PF recently signed a pluralist declaration; then, apparently, the Vatican significantly changed that doctrinal statement which he had just signed.
The First Text affirmed:
Pluralism, in religion, colour, gender, race, language, culture, "are expressions of the wisdom of God in creation".
This is unambiguously heretical. It is the error often called Indifferentism.
I wonder if Cardinal Ladaria pointed this out to PF. Or, perhaps, the hierarchy of Kazakhstan?
The Second, altered, text: removed religion from the list of things which are "expressions of the wisdom of God"; instead, the statement now simply asserted that Religious diversity is permitted by God.
This is less unambiguous in its heresy. It is, instead, a typical piece of intentional Bergoglian ambiguous doublespeak. I wonder if the ecumenical delegates who had assented to the first version were consulted before the changes were made, or whether, in a characteristic piece of arrogant Bergoglian superueberhyperpapalism, the agreed ecumenical text was simply changed papally and unilaterally. Are there no limits to the almighty, cosmic, powers claimed by this man and his cronies?
But the Second text, even though now intentionally ambiguous, still won't do.
Not in a thousand millennia.
It mirrors an explanation once offered by PF to Bishop Schneider, in which the concept of the permissive will of God got dragged in. The idea was: God may not positively will something evil, but he doesn't positively intervene in History to prevent it. He, er, permits it.
What is wrong ... hideously wrong ... with this is that there are thousands of things that happen in this world which God does not intervene to prevent; for example murder, war, torture, paedophilia, genocide, oppressions of women, paedophilia, oppressions of so many kinds. When God fails to prevent all these from happening, does this mean that they are therefore actually pleasing to God? That he has stamped his Nihil obstat on them?
Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes 27) and S John Paul II (Veritatis splendor 80) taught otherwise. And both did so without ambiguity.
Now ... could somebody remind me of the wording of those conciliar and papal condemnations of Pope Honorius I which somehow involved the word ANATHEMA?
Amoris Laetitia in its ambiguity parallels that of Pope Honorius I's document which was not issued in a manner of a dogmatic (ex cathedra) teaching.
As Pope Francis did with ambiguity in AL, Honorius allowed the Monothelitism heresy to confuse and spread by not clearly teaching Christ had both a divine will and a human will. The heretics taught Jesus has only one will, the divine will.
AL implies that those in adulterous second marriages who are committing mortal sin can commit the sacrilege of receiving Holy Communion.
Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680:
"And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." .... "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"
The condemnation was confirmed by Pope Leo II .
According to Catholic News Agency, “the new wording was published by the congress website and local media on Sept. 15, apparently hours after the previous version”. Following their link to the Congress website, Article 10 now reads:
“We note that pluralism in terms of differences in skin color, gender, race, language and culture are expressions of the wisdom of God in creation. Religious diversity is permitted by God and, therefore, any coercion to a particular religion and religious doctrine is unacceptable.”
Dear Father. It is worth thinking about that what PF claims is part of the Ecumenical movement his predecessors were in favor of
Either the Popes again start teaching there is one true church and immediately stop this ecumenical insanity or there will be more of this until such time we find ourselves with the Pope as effectively the President of a union of "churches " each professing a different Creed and each having its own doctrines but (diversity within unity) and we will be assured this is the only path to peace on earth
Sorry, the link I posted didn't work.
It is below in a post having to do with ecumenism and God willing different religions
Fr. Hunwicke please accept my condolences in the loss of your amazing, Queen Elizabeth.
It must be quite an adjustment, and my heart goes out to all who loved her. It hurts a bit from here, in the states. She was completely charming, and her devotion to duty over the course of her life is so inspiring. I am sorry.
The church and the nations will continue in purposeful devolution until such time as men are raised up to address the destroyers publicly and effectively.
It is quite depressing having had such a poor education as I had. It means I simply cannot understand things. We must all celebrate Mass, Office, sacraments et al. in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite so we are all united as one. That being so I want to ask why the pope does not require us all to be one and follow the same Faith. Why is he happy for there to be many forms of Christianity? Why is he so happy for there to be many religions? Very confusing for one such as me with a very simple mind.
Brian Kelly makes some valuable distinctions on Pope Honorius:
"Remember, that even though this Council was approved by Popes Agatho and Leo II, its judgments on Honorius’ culpability were not definitions. Its decree condemning Monothelitism was, however, a definition of Faith — that decree was infallible, once the pope confirmed it. In any event, exculpating Pope Honorius from personal heresy in this matter has been difficult. The fact that the Church has tolerated the opinion of those who are convinced that he was himself guilty of not just allowing but defending Monothelitism goes to show that it is not against the Faith to hold that a pope could fall into heresy. What is against the Faith is to hold that a pope could teach heresy from the chair."
Why are we shocked by the official proclamation of the heresy of indifferentism? Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Catholic Faith would/should know that the thrust of the whole ecumenical movement---without going into individual or communal intentions---could only lead to this. Indifferentism is now a widespread belief in the Church, indeed a heresy widely accepted by nominal Catholics (even those who go to Mass); the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church being the One, True Church of Christ founded on Peter and necessary for salvation is, on the other hand, deemed intolerant, strange, or, even by some, never really having been part of the deposit of faith. We live in an age characterized by rank mendacity, and the post-conciliar Church not only does not condemn it but embraces it through obfuscation, word games, and sophistry. Moreover, the disunity of those claiming the name "Christian" remains while the internal unity of the Church is buried deep in mendacious verbiage. Happy now, obdurate defenders of the conciliar tragedy? In time not much will be left except a shadow of the Church---exactly what the anti-Christian forces have been feverishly laboring for over many centuries and whose success is now, on purely worldly terms, all but assured. Furthermore, we also know who these enemies are.
The word "therefore" is doing a heck of a lot of work in that second sentence of Article 10. Cf. "Devastating floods are permitted by God, and, therefore, any building of flood defences is unacceptable."
This is all very interesting, and distressing as well. I always thought that God's permissive will never held he approved of such things, but that His infinite power could bring good out of them. Hence, he allows plurality of religion NOT because he approves of that, but so those who accept and live the Faith of the RCC will shine ever more brightly for their responses to grace.
Ah, 'unacceptable': like 'inadmissible', one of the lasting contributions of this curial generation to Fun.
When I am Pope, I shall make much fuller, funner use of the possibilities.
I shall declare the master-slave relationship to be unconstipational.
I shall declare the submission of wives to husbands to be insupportifiable.
I shall declare the Compline canticle to be nuncdimissible.
Those pesky theologians will have a devil of a time proving me wrong, although they may be too busy combatting Rastafarianism to try.
Post a Comment