A Cardinal came to Dallas……….. October 30, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, the return.
……and stated that Vatican II signaled an embrace, or tacit acceptance of, modernism by the Church? And not just any Cardinal, but the leading member of the group of 8 “super Cardinals” that are to advise the Pope on how to reform the Church?
Well, he, Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, the leader of Pope Francis’ new cardinalatial advisory body, spoke in Dallas at the University of Dallas Ministry Conference last Friday, to start explicating the Holy Father’s new Church ”reform” agenda for the English-speaking world. One must pray this agenda does not embrace certain aspects of the Cardinal’s speech, which are detailed below. Louis Verrichio feels the mask is dropping, and what we are confronted with is a flag-waving modernist, which Louis incredibly confirms with a world-exclusive pic. The below is from the Cardinal’s speech (I add emphasis and comments):
The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. [Perhaps an arguable statement, but not an objectionable one. But perhaps leading........] In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. [Well, modernism/liberalism/rationalism were condemned numerous times in numerous ways, one of which included condemnatory conciliar statements, but also in encyclicals, syllabii, oaths, etc., etc. Modernism is one of the most well condemned heresies in the history of the Church. It is not possible for something once or many times condemned as error to be later embraced as good and holy, or even acceptable.] On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin [but what of numerous portions of Sacred Scripture that indicate that the world is, indeed, rather sinful and treacherous? What of the counsel of numerous Saints and Doctors to the same effect?] –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. [This is a very broad and easily misinterpreted statement. It's imprudent at best without significant clarification.] Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person. [Uh, no. No, it wasn't. Modernism was an attempt to meld endarkenment liberalism with Catholicism, with the overriding assumption that the rationalist liberalism would always be utterly dominant. As numerous great Popes made clear (Blessed Pius IX, Gregory XVI, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius XI, Venerable Pope Pius XII, etc), such attempts are doomed to fail and will always inevitably result in Catholicism becoming exactly like meaningless, rootless, valueless liberal protestantism - which, coincidentally, ALSO came about by an attempt to meld orthodox protestantism with enlightenment ideals.]
Verrecchio then opines:
Did you catch that? According to this Prince of the Church, a man who is one of just eight handpicked cardinal-advisers to the pope, the Church, thanks to Vatican II, no longer harbors any hostility toward modernism, that which Pope St. Pius X called the “synthesis of all heresies.” [The fundamental tenet of modernism is that "truth" can change, that formal Dogmas of one time can be no longer operative at another time or place. Which makes Christ into just a man, and His Truth into a lie. On another note, the mask has dropped?]
He even plainly acknowledged, lest there be any doubt whatsoever, that the modernism of which he speaks is that same dreadful heresy that was condemned by the First Vatican Council, on which note it states:
“If anyone says: it may happen that to doctrines put forward by the Church, sometimes, as knowledge advances, a meaning should be given different from what the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema.”
In perfect conformity with the church-of-man agenda of which I have written in the past, the justification for this bold public rejection of the Catholic faith is guess what? “The dignity and the rights of the person.” ["Rights and dignities" invented by enlightenment philosphes, men who rejected the Catholic Faith and who warred against it with all their being. Modernism is a direct philosophical descendent of these 18th century philosophes, and operates on the same assumptions - the Bible is full of lies and distortions (Gnosticism), Christ was just a man (Arianism), the only real religious virtue is indifferentist "tolerance" (save for the orthodox, they are to be persecuted mercilessly), there is no Truth revealed by God to man, and even the apotheosis of all this evil: men create "god" through some cosmic connection with the pantheist universal spirit (Teilhard de Chardin), or "god" is created through humanity becoming (becoming......) more and more virtuous and enlightened in the practice of enlightenment liberalism (Rahner).
If that’s not outrageous enough, Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga suggests that modernism – once condemned by an ecumenical council of the Holy Catholic Church [and numerous other statements of the Ordinary Magisterium) – was but a justifiable response to the arrogance of the Catholic Church back when her prelates were faithful enough to profess her as the solitary custodian of the fulness of truth, goodness and virtue. [Yes, that is a rather amazing statement, but one modernists certainly held before and after the Council, men like Rahner, de Lubac, Congar, Konig, etc]
So, if modernism was justifiable, that would make the condemnation at Vatican I, as well as the threefold offensive against modernism of Pope St. Pius X (Pascendi, Syllabus, and Oath) what? Unjustifiable?
Don’t gloss over this point. What we have here is a cardinal of the Catholic Church publicly stating that the solemn condemnations issued at the First Vatican Council, and strengthened by Pope St. Pus X, have been overturned by Vatican II, a pastoral assembly unlike its dogmatic predecessors in kind, having openly declared absolutely nothing as properly binding. (See the Nota Praevia in Lumen Gentium.) [Add to the Nota Praevia the numerous statements by both conciliar popes, which confirmed the pastoral and non-dogmatic nature of the Council. In fact, it was this "pastoral" and non-dogmatic nature which led many concerned, even scandalized prelates, to vote in favor of the more problematic conciliar documents (often under heavy papal pressure), because they were assured even the most ambiguous, or even seemingly erroneous statements, were not "redefining Doctrine," as the Council was just pastoral. But that, according to many sources, was the modernist plan all along, to sell the Council as pastoral but then enforce it afterwards as not only dogmatic, but some kind of super-Council (as lamented by Pope Benedict XVI) which utterly swamped and overturned all that came before it.]
Folks, it doesn’t get much more black and white than this. This is material heresy. [Is it? What else could it be? I'm just a dumb ol' blogger. If not heresy, it is certainly extraordinarily scandalous.]
You can read Cardinal Maradiaga’s speech in its entirety here. The section quoted above was taken in context.
And before we get too carried away, these are the words of a cardinal, not the Holy Father himself. Yes, this man may have great influence, and the statements are extremely troubling, but don’t go running screaming that the papacy has embraced material heresy, because it hasn’t. One blogger’s opinion – as much sense as it may make – is not a definition of error. Furthermore, if we fear any influence this cardinal may have on the Pope, we need to try through prayer, mortification, and perhaps even more public (but prayerful, penitential) action to get the Holy Spirit to influence him even more.
Oh, one more thing, before some opine that Cardinal Maradiaga perhaps doesn’t quite speaka de English so good, he is actually renowned for being extraordinarily fluent. Palmo at Whispers in the Loggia highlighted just that point.