Daily Archives: April 11, 2016
Father Z has a blog post with a comment from Ross Douthat to the new Apostolic Excrementation. I have kept the emphases.
A slippage that follows from this lack of confidence is one of the most striking aspects of the pope’s letter. What the church considers serious sin becomes mere “irregularity.” What the church considers a commandment becomes a mere “ideal.” What the church once stated authoritatively it now proffers tentatively, in tones laced with self-effacement, self-critique.
What this means is very simple: this man has no faith. To him, the rules are an embarrassment, and the commandments obstacles. All the rest flows from there.
We must start saying it out loud: if one speaks faithless words, it is because he has no faith within. This man does not believe in God, full stop.
I notice from various corners the tendency or some orthodox Catholics to react to the Apostolic Excrementation in one of two ways: by saying that some parts raise “concerns”, but there is a lot of good in it, too; or by just ignoring the heresy and say that Pope Francis upheld Catholic doctrine.
Both attitudes are very dangerous, and are an unwitting help offered to Pope Francis.
If I gave you a poisoned cake, would you try to describe my gift as something with a lot of good ingredients in it, but whose poison causes you “concerns”? Heresy is poison for the soul. Francis is trying to poison the faithful with a 260-pages-cake, hoping you focus on the cream and chocolate whilst the poison works on the faithful. No, you would reject the entire cake as poisonous.
The same goes for the “ignore and resist” tactic. Heresy can never be ignored. It is there. It is there for a reason. It is being used as I write this to create a system of “parallel churches”, in which some Countries – or dioceses, or parishes – keep being faithful, whilst Francis allows the others to do as they please, safe in the cover not only of factual complicity, but of a written papal document.
Nor does it matter how much poison there is in the cake. This particular cake does have an awful lot of heretical poison in it; but even if the heresy had been hidden in only one or two footnotes, the heresy would have been just as grave anyway.
Things must be said as they are. The reality of a heretical Pope is blatantly evident. To ignore both the man's obviously heretical mind and the heretical documents he publishes is tantamount to allowing the man to spread his heresy among the weak, the ill-informed, and the stupid, merely because we are confident we aren't going to fall into the trap ourselves.
We don't live in countless little Catholic islands. The heresy spread among others concerns us. It is our duty to warn the weak, the ill-informed, and the stupid about what Francis is doing. To pretend that nothing is happening is not only intellectually dishonest – an awful lot is happening – but it makes the work of Satan, who will much prefer to be ignored by the faithful as he works his “black magic” on the others.
Do not sweep heresy und the rag. Denounce it very loud in your blog, in your office, with your friends, in your parish. Profit from it to teach proper doctrine to the uninformed, who will smile at you as you say the Pope is heretic. Leave a mark. Make people think of you first next time they hear or read about Francis. We are little individually, but we can do a lot all together.
And when you do God's work, numbers don't matter anyway.
With great sadness I read around comments – from extremely orthodox commenters, too – pointing out that the Pope is “changing doctrine”, or promoting a “shift in doctrine”, etc.
Doctrine is synonymous with catechesis, it is the “the act of teaching” and “the knowledge imparted by teaching”. In this case, obviously, the teaching referred to is Divine Truth.
Therefore, there can be no change of doctrine more than there could be a change of truth. Doctrine never changes. If any heretic (like Francis) starts promoting error he is not changing doctrine, he is promoting a false and heretical teaching. This must be said, lest the less soundly educated think that a wayward Pope can, in fact, change doctrine.
As far as this little effort can reach, I encourage everyone to pay attention to their words when speaking of Francis’ willed, heretical, blasphemous deception of the faithful.
Rules and discernment
304. It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being. I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but would endanger the very values which must be preserved with special care.
This paragraph is a preparation for the Mother of All Bombs that is to follow in the next paragraph. The message the Evil Clown here sends is that circumstances can make wrong right. This is another example of “situational ethics”, already examined in previous posts of this series.
The excuse for this is a quote from the Angelic Doctor; a man who, as already stated, would certainly advocate the stake for a man like Francis (after deposition, obviously).
The quote mention, which should be posed in its right context (not transparent from the quote) does not say that there cases in which what is objectively wrong can become right. It merely states that the application of what is right cannot be the same for every situation, and the way we apply action to the right principle can cause damage at times. This is no other that another explanation of the principle of prudence. It does not mean that objective wrong can be justified depending on the concrete situation.
Once again, we see – albeit here in a more subtle manner – heresy at work. It is heresy to state, or even to imply, that the circumstances can make right what is objectively wrong. Every teenager preparing for confirmation (has to) know that. This paragraph is not only misleading; it is not only ambiguous; it is openly and brazenly subversive of Catholic teaching.
Do not be deceived by misleading quotations. The devil can quote the bible. Be guided by what the Church has always taught. Every Catholic text must be read in light of what the Church teaches, and neither the Angelic Doctor nor any sensible catholic would want it any differently.
Francis is not a sensible Catholic. Firstly because he is not sensible, and secondly because he is not Catholic. His texts read like those attacks to the Church, allegedly based on Scriptures, made by Protestants and atheists. The man just hates truth.
May this evil man repent for his blasphemy and arrogance, or may he pay the price for his evil effrontery.