Is Francis’ Theology Dominated by the Heresy of Total Depravity? October 25, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, Ecumenism, error, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A most provocative, but, I think, illuminating post, from Non Veni Pacem. I’ll just get to it – anyone who has paid attention to Francis’ many disturbing pronouncements has almost certainly observed more than a slight whiff of Calvinism. But docmx001 argues that far from being simply tainted by Calvinism, Francis is in fact a wholehearted proponent of the central thesis of Calvin: total depravity. This is part of the incredibly noxious and heretical TULIP theology, which is predicated on the notion that humans are totally depraved, devoid of any good, and utterly dependent on Grace freely given and totally unearned for salvation. This also figures in with their sicko vision of predestination, that God deliberately creates the vast majority of souls to be damned.
The argument put forth that Francis embraces total depravity is pretty convincing. It would make a great deal of sense, and could also reveal the hidden psychological motivation, very similar to Luther’s, that gives power to Francis’ wholesale assault on the Faith – unable to overcome whatever sins he himself is attached to, he posits a perverse theology in order to provide an escape clause for himself. Thus, men are unable not to sin, and sin gravely, but God is so awesome all we have to do is make a one time profession of faith and we are saved, irrespective of our actions. This would certainly seem to explain Francis’ enormous affinity towards evangelical protestants of the American sort. Anyway, Non Veni Pacem’s argument:
Francis yesterday continued his twisting of the One True Faith by demonstrating, once again, that Calvinist/Lutheran theology is at the core of his own false religion. All the “mercy” that Francis talks about is NOT the mercy of God, but rather a false mercy, because it is grounded in this false idea of Total Depravity. You absolutely MUST understand Total Depravity, and why it is false, if you want to make sense of how Francis operates.
First, here are the comments from yesterday: HERE
“Behind an attitude of rigidity there is always something else in the life of a person. Rigidity is not a gift of God. Meekness is; goodness is; benevolence is; forgiveness is. But rigidity isn’t!” he said. [Rigidity is not a virtue. But other ways of saying what Francis means – and this is clear through dozens of statements on this topic – certainly are: zeal, conviction, love for the Truth, all these things most certainly are virtues, and were found in all the Saints]
In many cases, the Pope continued, rigidity conceals the leading of a double life; but, he pointed out, there can also be something pathological.
Commenting on the difficulties and suffering that afflict a person who is both rigid and sincere, the Pope said this is because they lack the freedom of God’s children: “they do not know how to walk in the path indicated by God’s Law”.
“They appear good because they follow the Law; but they are concealing something else: either they are hypocritical or they are sick.” [That’s a particularly nasty way to view those holding differing views. Need I mentions such speech is both unprecedented and unworthy of a pope? This is not virtuous speech, either. This is the speech of an ideologue, of one who views those who hold differing ideas as enemies. Enemies so corrupt in thinking there is something very much wrong with them]
I’ve written so many times about this: Francis thinks mankind is INCAPABLE of resisting sin and living a Christian life, because he personally is completely lost in sin. He doesn’t just think it is difficult, he thinks it is impossible. Instead of renouncing sin as the path to freedom, he thinks trying to live by God’s Law takes away freedom. [This is possible, I suppose, but I don’t know what evidence we have for Francis being totally attached to personal sin, over and above the errors he very commonly promotes. I think it possible to fall into the error of a basically Calvinist comprehension of free will and Grace without being completely attached to sin. Luther certainly was, but then, he had a little bit different conception of will and Grace. I think the point can stand even if one does not try to prove that Francis has embraced this philosophy out of a personal inability to resist sin. It could simply stem from what may be his essential rejection of Catholicism and seeming view that protestants are much more right than Catholics on most of these matters]
Kids, this is the very definition of Total Depravity. Please go look it up. This is why the Lutherans, Calvinists, etc are not simply “variations” of a “reformed” Catholicism. No, they are a completely different religion, because they deny that men have free will. They deny that a sinful act is the result of a person making a conscience choice to do wrong, because they believe man is so utterly inclined toward sin that resisting it is futile. [I totally agree on the assessment of protestantism as a different religion. This is absolutely true, and is what made the Lutheran-Catholic understanding on justification such a farce. Of course, Lutheranism, along with most all the other sects, has radically altered, or toned down, the extremist views of their founder]
Like every wretched heresy, this one is mixed with some truth to make it plausible. In this case, that men must cooperate with God’s grace on the path to salvation. Don’t be distracted by this. Of course we need to cooperate with God’s grace.
But that’s not all! Total Depravity goes even further, in claiming that even our GOOD choices are evil, because those choices are ultimately always grounded in selfishness. We simply are not capable of doing good, because even when we do good, we do so for our own interests. Our Will is not just impeded by concupiscence, but rather our Will is totally fallen, and we are not capable of choosing to love God.
So, why is this false? Because Total Depravity violates God’s perfect justice. If we truly don’t have free will, then we can’t be held responsible for our actions. It wouldn’t be fair. But we see throughout scripture that man is absolutely held accountable for his decisions. I mean, isn’t this the whole point? God created us to know, love and serve Him in this world, and be with Him forever in the next. God laid out how to know, love and serve him, and now expects us to do just that. He wouldn’t do that if we were incapable of it.
Again, I agree very much with this assessment of these protestant heresies. But does that mean Francis shares them? I think a goodly number of his statements imply, at the very least, a strong sympathy with these protestant beliefs, if they are not consciously embraced by the Bishop of Rome.
We know a number of things: Francis is exceedingly hostile towards Catholics who hold to what might be called the “old Faith,” or the Faith of the Fathers, Saints, and Tradition. He totally rejects “rigid” understandings of morality and Church Doctrine. He favors a very modernist, Jesuitical, worldly approach to morality and doctrine. He is also extremely friendly towards protestants and their beliefs, he has taken part in numerous protestant worship ceremonies, he has lionized and feted the most Calvinist evangelical protestant leaders, and he has even submitted to being blessed (cursed might be a better world) by protestant preachers.
And then we have the upcoming ecumaniacal confab in Lund, Sweden celebrating the greatest tragedy in the history of Western Civilization, the protestant revolt against Christ and His Church. Already many signs are pointing at an “extraordinary gesture,” an attempt to declare that Lutherans may receive the Blessed Sacrament freely.
Then we have the ongoing synodal process, which has been little but a thinly concealed war against the Church’s entire moral edifice, to bring it in line with…….protestant understandings, more or less.
There is, of course, another possibility, which is the way I have leaned for some time: that Francis is simply a modernist of left-wing sensibilities who completely disregards the idea of unchanging Divine Revelation and Dogma in favor of a morally relativistic approach. This philosophy would equally propel Francis to attack so-called rigidity and to constantly belittle those who reject his modernist comprehension. It causes him to feel the Church is horribly behind the times in holding to outdated “medieval” beliefs and practices that are not only unrealistic but unmerciful in today’s world, which he pretends is so very much different from past times. Of course, human nature never changes and the modernist claim that the Church must change to suit the vagaries of whatever age she finds herself in is nothing but a self-serving excuse for perpetual revolution, but it’s there nonetheless.
With this leftist modernist belief, he would naturally find repugnant those who hold to the constant belief and practice of the Faith, and would seek to radically change practice and doctrine to be more amenable to the ways of the sick and twisted culture in which we live.
So, which do you think has a better basis, or neither? Is Francis a furtive Calvinist seeking to remake the Church along protestant lines, or is he a left-wing modernist, or some combination of both (or neither)? It’s an interesting debate and this post is already running very long, but I’m interested to know where you feel the preponderance of the evidence lies.
As for myself, I think the answer is along the lines of both and. Francis is plainly very favorable to modernists, especially of the evangelical/Calvinist stripe, but he is also I think very strongly tainted with modernism through his Jesuit Latin American background and timeframe. He is definitely the Bishop of Rome most radically at odds with the perennial belief and practice of the Faith for which a detailed historical record exists. He is also the one with the means at his disposal – instant communication, constant coverage, every word blasted to the four corners of the world – to do the most damage.
I thank Non Veni Pacem for the stimulating post.