and have done so for a good many years. They don't even bother to use the Book of Blessings, much less the Rituale Romanum. So these new "blessings" will just be all of a piece with, and indistinguishable from, what's already been going on all along.
The great Doctor St John Henry Newman, foresaw this..ora pro nobis, o great Doctor, we who have recourse to thee.
From henceforth never elect a Jesuit to the throne of Peter!
A full-fledged Jesuit takes four vows: obedience, chastity, poverty, and a special obedience to the Pope. Therefore, it is possible for Pope Francis to obey God or himself. Due to original sin the easiest path is to obey oneself...that is a huge conflict of interest!
Post a Comment