Tags
1968, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, Francis church, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Reason, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, spirit of Vatican II, Summorum Pontificum, Tradition, Vatican, Vatican II
In the last post titled Francis’s Fascination with Pentecostalism Explained (see here) we observed a strange, by Catholic teaching, conjecture being made by the former Franciscan priest and “liberation theologian cum environmentalist theologian” Leonardo Boff. Needless to say, the a fore mentioned uttering’s of Mr. Boff and my commentary generated quite a bit of traffic in the Deus Ex Machina comment box. This commentary revolved around the subject of “discernment” as to what legitimately can be considered as “interventions” of the Holy Spirit as taught by the Catholic Church. In the below post, I lay out my thoughts on this subject matter.
Introduction
Just to refresh our readers memories, Boff made the following statement:
Why do I say this? Because what he [ed: Messori] regrets is the “unpredictability” of the pastoral action of this Pope. Well, this is the characteristic of the Spirit, its unpredictability, as St. John says: “The Spirit blows where it will, listen to his voice, however, do not know where it comes from or where it goes towards “(3.8). Its nature is the sudden irruption with his gifts and charisms. Francis of Rome in the footsteps of Francis of Assisi is led by the Spirit.
The above statement would suggest that Mr Boff is making the claim that he is an “interpreter” of the actions of the Holy Spirit. Technically speaking, Mr. Boff implies a causal relationship between the “unpredictability” of the Holy Spirit and the “unpredictability” of Francis. Therefore, Mr. Boff’s is claiming that Francis’s “unpredictability” is the work of the Holy Spirit.
In case the above passage still falls short of the “preponderance of evidence” threshold being met that Boff considers himself an “interpreter” of the actions of the Holy Spirit, here is another of Boff’s statements:
Everything in the Church is resolved with only Christ which the Jesus of the Gospels did not exactly want. (This sentence directly precedes the above cited passage.)
So the question then becomes: how are we to know that Francis is in fact being used as a tool by the Holy Spirit? To help discern how to identify whether the Holy Spirit is in fact using anyone including Francis as a tool, I will lay out in the Deus Ex Machina Discernment Guide for Dummies below.
General Principle
The logical place to start is to define a General Principle that will provide an understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Holy Spirit. After all, we are Catholic. Here is a good summary from the Catholic Bible 101 website: (see here)
The Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, and the one most active in the world today. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit created the world (Genesis 1:2), led Jesus into the desert (Matthew 4:1), comes to us at Confirmation (Acts 8:18), and intercedes for us in sighs that we cannot understand (Romans 8:26).
If there is a need for a clarification, it would obviously be the last part where it is written: and “ intercedes for us in sighs that we cannot understand (Romans 8:26). Here is the quote from the Douay-Rheims Bible, the official source of biblical quotes for the Deus Ex Machina blog: (A link can is located in the right hand margin.)
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. [Chaloner comment w/r/t “asketh fo us”: The Spirit is said to ask, and desire for the saints, and to pray in us; inasmuch as he inspireth prayer, and teacheth us to pray.]
So just to quickly summarize: The Holy Spirit; created the World, led Jesus into the desert, comes to us at Confirmation, and intercedes for us “in sighs that we can’t understand”. And the last part refers to intercession during prayers. Furthermore, we cannot know what the Holy Spirit “asks for us” since He asks for “us in sighs that we cannot understand”.
Intercessions of the Holy Spirit
So from the above, we can observe a “structure” to the intercessions of the Holy Spirit, a “structure” that Boff would no doubt describe as “a linearity”. Since we are speaking about the Holy Spirit, we cannot speak about constraints. But given our knowledge of natural law, we know that when God created the world, he created the natural law that governs His creation. And the natural law, along with the “God given law” that is the Scripture can provide a guide for how the Holy Spirit intercedes.
As to the “written Word”, one of the commentators, Deacon Augustine provided a very elegant summary of this structure:
“If we believe that the Holy Ghost is the author of Sacred Scripture (which He is) and there can be no contradiction in God (which there cannot be), then the first stage of any “discernment of spirits” must be to ask: “Is this in accord with Scripture and revealed truth?” As Scripture reveals that the Holy Ghost is given to lead the Church into all truth, then neither would He contradict the apostolic tradition of which He is also the primary author. The bottom line is that the Holy Ghost would never contradict whatever He has authored in Scripture or Tradition, and therefore, those who appeal to His authority in order to do just that must be in error.”
In other words, the assumption must be made that God behaves rationally since He acts in accordance with the Scripture and Tradition that He authored, i.e. God is a “rational God”.
The Rational God Hypothesis
Now that we have observed from the above that the Holy Spirit acts rationally, then the question turns to who the Holy Spirit acts rationally with, i.e. His creation. A natural place to start is to define why God made us. The Baltimore Catechism provides the following:
God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.
How do we know God? The Catholic Church teaches that there are two sources of knowledge about God:
(1) as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”
and
(2) as known through “divine revelation.”
We have dealt will point (2) in the previous section. With respect to the further knowledge that we acquire from the “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”, we know the following: that God created humans in his own image and that one of the reasons that God created humans is for humans to “know Him”. Therefore God gave humans the capacity to acquire this knowledge of Him. Furthermore, since God made humans in His own image, humans must therefore share certain characteristics that God possesses. One of those characteristics is “free will”. We know this to be the case since we can observe that unlike any other creature which God created, humans are not consigned to act through an instinctive process alone. Humans are the only creatures who can reason; therefore can exercise their “free will” to decide the course of actions that they can take.
Here is how “will” is defined at catholicculture.org: (see here)
The power of the human soul, or of a spiritual being, which tends toward a good or away from an evil recognized by the intellect. It is basically a rational appetite with several functions, namely the ability to intend, choose, desire, hope, consent, hate, love, and enjoy.
Even for the “deniers of God’s existence”, the above definition holds. Here is how Wikipedia defines “will”:
Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed.
Through the “intentional” qualifier, we have confirmation that the mind can exercise “will” independent of other internal or external determinants. Therefore we have proof that this “will is free” for the individual to exercise as he so chooses. Therefore, the human being, possessing this capacity to freely exercise his will, possesses the same characteristic that God possesses mentioned in the text in the paragraph earlier.
Tying Free Will with the Holy Spirit
If one assumes that humans have “free will”, or in other words are free to choose, than humans must have various choices in order to exercise this “free will”. One of those choices is the ability to choose between “good” and “evil”. And if humans are created by God, and God created humans with a “free will”, therefore it must follow that God gave these humans free will for a reason. Therefore it must follow that this reason is to allow humans to decide whether they want to be with God or not, i.e. “to be happy with Him forever in heaven” as per the Baltimore catechism.
Therefore, the problem with an actively intervening Holy Spirit arises as follows: If God gave humans free will, and he gave them this free will for a reason, and that reason is to determine if that individual human wants to spend eternity in His presence, then the logical question would be: why would He intervene in that persons decision making process?
The answer would be that as a rule, He wouldn’t.
Summa Summarum
As we can see from the above, it can be certain with a very high degree of probability, that God is a rational being. Furthermore, we can see that Catholicism alone, with its fundamental philosophical foundation in natural law, divine revelation provided by Our Lord himself, and the continuous Tradition that bind the natural law with the “written Word” represents the most accurate understanding of God and the most accurate representation of the relationship between God and His creation. In other words, the above is a very basic representation of not only the “universality” of Catholicism, but also of its “comprehensiveness”.
This cannot be said of any of the protestant sects, and of the charismatic movements associate with the post-conciliar church. The reason being that these sects are forced to focus strictly (one can even say exclusively in case of the protestants) on “the written Word”. It is from the Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) that they extract their sets of beliefs and practices, since “sola Scriptura” excludes all external determinants, including natural law from their understanding of either God or His relationship with His creation. Modernists and small “c” catholics who have adopted this protestant approach, are forced to focus on the “emotionalistic” aspects of Scripture, since the objective source of their Faith, that which comes from the light of reason (provided that they possess this knowledge), is absent. And to carry this thought to its logical conclusion, one can observe that the modernists and the small “c” catholics must use this “emotive gimmickery” since they have no rational explanation as to why they believe that which they believe. So is it any wonder that they revert to a, paraphrasing an old Laugh In punch line, “the devil Holy Spirit made me do it” mindset, and to the “non linearity vision” of a Leonardo Buff. Once again:
“ [ Messori] is held hostage by a linear vision, his own”beloved Joseph Ratzinger “and other earlier Popes.
Corroboration of the above situation is also demonstrated by the John Lamont’s text (see here), where he lays out the “non-philosophical” basis for the neo-modernist heresy, but which encompass the protestant sects and the charismatic movements in total. Here is what Lamont observes:
Thomism made an easy target for this propaganda, just because it is a highly developed philosophy. Any advanced field of study, such as philosophy, mathematics, or physics, can be convincingly portrayed as ‘arid’ and ‘rigid’. For most people’s tastes, this portrayal will often be true. Precise and rigorous subjects inevitably have arid components. Because it deals with fundamental questions whose answers are true always and everywhere, philosophy will be ‘ahistorical’ and ‘immutable’. It will not meet the desires and expectations of individuals or societies, because these desires and expectations are never geared towards subtle and difficult concepts. It will meet their needs – if it is true. But a demonstration of philosophical truth is a feeble counter to propaganda.
From the above text, it is easily to see how susceptible a charismatic or a small “c” catholic can be to forces that he might believe are the work of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the above suggests that the underlying reason, with respect to the lack of proper discernment of the intercessions of the Holy Spirit, is simply due to ignorance. Which leads to another problem for that charismatic or the small “c” catholic and that is this: if this catholic does not know what The Faith entails, then how can he be an instrument for the work of the Holy Spirit?
And this last statement should answer the question about whether Francis is in fact a “tool of the Holy Spirit” of simply a tool.
I will leave the answer to this question in your discretion.
S. Armaticus said:
Reblogged this on The Deus Ex Machina Blog and commented:
Today we are 199 days from the start of the Synod of Bishops. As a dear friend of this blog pointed out yesterday, the t-0 date is the Monday (5th October 2015) when all the fun starts.
In preperation of this main event, this blog has published and will continue to publish some helpful guides to help the discerning Catholic understand just want in fact is transpiring.
With the above in mind, over the last few weeks, we have been hearing about a certain “Spirit” who might be getting involved with some of the Synod participants, just like he could be getting involved with some lapsed catholics, between now and the end of the Synod. And as it just so happenes, a while back, I published a post regarding just this subject matter, i.e. how one can discern whether it is in fact the Holy Spirit that is moving the individual’s “internal waters”, or someone or something else. Could be a bout of indegestion for all we know. Or it could be some dark prince who we know all to well.
Therefore, with this in mind, I am re-blogging below the mentioned post for your information.
LikeLike
Deacon Augustine said:
Just thought I would suggest some additional texts regarding the action of the Holy Ghost for you. Of the four Gospels, it is in St John that we find the most comprehensive treatment, in Our Lord’s discourse at the Last Supper. I think these are very important texts for refuting Boff’s heretical dichotomy between Christ and the Holy Ghost:
Jn 14, 15 “If you love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.”
Jn 14,26 “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.”
Jn 15,26 “But when the Paraclete is come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me:
27 And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.”
Jn 16,7 “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you.
8 And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment.
9 Of sin indeed: because they have not believed in me.
10 And of justice: because I go to the Father, and you shall see me no longer:
11 And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged.
12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth: for HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF, BUT WHAT THINGS SOEVER HE SHALL HEAR, HE SHALL SPEAK: and the things that are to come, he will shew you.
14 He shall glorify me: because he shall receive of mine, and will declare it to you.
15 All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore, I said, that he shall receive of mine, and will shew it to you.”
The translation is from Douai-Rheims and I have used caps in the last quote for emphasis.
You will see from Our Lord’s words that the Holy Ghost cannot be set in conflict with Our Lord, because everything He reveals has been first received from Our Lord Himself. The Holy Ghost is not sent to bear testimony to Himself, but rather to witness to Our Lord. It is exactly this same testimony that the apostles are then charged to give.
It is significant also that the Holy Ghost is sent to convict of sin – primarily the sin of unbelief in Our Lord, but also the failure to love Our Lord by the keeping of His commandments.
People like Boff are just soooooo wrong about the Holy Ghost that it is obvious that the garbage they spout comes straight from the effluent which swills around inside their own crania. The “spirit” they follow may well be a spirit, but it is of a sort entirely other than holy.
The Holy Ghost may indeed “blow” entirely WHERE He will, but to ascribe “unpredictability” to Him to the extent that He would contradict either Christ or what He has already revealed to us, is childish poppycock. It would seem that proposers of such nonsense have no knowledge of God whatsoever. They have failed their Catechism 101. If that is an accusation against those who idolize spontaneity and “surprises”, then so be it. Our God is a perfect God “in whom there is no shadow of change or alteration.”
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Thank you Deacon,
I will start incorporating the information above in future posts. If you noticed on my blog, I am exclusively writing about the upcoming Synod 2015. On the strategy side, TeamFrancis will be using the deus ex machina that will go by the name of the “spirit of the holy ghost”, and it will be working overtime. B/t/w, I intentionally did not capitalize the HG in the last paragraph, as you rightly observed about spirits. On an aside, they reverted to the mindset of pre-Colombian holy men. And they call themselves progressive. Go figure!
As far as Catechism 101, I think none of these people paid attention. And if they did, they dumped the doctrine for “airy fairy magic words” a long time ago.
On another aside, I would also like to draw your attention on the part of my post regarding the part of the faith that is derived from reason. It is a good argument that I find very effective with… let’s call it the non believing crowd. When they realize that Catholicism has more to do with Aristotle than with Jim and Tammy Baker, it puts a spanner in their works. The reason that I am mentioning it now is that from what I see, the natural law is the playing field that we should be playing on. This next Synod is going to see Francis pushing the not so much the homo agenda (insignificant percentage of the population), but actually the gender ideology agenda. I doubt that he even realizes it. It will be in disguise, but this is where I see the money and support is coming from. So if you see any good ideas about tying in the “written Word” with reason, please feel free to pop them over.
S.A.
LikeLike
Deacon Augustine said:
I agree that natural law should be where the arguments are won. However, beware…there were bishops at the Extraordinary Synod who were advocating ditching reference to, and the language of, natural law because “the term is not understood by modern man.” You can guarantee that they will try to persist with this rationale at the Synod – especially the Germans. Apart from one or two notable exceptions the German episcopate has committed apostasy already.
As for Francis not realizing the gravity of the situation, I am sure that is the impression that he wants to give to maintain plausible deniability, if and when it all goes down the pan. What I have heard from a Cardinal who was there, though, is that Francis was the one who orchestrated the whole farce from the beginning. I think he knows exactly what he is doing, but we will only find out his true motivation and intentions after the event…if he lives that long. (I won’t be shedding a tear if he doesn’t!)
Well done for focusing your efforts on the Synod. This has the greatest potential for disaster since the “Reformation.”
I will let you know if I find anything that might be useful. Tangentially, on “the written word”, it is worth taking apart Francis’ closing speech to the Extraordinary Synod where he excoriates those who “stick to the written word” and “neglect the spirit” – what he terms Pharisees. What he seems to completely misunderstand is that Our Lord’s condemnation of the Pharisees and Scribes was based not on their rigour, but rather on their laxity with regards to the Law. See Matt 5, 17-48 for reference. He is a dangerous antinomianist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
That is why I am giving myself 265 days. I will be taking it by the numbers.
As to the Pharisees, noted. However, one just has to wonder what those prelates siting at Sanctae Marthae are thinking when they hear this garbage. They must know that he is making the stuff up on the fly.
LikeLike
indignusfamulus said:
Dear SA,
Thanks for all your hard work here, which made us realize how little we’ve studied the Holy Spirit, which in turn led us to find this : -) 🙂
1. St. John Vianney taught – the Holy Spirit inpires Truth which opposes worldliness:
–“The Holy Ghost is our Guide. Man is all earthly and animal, but the Holy Spirit can elevate his mind, and raise it on high. Why were the saints so detached from the earth? Because they let themselves be led by the Holy Spirit. Those who are led by the Holy Spirit have true ideas.. The Holy Spirit is light and strength. He teaches us to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and between good and evil. Like glasses that magnify objects, the Holy Spirit shows us good and evil on a large scale.
–“Worldly people have not the Holy Spirit, or if they have, it is only for a moment. He does not remain with them; the noise of the world drives Him away.
The eyes of the world see no further than this life. The eyes of the Christian see deep into eternity. To the man who gives himself up to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, there seems to be no world; to the world there seems to be no God. We must therefore find out by whom we are led. If it is not by the Holy Ghost, we labor in vain; there is no substance nor savior in anything we do.”
2. Popes who demonstrated that understanding of Truth- with eyes fixed on eternity rather than worldly ideals-condemned socialism and atheistic communism, as did Pius IX in 1846, and Pius XI in 1931 (in his encyclical on the Reconstruction of the Social Order) writing:
“Such is the new gospel which Bolshevistic and atheistic Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms.. in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order..” Socialism..is irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”
===========
3. Now compare what the Holy Spirit taught through them, to what Pope Francis wrote in his two books: “Conversations”(p.39) and “On Heaven and Earth”, p. 131:
— “I remember that in high school there was a Communist professor. We had a wonderful relationship with him… he never lied to us.”
–“It’s true that I was, like the rest of my family, a practicing Catholic. But my mind was not made solely for religious questions…
I read “Our Word and Proposals”, a publication by the Communist Party, and I loved every article ever written by Leonidas Barletta, one of their best-known members…”
============
We think Boff and his liberation theology cronies (like Guiterrez) who “interpret” the workings of the Holy Spirit as having capricious ideas, which just happen to foster their own formally condemned ones; are just trying to pull their fake sheep’s wool over the eyes of the faithful, hoping we’ll see Pope Francis’ as a leader, instead of as a badly- strayed sheep, and follow them all back to the den for dinner.
😉 😉
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Dear IF:
The below is from the Eponymous Flower blog. This is in reality who Boff is:
“Clodovis Boff, formerly himself a representative of the Teología de la Liberación , who was already critical of it in 1986 and finally distanced from liberation theology in 2007, added: “In the 70s Cardinal Eugneio Sales withdrew my teaching license of Theology at the Catholic University Rio. Sales told me in a friendly way:”Clodovis, I think you are mistaken. Doing good is not enough to be a Christian. The center is to confess the faith … ” He was right. In fact, the Church was irrelevant for us. And not only Her, even Christ Himself ”
In reality, Francis is just like Boff with the exception that he needed the Church since he was the consumate “climber”. As you see from what I wrote in the post, these radicals distort the Holy Spirit that is God, and create a Deus Ex Machina out of him. Their “god” is what an accountant would call a “plug figure”, i.e. a number that is plugged into a ledger balance to make the numbers (credits and debits) equal. Nothing more, nothing less.
This “radical” god of theirs is something that I think needs to be explained and understood, since it is the main cause of heresy not only among Christians, but Catholics likewise. It is really leading souls to hell.
S.A.
PS I observed a lot of traffic from Louie’s blog to the “Anatomy of the Destruction of the Mass” page. Have you visited, and if so, what did you think?
LikeLike
indignusfamulus said:
Dear SA,
We temporarily forgot about the above sibling, when referring to “Boff”, and should have mentioned we were commenting on Leonardo, because Pope Francis’ biographer recently informed the press that last year Pope Francis “sent for all of Leonardo Boff’s wiritings”. Unfortunately, those were previously the cause of his silencing by the Holy See, and we’re pretty sure they weren’t sent for so Francis could expose their errors or have them publicly burned.
Regarding the links to Father Cekada’s ideas, we haven’t yet had time to go through all you’ve posted there, and it will take us longer because we know he had concluded that these and other matters provided all he needed to decide to treat the See of Peter as empty. Not having his level of education or training in the proper applications of Canon Law, we feel less to assess such work for errors, or refute them where we have concerns; yet we know such persons can be very convincing, as well as “right” in almost everything they teach, but totally “wrong” in the part that led them astray. Hence our great caution .
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Dear IF:
With respect to Fr. Cekada, I would just say this. When dealing with information, one needs to separate the objective facts from the subjective opinion. And since we are all grown people, or “matured” as a Modernist would say, we can disregard the subjective opinion.
What is key to understanding the situation is how thoroughly the Modernists went through the liturgy to eradicate anything that was not compatible with protestantism. It is this aspect that was required by the Ecumaniacs to bring Catholicism in line with the Lutheran error.
S.A.
LikeLike
indignusfamulus said:
Dear SA,
Once we get time to go through the material in question, if it proves to be as obvious as it sounds from your description, we may be find our current level of caution can be ratcheted down quite a bit.
We’re basically just going from our past experiences attempting to understand these matters, and they proved to be frustrating precisely at the point you mention–of separating objective facts from subjective opinion.
If we are not thoroughly grounded in both Canon Law and the Sacraments in question, for instance, when watching video discussions of the objections to the new rite of Ordination; and have reason not to fully trust the judgment of the person presenting it all, we come away afterward with a lot of home work to do, and inadequate resources online-which often don’t go far enough into detail on weighty theological questions. (which is why there are university courses for such things).
So it ends up being a matter of technical difficulty, rather than “maturity”.
Unless, as you seem to believe it is here, the situation is much more obviously a matter of proveable truths and falsehoods.
We’ll take a good look and let you know what we think..
signed– your deliberately over-cautious friends. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
My favor Ronald Reagan quip is “Trust but Verify”.
S.A.
LikeLike