Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Suicide Bombers
Yesterday we left off our analysis of the Heretical Clericalist group that is one of the TRIPARTITE represented at the bi-Synods. We focuses on the designated leader and key decision maker, Cardinal Walter Kasper and tried to gauge his personal TRUE AGENDA in the promotion of the GENDER IDEOPLOGY onto Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law by the German Bishops’ Conference leadership.

To quickly summarize what we ascertained, it is this:

Since the entire SYNOD CRISIS that came to light on the 22nd of October was in fact “resolved” within the Circulus Germanicus, and that three of the four main players were German theologians, with the fourth being a German (Ost-deutsche) diplomat, we posited that at its root, this bi-synod process was nothing more than a “theological” disagreement between two German theological schools of thought. Both schools are grounded in the Nouvelle Théologie neo-Modernists school branch developed by the Heretical Clericalist Karl Rahner S.J.

Here is how we described Cd. Kaspers role in this affair: (emphasis added)

Which brings us back to Cardinal Kasper. What we see is in essence a figure who spent his whole life promoting a theological/philosophical school of thought that time had passed by. He knows that Rahnerism has passed its due date, which is why he is so terrified of a Schism. In other words, he wants to hedge his bets, unlike that other Modernist dimwhit in white. But I digress… Instead of moving on with the zeitgemäß of the times, Kasper is trying to keep the Rahnerist hope alive. And he is doing it with sheer will.

This is where we pick up today.

The present day theological debate which is at the root of the bi-Synod and specifically the SYNOD CRISIS is in essence one between the hard-line Rahnerists and what can be termed a reformed Rahnerist fellow traveler. The hard-line Rahnerist, Cardinal Kasper is the contemporary “keeper of the IDEOLOGICAL Rahnerist flame”. Benedict XVI in turn, is the former Rahner contemporary (see here) whose criticism of Rahnerism and the Second Vatican Council over the years, has earned him an irrational hatred from the Rahnerist hardliners in general and from the hotbed of contemporary Rahnerism, which is the German Bishops’ Conference.

On an aside, we have dealt with Rahner and the Rahnerist network in two posts titled Dei Power Ball (see here) and The Network (see here).

Back to the subject at hand. To illustrate the emotional investment that the Rahnerists who control the German Bishops’ Conference have in hating Benedict, a story related by Michael Davies helps explain:

MD: Yes. He [Kasper] and his fellow German, Lehmann, were made Cardinals. You see there is no chance of Cardinal Ratzinger being made Pope. The job of Kasper and Lehmann is to go to the conclave and stop anyone Ratzinger supports from being made Pope. (see here)

Which brings us to the issue of how Rahner figures into the big picture with respect to the present decisions made by both the Heretical Clericalists and the Secretariat.

If you recall dear reader, from our post titled The Real Jorge Bergoglio? (see here), we noted the following passage pertaining to the situation at the Argentinian seminaries during the time that the young Mr Jorge Bergoglio was in attendance:

Take Bergoglio, for example. His studies amount to nothing substantial. The Jesuits over here have no professors worthy of the name, the subjects were tossed about in an un-scholarly manner, the philosophy would never be properly taught (and, it would only be crassly digested Suárez in the best of cases). The theology seats had been all but captured by badly trained Jesuits who were prone to repeat the last of Teilhard’s work, or Rahner’s, when not divulging the Liberation Theology’s tenets (the Nouvelle Theologie never made it over here, few people could read French or German, and St. Thomas was all but perfectly ignored).

Given the above, one would not be taking a large leap by inferring that the young Bergoglio was not only introduced to Rahner, but likewise overexposed to the German Heretical Clericalist’s work. Remember, there is a lot of it out there.

So let us see if we can find any evidence that connects Francis and the Rahnerists.

First connection comes from the Kasper groups lineage. From our The Network post, the following is written:

Fifty years after Vatican II, Rahner’s shadow is hovering once again over the Catholic Church, making his voice heard in the pro-homosexual positions of some of his followers, younger than Lehmann and Kasper, like Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx and Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte.

Furthermore, we have been able to gain an insight into the mindset of Francis from one of his closest co-workers and his personal ghost writer, the Titular Bishop of Tiberunia, Archbishop Victor Manuel “the kissing expert” Fernandez. We profiled the Archbishop in our post titled The Loose Canon, where he gave the following answer to the question of whether Francis can live away from the Vatican: (see here – emphasis added)

Would it be possible to have a pope without Vatican or away from the Vatican?

“The Roman Curia is not an essential structure. The pope could even go and live away from Rome, have a dicastery in Rome and another one in Bogota, and perhaps link-up by teleconference with liturgical experts that live in Germany. Gathered around the pope, in a theological sense, is the College of Bishops in order to serve the people.”

I did not appreciate the “fuller” implications of this answer during that time. But when I started to look at the decision tree diagram, and looking for evidence to support the HYPOTHESIS that Francis is in fact “trying to blow up the Vatican”, i.e. trying to destroy the Church as Our Lord founded it, this piece of the puzzle came into place.

The notion that Francis can “live away from Rome” and teleconference with theology experts “liturgical experts that live in Germany” is pure and unadulterated Rahnerism.

Allow me to explain.

One of Rahner’s much cited theories is about the development of the post-conciliar Church. In this respect, Rahner is definitely in the Bologna School camp and a forefather of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” paradigm. Here is now he sees the post-conciliar Church developing: (see here – emphasis added)

In addition to the lingering effects of his work during Vatican II on the post-conciliar Church, Rahner would continue to make contributions to the Church through his ideas and writings. In 1979 Rahner wrote an essay in which he discussed the lasting effects of Vatican II and its newly recognized role as a world church. In his essay Rahner divided church history into three periods. The first period was “that short period of Jewish Christianity (A.D. 30-49) when Christianity was proclaimed within one culture only: Israel” (McCarthy, 64). The second period was a period in which the gospel “was proclaimed not in Jewish culture but in the Roman-Hellenistic culture in European and, eventually North American culture and civilization. Christianity and western culture were goods exported to the cultures of Africa, Latin America, India, and the Orient” (McCarthy, 64). Finally, the third period emerged with the beginning of Vatican II when the “church appeared for the first time as a world church in a fully official way. The church had found ways to formulate and incarnate the gospel within the traditions and customs of each culture” (McCarthy, 64).

And then here is how this summary of this seminal Rahner essay ends:

Rahner said that the signs of this change were obvious. He pointed out that the council had “brought together indigenous representatives of all the world’s countries and cultures; it advocated the vernacular in the liturgy; it highlighted the authority of bishops in their dioceses; it recognized the autonomy and independence of regional or national churches; it expressed an opening to the world and historical consciousness; it made the first truly positive statements about other religions; and it produced the document on religious liberty” (McCarthy, 64-65). Rahner concluded his essay, however, with a warning. Despite the changes that had already been brought about in the Church, Rahner believed that the church still had many steps to take in becoming de-Europeanized and de-Romanized. He felt that if the Church did not take these steps “it would remain a western church and, in the final analysis, betray the meaning of Vatican II and aggiornamento” (McCarthy, 65).

Concluding, what we see is in the above text is in essence a road map of the Francis pontificate. Just in this one paragraph, we see the mainstays of what we call the Buenos Aires School, i.e. finding “ways to formulate and incarnate the gospel within the traditions and customs of each culture”; bringing “together indigenous representatives of all the world’s countries and cultures”; “advocated the vernacular in the liturgy; highlighted the authority of bishops in their dioceses; recognized the autonomy and independence of regional or national churches; expressed an opening to the world; historical consciousness and positive statements about other religions” and right down to the “pro-homosexual positions of some of his followers, younger than Lehmann and Kasper, like Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx and Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte”.

Sound familiar?

But that is not the scary part. The scary part is this:

Rahner believed that the church still had many steps to take in becoming de-Europeanized and de-Romanized. He felt that if the Church did not take these steps “it would remain a western church and, in the final analysis, betray the meaning of Vatican II and aggiornamento”

And if there is one thread that runs consistently and constantly through the Francis pontificate, it is the de-Romanisizing and de-Europeanizing of the Roman Catholic Church.

But what is even scarier, is this: if the decision tree diagram and analysis in our present post titled Kasper’s Triumph Of The Will is correct, the implications are as follows:

while the hardline Rahnerist went and cut a deal with the Catholic Synod Fathers and Cardinal Muller in order to NOT PRECIPITATE A SCHISM,

Francis’ actions of submitting the Instrumentum Laboris in the last-minute, in Italian only to the Synod Fathers, must be viewed as follows:

FRANCIS, was attempting to provoke the Synod Fathers into rejecting his proposed FINAL RELATIO, intended on provoking a FAILED SYNOD and create an environment which would lead to a SCHISM.

In other words…

we have a SUICIDE BOMBER Problem in the VATICAN!

Advertisements