jump to navigation

More terrifying statements from Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga November 4, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, the return.

Via Louis Verrechio again, but in this case, I will not post his commentary, simply the excerpts from Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga speech in Dallas from a week or so ago.  I’ve amped up the rhetoric a bit in the post title, but I’m really unsure what else to say – this is incredibly disturbing and frightening coming from not only a prince of the Church, but the chief of the Pope’s advisory body of cardinals:

The Church could not continue posing as a reality facing the world, as a parallel “perfect society,” which pursued her own autonomous course, strengthening her walls against the errors and the influence of the world. This antithesis of centuries needed to be overcome.  [Why on earth is that?  Because modernists didn’t like it? Because it kept modernist Catholic academics from being invited to all the really great conferences?]

The Church did not have a monopoly on truth anymore, [a very dangerous statement.  Truth in what area?  In Faith and Morals, She has all the Truth that is needed for salvation and is really the only valid repository of that Truth necessary for salvation.  But, no, the Church never had a monopoly on all “truth,” such as the truth about asphault mixing, or corn raising, or oil drilling, or car manufacturing.  But this is vague and imprudent]  nor could she pontificate on a thousand human matters, [this is just a bald assertion.  Why can’t She?  Because modernists don’t want Her to?]  or hold stances denoting arrogance or superiority. [that is the ancient shibolleth.  The pre-conciliar Church was arrogant and proud.  Please.  It is not pride to be Divinely-instituted as Christ’ Body on earth and the means of salvation, outside of which there is none.  This is not “arrogance.” This is REVELATION.]  Instead, she should go out into the common arena, plainly and humbly, and share in the common search for truth.  [Full stop.  This is the assumption undergirding all the rest. The Church, apparently to this cardinal, is just one among many, basically equal.  She has some truthiness, but not enough.  She needs to get more from others.  Those others are at least as valid and salvific as the Church.  This is one of the major conclusions of modernist and neo-modernist thought.  I don’t know if Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga is a modernist, but he certainly says some things that are very modernist sounding.]

Dialogue should precede the mission, as a simple attitude of listening, to build on what is common, rather that to insist in what divides, [I have come not to bring peace, but the sword.  I will divide father from son……..] and to count on the contribution of humanisms and of non-Christian religions, which will take us back to the foundation of any creed, any ideology. What is Christian has its substrata, first and foremost, in what is human. 

Wrong.  Just wrong.  What is Christian, is “first and foremost human.” Really?  What about Jesus Christ, and Him crucified?  I thought He was first and foremost what Christianity is about?  “Dialogue should precede mission”……why?  If you want to know what’s happened to the Church’s evangelization efforts, which are essentially neutered in much of the world, all one has to do is see a comment like this.  The cardinal is saying that endless ecumenical dialogue, which can and has gone on for decades with essentially no progress, should precede efforts at conversion.  I think it safe to assume from that statement (and those  already covered) that Cardinal Rodriguez Mariadiaga assumes essentially all people are saved, and thus proselytism must simply be solemn nonsense.

Even knowing what I do of modernist, these statments just flatten me. They remind me of what I read recently of then Bishop Ratzinger, when he stated that Vatican II was en effort by the Church to “catch up with 200 years of liberalism.”  But Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga appears to go well, well beyond that.  He seems to be in favor of overturning the entire Barque of Peter in favor of some humanist hootenany.

Rocco Palmo seemed to think that Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga was in the States to show his (and, Palmo stated, Pope Francis’) new vision for the Church.  I really pray the latter is not the case, and so far, we do not know if it is.  But if it is, is it new, or a return to a period of doctrinal uncertainty and catechetical collapse that marked one of the darkest periods in the entire history of the Church?  Not that we’re even out of that period, by a long shot, but these statements imply, to me, a strong turning away from a hermeneutic of continuity and back to a hermeneutic of profound rupture.  But wasn’t that rupture extraordinarily destructive to the Church in every measurable way?  Why would we revisit what has already proven so poisonous, especially when there is great evidence that even a few short years of at least less hostility towards Tradition has already netted some small but important improvements in key areas, like vocations?

One little addendum to the above: modernists claim that one of the biggest “scientific” refutations of Catholic orthodoxy was the “fact” that the Gospels were “obviously” created decades after Christ’s death (if He even existed).  They were surely no more than the mythologies spun by lying, overzealous early Christians.  They “knew” the Gospels had to date from at least AD 80-90, as the Gospels speak of the destruction of Jerusalem, something the Christians could not have known of before the fact (the destruction occurring in AD 70, and modernists being u unalterably convinced that miracles are all just figments of overly pious minds).  However, some decades ago, a fragment of St. Mark was found in a cave that dated, conclusively, to AD 50.  But even with this evidence, the modernists still pretend the Gospels have to date from later!  Thus, they aren’t the rational, scientific minds they claim to be, they are just as if not more dogmatic than the most stalwart of traddies.  They simply adhere to a different religion.

It’s Gnosticism. These are the new gnostics, as a very wise priest used to reiterate.


1. DiscipleoftheDumbOx - November 4, 2013

This is indeed very disturbing.

2. Christopher Ekstrom - November 4, 2013

Was that Fidel Castro or a Roman Catholic Cardinal??? Utterly errant nonsense. Shocking. Pray to St. Micheal Archangel to intercede with his sword & save the True Church!

Hannah - November 5, 2013

St. Michael is weeping in Greece:

Hmm, I wonder why….?

3. TG - November 4, 2013

So if the modernists don’t believe in the gospel or Jesus, what’s the point of our religion? If there is no resurrection, our faith is dead as St. Paul says. Are they just career Catholics? I’ve have to check out Louie V’s blog. I bet Tradition in Action is going nuts over this cardinal. (They are not sedavacanists. They believe the current pope is the pope as well as John Paul II and Benedict but they are heretics according to this group.)

4. Daniel Brooks - November 4, 2013

I believe we can safely deduce from his statements that he is a modernist… or as Louie Verrecchio says, “a flag waving modernist.”

The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.

Src: http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/a-flag-waving-modernist/

5. Hannah - November 5, 2013

This man is Modernist to the core. He and his writings would be anathamized if one of the pre-counciliar Popes were here…

Lord, have mercy on us.

6. Hannah - November 5, 2013

This man is Modernist to the core.

If one of the pre-counciliar Popes were here, his rubbish would be anathamized and put on the Index of forbidden writings/books or burned.

7. Don - November 5, 2013

Francis is smart, keeping this one out where all can see and hear him.

tantamergo - November 5, 2013

You know……..it’s possible. That’s all I’ll say. You could be right. It would be a high-risk strategy, but perhaps necessary to discredit an influential cardinal with his own words.

James - November 6, 2013

…and the end of that is the destruction of more souls who see enlightenment in that dangerous way. We simply cannot use evil to bring about Good. We are not God. We cannot promote Kathleen Sibelius from Governor of Kansas to HHS secretary because it will be good to remove her from Kansas where she is dangerous. The end of that faulty logic was giving more power to her to manipulate Catholics all over the world and then to undermine further the Catholic Church and be a more present danger not only to Kansas, but to the US and the whole world.

8. Jesus A. Minella - November 5, 2013

Did anyone else read the rest of the speech? If only that was it. It was the beginning of the indoctrination of communistic liberation theology!!!

tantamergo - November 5, 2013

I read about all of it. What has been quoted by Verrechio are certainly the low lights, but the entire thing is of a piece. There is a great deal that is problematic. There is a certain ethos that suffused the talk that I think disconcerting.

But there is more that could be quoted that would be troubling, just as the above is.

9. Socon or Bust » A fork cometh in the road… - November 5, 2013

[…] …but do people see what way the wind is blowing? […]

10. Joseph D'Hippolito - November 5, 2013

Frankly, I wouldn’t give much respect to anything Maradiaga says, given this….


and this…


Obviously, this is (to put it politely) just another careerist, a muddled thinker with no intellectual or moral depth, like Chaput or Dolan.

Let’s say, however, that Maradiaga’s comments accurately reflect the current Pope’s views. Why should we be surprised? Francis is the ultimate consequence of Vatican II.

Besides, if Francis really is the false prophet of the Book of Revelation or the destroyer Pope that St. Francis of Assisi prophesied, then we should expect just such an approach. Jesus Himself prophesied against “ravenous wolves” who look like sheep.

Moreover, SS Paul, James and Peter prophesied mass apostasy in the last days. Why should we think the Catholic Church would be exempt?

tantamergo - November 5, 2013

Well, that certainly doesn’t speak well to his credibility, but the fact remains he is the lead cardinal appointed to head the body of 8 cardinals advising the Pope. That makes everything he says – or everything he believes – have potential impact on the entire Church. Far more so than a “regular” cardinal.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: