Tags
America, Aparecido Document, Benedict XVI, Bergoglian/Kasperian "hate theology done on the knees", Bergoglio, Big Gender, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Cardinal Sarah, Catholic Church, communism, corrupt information, corruption, Eponymous Flower blog, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Fr Lombardi, Fr. Martin S.J., Francis church, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, gender ideology, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, Harvesting the Fruits blog, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, intrinsic disorder, Intrinsically Immoral, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Laudato Sii, Louie Verrecchio, Markus Günther, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, National Catholic Register, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Peoples Liberation Front of Judea, Polls, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, s ABERRO AGENDA, Secret Synod 2014, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Synod of Bishops 2015, Tags "the new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Tradition, Vatican, Vatican II, Vox Cantoris
Seeing as we are quickly approaching the 100 day mark to the commencement of what we have termed the Stealth Sex Synod™ of 2015, today we are 112 days away, and the release of the Global Warming Encyclical Laudato Sii, that will be released tomorrow, this blogger will continue the latter thread that we started yesterday. To be perfectly honest, this encyclical is actually a large part of the TEAMFRANCIS strategy Lord’s pastoral call to the run up to the Synod of Bishops, a topic that we will explore in greater detail in future posts.
Back to Laudato Sii. As anyone who has been following the scandal that is being caused by this “novel” Global Warming Encyclical, the proverbial fur has been flying. The “upset” parties for the most part, are members of the FrancisChurch, who feel that Francis, the orthodox schismatic and the atheist that will be presenting this encyclical to the world, have lost the BIG MO going into tomorrow’s release and conference.
Needless to say, the target of the FrancisHate™ is the Italian journalist Sandro Magister. To be more precise, the issue is whether Magister’s release of the encyclical, the one that he obtained from “his sources” in any way broke the embargo on the release of this official document. And I, your humble blogger got dragged into this heated argument on Fr. James Martin’s SJ Facebook page.
Just to set up this exchange, I was reading through FB, minding my own business when I ran across this entry:
And as you dear reader can see, your humble blogger made an attempt at a fraternal correction, not to mention getting another Spiritual Works of Mercy under my belt (to instruct the ignorant), to which a quite emotional response from Fr. Martin S.J. was forthcoming. On an aside, Fr. Martin is a Jesuit priest, a writer, and editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America. (see here) But I digress…
So naturally, I attempted to present the facts:
And naturally, the response was we can clearly read above. Please note, at this point, we are dealing with a small “c”atholic priest who is… how shall I say this… “bearing false witness” against Sandro Magister. Not only that, he is also leading his readers (souls) astray due to his obstinacy, best case scenario. But back to the story…
At this point, some of Fr. Martin’s readers joined the conversation:
As we can read above, the subject matter starts veering off the road into a discussion typical for FrancisChurch, i.e. ethics, ethical dilemma’s, “antagonistic reporters, not to mention conspiracy theory, etc. Yet up to now, the argument is a “he said, she said” argument (logical fallacy – appeal to authority).
What is more than a bit disconcerting however, it still has not registered to these people…”catholics” that they might be running afoul of the 8th Commandment, Fr. Martin included. Here was my reply:
To which, the following appeared:
So this debate ended when the FrancisChurch designated “wizened US Vaticanista with no axe to grind” Mr. Allen confirmed that Sandro Magister did not break any “ethical” rules and that the document that he released was not under any embargo.
Concluding, the reason why I reproduced this thread is to demonstrate the dire situation of the mindset of the average US catholic layman and cleric 50 years after the “advent of the new springtime of Vatican II”. As we can see from the exchanges above, neither the laypeople or the cleric even considered that they could be wrong. They were acting instinctively. It is nothing different from them assuming that their political party was under attack, so they came into this discussion reflexively, with talking points in hand and guns blazing. They never even gave it a second thought that they could be wrong.
Furthermore, no matter how irrational the above behavior was at the time of the posting, not one of these individuals stopped to consider the severity of taking such a position with respect to their spiritual wellbeing afterwards. Not one of these folks stopped to considered that they were breaking the 8th Commandment. Wonder if they ever contemplated it? The reason that one needs to ask this question is that not one of these people came back and apologized since they most likely cast false aspersions on one of their fellow-man.
Looking at this less than seemly episode, is it any wonder that the institution that is the post conciliar church is disintegrating before our very eyes. One has to wonder what benefits or value does the post conciliar Catholic Church bring to XXI century society? If the Catholic Church is the faithful and if the catholic faithful are not taught nor understand the basic tenants of their faith, tenants that force these faithful to think rationally, objectively and critically, how in the world can they be in a position to propose positive, effective and meaningful “change” to the world that exists around them?
The short answer is that they can’t.
The longer answer is that these FrancisChurch people, whether it’s Francis, Archbishop Fernandez, Fr. Martin or his commenters, are not really in any position to bring anything worthwhile or meaningful to the wider global discussion, whether it’s spiritual or secular.
An excellent case in point of the above is the fate of the Aparecida Document, the brainchild of Cardinal Bergoglio (see here), that this document has suffered under the Francis papacy. To be more precise, not only do Francis’ coreligionists not put too great weight behind this document, they don’t even know what the thing means. Here is the relevant text from the Eponymous Flower blog: (see here)
The Fifth General Conference of Latin American Bishops’ Council in 2007 in Aparecida, whose final document was then still largely dominated by Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, was in the forefront of Latin American church leaders. Pope Francis register [stated] “exactly” that there are cardinals and bishops who never mention Aparecida. In turn, [it] can be heard by high church officials that they did not understand the “reforms of Francis”. And ever is the “model Buenos Aires” simply not applicable to the whole Church. It would involve “an experience, but not “the” experience of the Church.
So the question than becomes, what is the point of creating another document, even with the “theological structuring” of this document safely in cardinal Muller’s hands, (see here) that is in fact a “son of Aperacida” ?
You dear reader will have to stay tuned to find out.
But I will give you a hint: It is not what you think it is!
I will write more on just this topic over the next couple of days.
EF makes a great point here about the utter hypocrisy of the Vatican regarding Magister and Scalfari. If they are so concerned about alleged betrayal of trust as to remove Magister’s credentials, why did they claim Scalfari burned them twice–the first time putting words in the Pope’s mouth, and the second time publishing an interview that was agreed to be a private meeting; and then publish both of them in a little Vatican book which in effect rewarded him?
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2015/06/pleading-for-sandro-magister-and.html
LikeLike
TeamFrancis is just making it up as they go along. They want to crush the Catholic opposition. It is a way to terrify uncomfortable journalists and serves to
motivate their troops. The problem for Franics is that the troops are virtual.
LikeLike
Don’t know who will win the debates on Magister -in the public’s eye–but here’s some info for your idea pile from what Gloria tv. reported today (-still based on the leaked version of course)
“Among others, the text quotes the heterodox Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin… and the Sufi- Ali Al-Khawwas whom the encyclical calls “a spiritual master”.
[Researching this, we found it so interesting we just posted what follows on “Harvesting” and thought we’d leave it here for your perusal, as well….
Teilhard is a familiar red-flag name to us. Sufism was something new–but is apparently as old as Islam.
___
Said to be “the mystical aspect of the Islamic religion”, [insert OCCULT-ALERT here]
with “powerful amassing power” for “rallying its followers to a certain cause”–given credit for making possible the Crusades in the 11th c. and battles with Western colonial powers in the 18th to 19th centuries.
___
Within the organizational structure, Sufism regulates the different obligations individuals have with one another- world-wide; practicing a kind of Islam PLUS.
-Not in conflict, as Sunis are, it survived empires and grew, with its stated aim: “to experience the state of the humankind as it was first created by God” [in direct contact with God.]
===============
“And he to whom this meeting does not happen, has not done a large amount of sending prayers and greetings upon the Messenger of Allah-the amount large enough for him to reach this station.” “And I heard my master ALI AL KHAWWAS say: “The servant does not reach perfection in the station of gnosis until he can meet with the Messenger of Allah- whenever he wants.”
===============
“A Sufi is free to keep his worldly occupation, as has Ali al-Khawwas (poet)” “However, he must follow the guidance of a master of the domain of knowledge (khalifa) as such experience cannot be obtained through book learning.”
–“Beginning as “the Prophet’s Companions who started to pay attention to their souls”, Sufiyya broke away from the rest in the 6th century and developed into Sufism. In 1295,the doctrine formalised, but was not outlawed even after Ottoman takeover ( mid-14th cen.) and thus became one of the Three Islamic doctrines to remain legal in the Empire, along with Sunnism and Folk cult. It continues to play an important political role.
===============
Quote from Sufi Khawwas (Essential Sufism):
“What is done for you – allow it to be done. What you must do yourself – make sure you do it.
===============
With ISIS still in the news and gaining power, it’s possible people continue to worry about world domination in the name of Allah being the goal of Islamic jihad. But will they think to connect the dots between — What is done for you – allow it to be done” and the latest ramblings of a disoriented “Bishop in white” who insists the whole world join him in urging the creation of a New World-Power –in order to save our otherwise doomed- planet from the ravages of man-made climate change? What timing.
LikeLike
It’s an embarrassment that Teilhard has actually been honored with a positive citation in any papal document, let alone an encyclical. The only mention he needs going forward is an anathema sit on his works.
LikeLike
If you read my re-blog of the Rorate Caeli post titled Mood in Rome, you will see an interesting quote from the author. He notices that noone mentions VII nowadays. Except Francis that is. And I am thinking that the reason is that while we had the previous post conciliar popes, VII was the utopian dream that the Church could somehow never get to. Now that Francis ascended, they reached their utopian and it is anything but. It is like that old Churchillian expression about not praying too hard for any one thing, lest your prayers be answered. Therefore, I see Teilhard as an nostalgic thing from Bergoglio’s seminary formation days. According to Jack Tollers, Teilhard with a little Suarez on the side is all that they taught in those days. So to cite him, I think this was Bergoglios weakness. Kind of like the discredited Marxist’s who can’t come to terms with reality.
From looking at Francis, one thing is key to understanding him, and that is this: he is a very ignorant, undisciplined and lazy man. No wonder he went into the priesthood.
T
LikeLike
S.A.,
All these things you say are true, by my reckoning as well.
(In fairness, the REAL dream of the modernists was the election of the Jesuit sophisticate Martini, not this Jesuit wild man from Buenos Aires. And had John Paul II died a decade or so sooner, they might have achieved it. By 2005, his moment had come and gone. So they are left to fantasize about the could-have-beens of a Martini pontificate that never was, not realize that continued collapse would be a *must-have-been.*)
Nonetheless, Teilhard has been given the honor of a papal cite in an encyclical. It functions as a kind of legitimacy, no matter who the author was. It make even more urgent the need for a formal doctrinal condemnation of his thought.
LikeLike
It is coming. I like to think of it as the upcoming Council of Econe.
LikeLike
Dear richardmalcolm1564 and SA,
You may already know this, but just for the record, this wasn’t the first rehab job on deChardin. JPII unbelievably, just a month after being shot on May 13, 1981, had Casaroli send his praises to France:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_020_CasaroliTeilhard.htm
LikeLike
Thks. To be perfectly honest, I never understood the attraction of the Communist era clergy in Poland to the neo-modernist. Maybe it was that they were just plain stupid. I have heard it said about Wojtyla, and supposedly from someone who knew him.
LikeLike