Words Fail: Kasper calls Francis “radical pope,” says he has papal support on divorcees receiving Eucharist May 21, 2014
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the return.trackback
Well I’m certain Cardinal Kasper, quite radical himself, certainly hopes Francis is radical. I guess we’ll see what develops in the next 6 months.
Find below an amazing set of quotes from Cardinal Kasper via FideCogitActio (emphasis from Fide, I lied, I do have comments):
“This pope is not a liberal pope. He is a radical pope! … This pope goes back to the gospel [But great Saints like Pius X, Pius V…….apparently they did not go back to the Gospel! What a calumny!] . … I told the pope, ‘Holy Father, there will be a controversy [after the consistory]. … The pope laughed and told him, ‘That’s good, we should have that!’ … I do not know if my proposals will be acceptable…. I made them in agreement with the pope, I did not do them just myself. I spoke beforehand with the pope, and he agreed.” …[This is extremely troubling if true. And I’m afraid we have more than just the self-serving claims of one modernist, we do have a great deal of evidence that Pope Francis is quite sympathetic to Kasper’s “novelties,” which aren’t novelties at all, but yet another form of the endless temptation to create “god” in our own image]
Kasper said he was confident that the process of debate that Francis had launched on the topic of family life and sexuality would in the end produce some significant reforms, in part “because there are very high expectations.” [And so you see how the process works. Create “expectations” by publicly undermining Dogma. Create expectations through a very heavy PR campaign. Use a friendly media to advance your campaign. Then say the “popular will” must be satisfied, no matter how erroneous it is. This has been the primary strategy of the modernists since 1958]
He noted that the church has often changed, or “developed,” over the centuries, and quite recently in the 1960s when, for example, the Second Vatican Council reversed long-standing teachings against religious freedom and dialogue with other believers. [No, the Church has never “developed” like it has in the past 50 years, which many faithful souls see as a terrible retrograde development. Dogma cannot change. But if you make up fuzzy definitions of what constitutes Dogma, you can get away with a great deal, and that is precisely what modernists have done. UPDATE: I wanted to add a bit about this statement in bold above. “Reversed long-standing teachings”…..that is certainly what many traditional Catholics think. Many modernists, of course, think VII did, too, for opposite reasons. This is one of the critical areas of VII that really needs to be worked out by holy popes and theologians, to reconcile this novel approach to “religious freedom,” if possible, to the entire Magisterium. I won’t hold my breath. But here we have a prince of the Church arguing that Vatican II did indeed attempt to change Church Doctrine. While others say no, that can’t happen. How are the faithful to make heads or tails of such a situation? Perhaps that confusion is the point?]
Kasper reiterates that he’s not advocating a change in the church’s dogma on the sanctity of marriage, [I’m sorry, but this is just BS] but a change in the “pastoral practice” about who can receive Communion. “To say we will not admit divorced and remarried people to Holy Communion? That’s not a dogma [noumenon]. That’s an application [phenomenon] of a dogma in a concrete pastoral practice. This can be changed.” [Absolutely it’s a vast change in Dogma, and essentially argues that the State of Grace no longer exists, or doesn’t matter. Kasper is saying anyone, regardless of sinfulness, is fit to receive the Blessed Lord in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. This is directly counter to Scripture (perhaps Cardinal Kasper has forgotten 1 Cor 11:27-29, since it has been excised from the Novus Ordo) and the constant Tradition of the Faith. As FideCogitActio notes, the modernists are conducting their campaign of practically obliterating Dogma in the exact same manner that the Arians did 1700 years ago.]
Kasper said it is the voice of the faithful that has made the difference. “The strongest support comes from the people, and you cannot overlook that,” he said.
“If what people are doing and what the church is teaching, if there is an abyss, that doesn’t help the credibility of the church,” he said. “One has to change.”
———End Quote———
OF COURSE! And so we see a prelate, who has spent absolutely NONE of his time in the past 50 years since the Council trying to get the “faithful” to adhere to the constant belief and practice of the Church, now just give up! Maybe that was the plan all along, eh? Modernists want the Church to be indistinguishable from liberal protestant sects that have embraced every modern error conceivable, and at the same time committed effective suicide in doing so. What a great future they have planned for a billion souls!
There’s an old joke in The Simpsons. Ned Flanders had beatnik parents, and when young Ned begins acting out due to lack of discipline, the exasperated parents tell a child psychologist: “We’ve tried absolutely nothing, man, and we’re all out of ideas!”
Does that not describe the leadership we’ve seen in the past 50 years? “We haven’t tried even a little bit to teach you people the Faith, and now that you’re lost in error, we give up!”
Don’t you like it when a plan comes together? First contraception, now divorce. From these two you can essentially unwind all Catholic moral Dogma. This modernist approach is very much like their approach with the fake, ginned up “vocations-crisis.” Modernists fomented the crisis by blocking thousands of young men from ordination, in order to force a situation where the priesthood would, in effect, no longer exist.
I will remind people that this matter is really NOT about divorce, remarriage, or any of the rest of the smokescreens. This is about redefining either/or/both the Church’s belief about sin and the State of Grace, and the reality of the Blessed Sacrament. The entire moral Dogma of the Faith can essentially be destroyed through this “pastoral” application. There will literally be nothing left of sin, and we may as well be unitarians.
None of the above is to accept Kasper’s claims regarding Pope Francis’ support for his errors as factual. But a number of events would suddenly make much more sense if Kasper is being truthful, or even somewhat truthful.
But then again, Pope Paul VI really wanted to change the Church’s stance on contraception, but something – many think the intervention of the Holy Ghost – prevented that from occurring.
Not that we should be complacent and simply trust in the Holy Ghost, as laudable a thing to do as that is. These guys are maneuvering to do to bigamists receiving the Blessed Sacrament what they did to contraception, if not worse. They plan on making the Doctrine meaningless, practically speaking. So much prayer is called for, and possibly, more concrete action. I’m not sure what that would entail, but sending a letter Apostolic Nuncio and the Holy See probably wouldn’t hurt.
Lord, we surely must be great sinners to deserve shepherds such as these. Have mercy on us!
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 
A good post. Be angry but not fearful, and remember Padre Pio: “Pray, hope, and do not worry.”
St Nicholas, please pray for us and raise up a fist to slug Kasperathanasius at the Synod.
Pope Paul VI didn’t really say no to contraception, if you think about it. He said no to man made pills. He gave an exception in the form of NFP. Just like he did for communion in the hand. He said no to communion in the hand but then carved an exception to those who wanted it anyway. He was a very smart fox in sheep’s clothing.
If you read that post I linked, that is much the thrust of it. Paul VI declaimed contraception but in the very act of doing so actually undermined the traditional approach to such moral evils by accepting many arguments of the pro-contracept side.
Interesting comment. Much to think about.
Just call me late to the party!
linked this post …
Much to pray for!
P^3
George Weigel recently wrote an essay in First Things, “Humanae Vitae: What if?” in which he pondered what might have happened if Paul Vi had actually adopted wholesale the personalist approach advocated by then-Cardinal Wojtyla and his theologian commission in Krakow. “What if Paul VI had adopted the Cracovian approach to presenting the truths he taught in Humanae Vitae? What if the encyclical had been built upon a less formalistic, even abstract, view of the human person and human sexuality?”
The obvious answer to me (kicked out by FT’s now much more stringent moderators) was that it really didn’t matter much what the reasoning of HV was if no one in the Church hierarchy made any effort to a) engage its text or b) bother to enforce it down the line in theology departments, diocesan and parish catechesis, or Catholic schools. All most Catholics knew, in that dim primitive pre-Internet Age of 1968, was that the Pope had come out against the Pill, and that pretty much all the local Catholic authorities thought Paul VI had lost the plot, or were simply indifferent. Maybe Paul VI’s reasoning was a wink and a nod, but if it was, I wonder if it really mattered. The real message was sent, and very powerfully, when he slapped down bishops like Cardinal O’Boyle when they tried to discipline dissenting priests and theologians – and turned a benign eye to conference’s like Canada’s when they issued hardly veiled corporate dissents. Don’t get me wrong: What needed to be said in 1968 was said much more coherently by Pius XI in Casti Connubii in 1931. But what’s it matter if no one reads it or engages it?
As regards NFP: Let us not forget that it was Pius XII that cracked open the door to natural family planning in his 1951 Address to Italian Midwives – which in turn was an attempt to clarify just what was meant by the permission of “virtuous continence” mentioned by Pius XI. Yet if this opening has been subsequently widened, and has contributed to a “contraceptive mentality” in some NFP promotion and instruction (which does exist), I also think it fair to say that vast majority of otherwise healthy couples I know who have practiced NFP have reasonably sizable families – certainly well beyond the 1.6 TFR that currently obtains among college educated American women. That doesn’t mean some of them haven’t sinned in their use, just that the aggregate seems to suggest it’s not a dire problem.
All of which is to say that I don’t discount the concerns made here, but I think they’re not in the main mother lode of lethal ore we’re about to see dug up. It’s the change in doctrine through its praxis that Roberto de Mattei has spoken of, through public messaging, enforcement, personnel appointments and discipline, just as we saw happen in 1968. I fear it is about to happen again, even as I expect that the formal doctrine will be left nominally intact.
Yes, that is exactly what is being planned. It will be a re-run of the ‘successful’ 1968 play.
As an NFP mom of 8, who helped start and run a lay run orthodox Catholic school, and knowing many other NFP Catholic families at that school, I can say that although some may use NFP with a contraceptive mentality the folks I know do not.
Thank you. But I have heard popular NFP advocates blithely state its just fine to use NFP for decades and to have NO children, pretty much regardless of circumstances. That’s the Pia de Sollenni/Teresa Tomeo position I’ve heard many times.
I should say more. Having 8 kids is such a beautiful act of generosity. I don’t know how your NFP coupled into that, but I wish we had 8 kids.
Regarding 1951: The old “rhythm method” was around as early as the 1930’s and 1940’s. This calendar method was about 80% effective. Many of our mothers and grandmothers used it. That may have been what Pius XII meant when referring to continence.
Many of our mothers and grandmothers had generous families. My mother had four, and my Methodist grandmother did not marry until she was 35, and was blessed to have five biological children. My grandmother had my dad at 45.
P.S. if Cardinal Kasper is misrepresenting what Pope Francis said to him – and I think there’s a fair chance of that, given some of His Eminences past statements – then the Holy See has an obligation to correct the record quickly and forcefully. Preferably by the Holy Father himself, in person.
Otherwise…
Be proactive, write the Pope a letter:
His Holiness, Pope Francis
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
Remember: short gets read, long gets thrown in the trash.
Thank you!
Here’s a contrarian scenario: Kasper realizes this is his only chance to change the Church, and is emptying all his ammunition, regardless of whether he’s lying, exaggerating, or misrepresenting. That scenario is one that gives me hope that the Holy Father would never be on board with this madness, and Kasper is pushing for a popular revolution of the sensum fidei that splits the Church, i.e., a nouveau-Reformation. I pray for Francis.
That’s certainly possible. I think the first part of your comment is entirely right and extends well beyond Kasper, but to the entire progressive wing of the Church. They are rapidly dying out, and they are determined to enforce as much of their “vision” as they can while they still have power.
I imagine they also hope to raise up a new generation of acolytes, but I doubt they’ll have much success.
[…] only human way to provide a check, then, is outside pressure. Which gets me back to my post yesterday, and this helpful bit from commenter […]
The progressive wing of the Church is dying rapidly? I first heard that during the 1960s.
Reblogged this on mariaangelagrow.
This ongoing confusion and ambiguity in the Church is getting really tiresome.
Is it too much to expect from our Church that it give us the faith, pure and unchanged. Don’t we have a right, a baptismal right to have the Catholic faith given to us rather than theological opinions and half-baked modernist theories?
The pope needs to simply repeat the already established doctrine and teachings of the Church, let those who agree, agree and those that don’t leave.
This confusion is killing the Church.
I wish the Cardinal would not keep referring to the changes in the 60′s as that is the very point in question. The Church has CHANGED her teachings well before the 1960′s. The most obvious change was on usury but there were others as well.
Michael Hoffman, an historian with a special interest in Catholic social history, has written a book on the subject of usury in Christendom.