Daily Archives: February 26, 2014

Pius XII And St. Paul On Genesis and Father Barron

Excellent post from this blog page (I hope the link works) with a comparison between Barron’s senseless talk and some sound Catholics like Pope Pius XII and St. Paul.

I invite you to visit the site (the Barron video is posted again), but just in case the blog author were to “pull a Werling” at some point in future it is wise to copy and paste the texts. Emphases of the author. 

—————————————-
From Humani Generis
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
 
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
 
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
From St. Paul

Romans 5:12-19 (RSV) Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned — [13] sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. [17] If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. [18] Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.[19] For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [46] But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. [47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

 Continuing: 

the view of a non-literal, non-historical Adam is also contrary to the understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the second Eve: a motif very common in the Church fathers and in Catholic Mariology ever since their time. If there wasn’t a literal Eve who said “no” to God, then by analogy there would be no literal Mary who said “yes” and made redemption possible, in terms of being the Mother of (the incarnate) God (the Son). 

Therefore, just as the Pauline analogy of Adam and second Adam (Christ) requires a literal understanding, so does the Eve-Mary analogy. Just as there was a literal Adam who really fell (and the human race with him (Rom 5:15; 1 Cor 15:22), thus requiring the redemption of Christ, so there was a real historical Eve who said “no” to God, and hence by analogy, a real Mary who said yes and led the way to redemption by being the Mother of (the incarnate) God.

————-

There is more on the site, which again I invite you to visit. I will do so as time allows. 

I allow myself for now merely to remark that what goes against 2,000 years of Christian thinking must be, after a two-seconds reflection, forcibly wrong even if it seems to appease the fashion of the time. Once again, it is proven a peasant with a pure heart and respect for what is taught to him has a better sensus catholicus than these vainglorious bringers of novelty and confusion, who remind me rather of Monthy Python’s crazy prophets.   

I for myself will continue to pray the Blessed Virgin: “To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve”. No, I mean in the literal sense. Really.  

Please, Lord: if these people are intelligent, let me die stupid.  

Mundabor

Father Barron And The Non-Violent God.

Listening to the video of Father Barron about the Adam that “stands for arts, for science, for politics, for conversation, for friendship” and all that crap rather than being, well, Adam as the Bible says and we stupid Christians have believed all this time, another senseless comparison should get our attention: the non-violent God.  

Barron, like Francis, is so bent on making God palatable to modern sensitivities, that he forgets God in the process. Therefore, he must concoct a “non-violent” God who, in Gandhi-like fashion, creates the world without those horrible bloody conflicts  present in other mythologies.  

As he speaks, Barron is so pleased with himself – you see it all the time in that kind of half smirk he always carries on his face; as if he were amusedly surprised that humanity had to wait for him to properly understand things – that he neglects to mention the many episodes in which God is all but non-violent. You should just ask the Sodomites for some info. You would be surprised. Hhmmm… not much Gandhi there. 

Barron is the perfect priest of the Francis’ era.

A smiling rapist of Truth, for the sake of an applause. 

Mundabor

Father Barron And No End

And it came to pass Father Barton told us Adam is a literary figure. Google it please, I have no time for the video link right now.

Let us think this to the end.

If Adam is a literary figure, then we cannot have inherited Original Sin from him. There can, in fact, be no Original Sin whatsoever, then there would be no single origin for it. But Originsl Sin is the reason why Christ died on the cross: to redeem us from it.

If, therefore, Adam is a literary figure, then everything can become a literary device. Did Jesus really die on the Cross to free us from… well, what exactly?

I suspect one could go on forever with this train of thought, and carpet bomb Christianity until only Father Barron and Bishop Francis thinks it's still the religion of our forefathers.

I am eagerly awaiting for Barton to offer retract action and apology.

By the way, his arrogant and rebellious statements are beautiful evidence that he is, most certainly, a descendant of Adam and Eve.

But then again, this is one who thinks hell might be empty…

Mundabor


Pontiff Emeritus Quashes Speculations

Only one of these two is Pope. Even if he is the wrong one.

The Pontiff Emeritus has officially reacted to Andrea Tornielli's recent questions about the supposed background of his resignation, and has invited to stop absurd speculations.

If you ask me, he was very right in saying a word or three, because such speculations damage the institutions of the Papacy, and we should not damage the Papacy merely because we have an atrocious Pope.

It goes without saying that the conspiracy ultras will not be satisfied with this. If one thinks the Pope was horribly blackmailed into resigning, he will believe his latest statements have the same cause as the resignation. This is the beauty, so to speak, of all conspiracy theories, whose followers are by definition able to persuade themselves of absolutely everything they wish without reality having to provide any concrete evidence of what they believe. It's all secret, you know.

Still, I rather hope reasonable and sensible people will now definitely stop every conjecture on the matter. Not to do so means to insult Benedict to the point of considering him not only cowardly enough to give in to blackmail, but outright servile in that he keeps marching towards his grave with such a weight on his conscience.

The Church does not believe in lesser evils. If a Pope is threatened with a huge scandal unless he resigns, he has the duty not to resign whatever evil may come out of the scandal. This, assuming that the unearthing of a scandal is the evil, rather than the scandalous facts themselves. A Pope can simply not accept to be strong-armed into resigning his office. Popes haven't resigned faced with Napoleon and the possible devastation of Catholicism all over Napoleonic Europe. Just imagine if a Pope should resign to avoid some sex or abuse or financial scandal.

Please let us stop this, and let us be real.

Benedict freely decided to resign. Whether we like it or not.

Mundabor

 

Damning With Very Faint Praise: Sandro Magister On Francis

torpedo

Sandro Magister is a veteran journalist. He does not express himself with the virulence of a blog writer. He couldn’t, because he writes for others.

As I have already written in the past, there is a way of saying things in Italy which, whilst probably diffused everywhere, is particularly developed in the Italian political discourse, and very much so when the topic is the Holy Father.

I have already written about the petition of the centre-right newspaper Il Foglio,  also officially praising Francis whilst he is petitioned to show some, well, pontifical attributes already. No, let me rephrase it: to show some balls, which hasn’t happened up to now.

Very recently, Sandro Magister has intervened on the issue, but in a far more robust manner. Again, this being Italy and the Pope you must read between the lines. Which, in this case, isn’t really difficult. The emphases are mine.

The incipit/presentation already sets the tone:

A UN report humiliates the Church while exalting the current pontiff. Who is not reacting and is even remaining silent after Belgium has legalized the euthanasia of children. The risks of the strategy of silence adopted by Bergoglio.

This is devastating. The Church is humiliated. Francis is exalted. Fine with him. So desirous he is of popularity that he shuts up even after the Belgian euthanasia law. His strategy is to shut up and be popular. No, really, read it again, and notice the words I have emphasised. This is what the article says, in the only way in which it can be said.  If anything, one is surprised at the bluntness.

[…] the cover dedicated to him by the magazine “Rolling Stone,” a full-fledged coronation in the temple of pop culture.

That’s another one. A Pope for the stupid masses. A T-shirt image. The pop culture icon. No, these are not compliments. But boy, this is said in a smart way.

 “Or the commendation that by the report of the UN committee on the rights of the child has bestowed on the famous “Who am I to judge?” spoken by Pope Francis, the only one spared in a Catholic Church against which the worst of the worst is said in the same report”.

The unspeakable is told against the Church’s teaching. Francis only is spared, even praised. As the teacher would have asked at school: “Mundabor, what does the author want to say?” Well, mam’, isn’t it clear enough?

It is not easy to enter into the mind of pope Bergoglio. His words are like the tiles of a mosaic whose design is not immediately apparent. He also makes tough and biting remarks, but never at a moment in which they could generate conflict.

Let me rephrase this for you: “No one knows what the heck this man is thinking. His confused statements are all over the place, and do not make sense at all. He is only able to throw punches in the air when there is no adversary around, but he is nowhere to be seen whenever his words would cause opposition from the world”

“And yet it is precisely there that the concealed thought of the Jesuit pope is to be found, his judgment on the present era of the world”.

“What the man thinks, he does not say. He is a Jesuit, you see”.

“The view of the Church is known, and I am a son of the Church,” Francis says and says again. His thought is the same as that which is written in the catechism. And sometimes he recalls this combatively for those who expect him to change doctrine, as in the least-cited passage of his “Evangelii Gaudium,” where he has the harshest of words against the “right” to abortion. But he never proclaims Church teaching out loud at a moment when the dispute over an issue has become heated”.

“He manages to be, at times, Catholic when his official orthodoxy (in which we desperately want to believe, or at least we must say so) can be buried in the middle of a 50,000 words mega-statement, never mentioned by the press. But when there is some heated discussion, he invariably chickens out”.

“He has kept quiet now that the euthanasia of children has been permitted by law in Belgium. He keeps himself apart from the millions of citizens of every faith who in France and in other countries are opposing the dissolution of the idea of the family made up of father, mother, and children. He has remained silent after the unprecedented affront of the UN report”.

“He shuts up about euthanasia, sodomy and destruction of the family, and the unprecedented affront of the EU report. There’s nothing he would not shut up about, if speaking would make him unpopular”.

“With this he intends to blunt the weapons of the adversary. To defeat him with the immense popularity of his figure as pastor of the mercy of God”.

“Look, I have already told you no one knows what the heck the man is doing. I do not want to end up like the “Radio Maria” journalists. So please bear with me and pretend you believe this rubbish”.

“There is also this in the popularity of Francis, a pope “like never before,” finally “one of us,” molded through a copy-and-paste of his open, adaptable statements”.

“The Pope speaks stupid slogans for the masses, that everyone can highjack for his own purposes. Copy-and-paste fluff. That’s why he is popular whilst the Church is insulted”.

“This worldly cunning could not have been used against his predecessor, Benedict XVI. He, the meek one, preferred conflict in the open field, with the courage of the yes that means yes and the no that means no, “in season and out of season,” as in Regensburg, when he lifted the curtain on the theological roots of the connection between faith and violence in Islam, and yet again on the “non-negotiable” questions. This is why the world was so ferocious with him”.

“Can you see the difference? Benedict did not shun the fight, and the world hated him ferociously. Francis avoids anything vaguely resembling a conflict with the world, and the world adores him”.

I have no doubt whatsoever some rather angry phone calls will be directed at the editor of the “Espresso”; a magazine which, whilst undoubtedly leftist, cherishes its supposed unbiased attitude towards issues near to the heart of the Country, and its link to its more moderate readership. Without a doubt, a soft but suitable pressure will be gently applied to the star journalist who must not be allowed to have his own foreign policy; and who, obviously, already knows it, and knows what he can write and how he can avoid breaking too much china.

Wait for some weakly praising articles of Bergoglio from the same author in the days and weeks to come. Alas, it’s how things are done in Italy. First, no enemies.

Still, those who can read will understand the implications, and will know what’s brewing. Plenty of those intelligent and informed readers in Italy; a country that whilst generally very blunt can be – exactly because of the dangers of the usual bluntness – full of subtle communications codes, and where even murders can be and in fact are commissioned without the need to give an explicit order.

Make no mistake, this was a huge torpedo. The Italian way, that is.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: