jump to navigation

A Cardinal came to Dallas……….. October 30, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo 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?Maradiaga2

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.


1. DiscipleoftheDumbOx - October 30, 2013

Oh, good grief and Lord, have mercy!

DiscipleoftheDumbOx - October 30, 2013

He looks like an older version of one of the Castros of Texas. Just saying…

2. Janet Baker - October 30, 2013

Perhaps you ought to mention also–he’s good looking. Didn’t I describe for you a mass he celebrated that I attended in New Orleans in 2008? He’s good looking and he’s completely political–the sermon was completely political, about seizing power. And he’s close to power. It’s liberation theology. Listen, we should go running off screaming. Our hope is in the cardinals declaring this as manifest heresy, whether it’s Maradiaga’s or Francis.’ Thank you Tantumergo for posting this. Be afraid, be very afraid.

tantamergo - October 30, 2013

Forgive me for not remembering that! Yes, you did discuss that. Interesting…..I think we are in for some wild times, my friends.

3. Elaine Murray - October 30, 2013

That cardinal just declared himself and the Vatican II system to be heretical (what the Church condemned before is certainly heresy). The dogma of the faith teaches that heresy severs from the Church: “Not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy… only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith…” (Mystici Corporis, 23, 22, Pope Pius XII). “The doctrine of the apostles is the true faith.” (Satis Cognitum, 32, Pope Leo XIII). Modernism, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality etc. are not part of “the doctrine of the apostles.” but were condemned before by the Church. It is bound to happen that some day Vatican II will be condemned and anathematized and its proponents formally excommunicated as they are before God.

4. RC - October 30, 2013

If she stuff floating around the blog world. Is Pope Francis a material heretic? And if he is, what exactly does that mean?

RC - October 30, 2013

I’ve seen**

DiscipleoftheDumbOx - October 30, 2013


RC - October 30, 2013

There was a comment on another blog calling, or alluding to Pope Francis being a material heretic. What does that mean?

tantamergo - October 30, 2013

It means his actions support heresy. Formal heresy is directly proclaiming something false and counter to the Faith to be true.

But really, don’t think too much about Popes and heresy. We are not in the position to make that call.

tantamergo - October 30, 2013

I will say no. We can’t make that determination. Good Lord, please don’t take that from this post. This is a cardinal speaking. Not the Pope. Huge difference.

Even if the Pope uttered something utterly scandalous, we really cannot judge that statement as lay people. Even doing so with a Cardinal is a reach, which is why I use a lot of question marks.

5. LaGallina - October 30, 2013

Rocco Palmo’s blog post on this was highly disturbing. http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-councils-unfinished-business.html

First off, he referred to the Cardinal as a “vice-pope” and basically said that we are so lucky to get a state-side visit from the right-hand man of Pope Francis only 7 short months after the pope’ selection.

Palmo’s celebrated the wonderful direction the Church was taking under Francis. He was down-right giddy. I just felt sick to my stomach as I read the Bishop’s horrifying (and heretical!) words.

Oh God, please have mercy on us.

tantamergo - October 30, 2013

I thought Palmo was being tongue in cheek. He writes everything with over the top enthusiasm, almost in a mocking sense.

He has to be careful. He has a lot of friends in high places, who if he took the wrong (re: critical) tone, would not be his friends anymore, and his career finished.

LaGallina - October 30, 2013

Oh, I didn’t know that. I’ve only read him every now and then, and hadn’t ever really noticed anything but straight-up news. Recently, though, a mainstream news agency linked to him about the pope’s “who am I to judge” comment, and he did seem to be happy about the “new attitude” from the Church towards gays and other liberals.

But, then, I have no idea since I don’t read him too often. Whispers in the Loggia was the first Catholic blog I ever read. I heard about it on NPR a few years back when I was a new Catholic and still an NPR listener.

6. Hannah - October 31, 2013

We’re in for some very troubling times. I can see it now.

No, Your Eminance, Modernism IS and always will be, the synthesis of all heresies. You are a Modernist yourself and you know it. I don’t accept a word you say because I cannot believe what you’re saying and what the Church has always said. Period.

Pray for Holy Mother Church. Her Passion continues…

7. G. L. - October 31, 2013

Just for the record – the Cardinal’s name is Cardinal Rodriguez, or Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, but not Cardinal Maradiaga. In Spanish fashion, the mother’s full name (Maradiaga, in this case), can be added, but the father’s name, which comes first, is the person’s family name. Thanks for your wonderful post.

8. John - October 31, 2013

Well, I read and/or skimmed the entire speech; I didn’t find anything terribly new. I’m sure the ultra-right can read determined modernism into this just the same as the ultra-left can (I guess) read an endorsement of taxation and regulation.

I think both assessments fail to comprehend what he really said.

So, now, we’ll go through a few more months of the Western debate, with right and left STILL slugging each other with idiocy.

It’d be nice if both sides would cease and desist with telling Pope Francis or his cardinal about what they–the right and left–know they–the Pope and the cardinal–meant.
It’d be nice if they’d quit reading things into the speech that aren’t there and get busy evangelizing.

Woody - October 31, 2013

Perhaps you should read, and not skim, some articles on the heresy of modernism. Ambiguity is one of the tools of a modernist. One could say that the Cardinal’s speech had many statements with a “poor choice of words.” Now, I am not saying the Cardinal is a modernist but I do find his choice of words troubling. And his speech was not off the cuff. It was written beforehand. So, with many people trying to figure out what he meant, it is scary that, along with the Pope, one has to scratch his head and ask, “What does he mean when he uses that word or phrase?” Remember, there is a heresy called modernism. And this Cardinal did say that, in principle, Vatican II did put an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism. And then he points to the word he used “modernism” as being condemned in the First Vatican Council. Is he referring to the heresy of modernism? Perhaps you don’t think so. However, I am not sure. Thus, the “failure to comprehend.”

tantamergo - October 31, 2013

Yes, modernists thrive on ambiguity. In point of fact, they use the same, orthodox terminology but with a radically different meaning attached, so that Holy Communion becomes a symbol of communal love, the Resurrection a figment of the Apostle’s imagination, Divine Revelation the gradual growth of “understanding” within the Christian community which made up essentially lies to sell their nascent religion to others, etc.

Another thing modernists do is reject the principle of non-contradiction. That is to say, they pretend that something can be a “truth” at one point in the Church’s existence, but not applicable at another. Therefore, the Syllabus of Errors was valid for 1864, but not 1964. They go even further, and pretend that well defined Dogmas can have different meanings to different people, such that they can reject the Dogma on one level, but “adhere” to it on another.

In this way, the Resurrection never happened in historical reality, but it did “happen” in the hearts of the faithful. The same for essentially any miracle. There is the truth of history and real event, and the “truth” of faith. Mind, the former always trumps the latter when ever there is some conflict between the two.

But words do have meaning, even for modernists, and it is very difficult not to see in a statement that Vatican II essentially signalled the Church’s surrender to modernism anything but an endorsement of this synthesis of all errors. By his very statement, it seems he is saying one Council can contradict another, with the later one having precedence, of course.

Very troubling.

9. Catholic4Life - October 31, 2013

Reblogged this on Catholic4Life.

10. Jesus A. Minella - November 1, 2013

Did anyone else read the rest of the speech?!!! Too bad modernism and material heresy are just the tip of the iceberg!!! Didnt anyone else notice the crazy leftist, obviously communist, Liberation theology lingo and indoctrination?? Good thing is, they arent pulling any punches and are getting to the point quickly. Anyone have any ideas what would be next, once the new curia fully comes out as communist heretics? Very scary thought, but we were warned by the Virgen long ago.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: