 |
| High-fives all round for the social gospel...but what's the agenda for souls? |
You might think a tabloid style header including the words, 'Mad-Dog Maradiaga', is a little bit disrepectful to a Prince of the Church and you'd be dead right, but I can imagine that when Michael Voris's beady eyes get sight of the Cardinal's recent speech in the US, he's going to hit the roof. And then some! Why? Because this agenda is insanity!
I'm becoming something of an acolyte of Michael Voris undoubtedly because in the near absence of Bishops teaching the fullness of the Catholic faith, and with a small, if vocal, minority of priests doing so, hey, where do you turn for the message of Eternal Life? The man, as they say, tells it like it is and to the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Truth, clarity and unqualified love for truth are qualities that are hard to find and, when found, are refreshing to the soul.
And herein lies the crisis. I - and others, I expect - are tuning in every day or two to hear the opinions of a lay man on the state of the Church with pithy and incisive statements that encourage the hearer to deepen his faith. The speech of Cardinal Maradiaga is disturbing. It is even more disturbing when heard on Rocco Palmo's site.
It is the infectious enthusiasm that is most off-putting. Its the presumption and the downright denial of the Church's reality that comes across with the 'we are Church', 'yes we can', 'we're gonna be alright' political sloganeering that reminds one of that awful Sheffield Labour rally in which Neil Kinnock told us his party were on the verge of a massive landslide only to lose to John Major. Its the raw triumphalism, something condemned by the Pope, in fact, that has me running for the hills. It is not even liberation theology. It is no theology at all. Jesus Christ is entirely unnecessary to this vision of the Church.
 |
| Kinnock: We're not 'alright'... |
It is about everything but Jesus Christ and the Salvation of souls. It does not even really require Jesus Christ and the Cross upon which He shed His blood at all. It is a perversion of the Catholic Faith. There need be no Heaven, since we're bringing it down to Earth, if not by force, then by sheer wishful-thinking while the Cardinal ignores the terrible realities that Our Lady of Fatima, even in those secrets that are known to be fully published, explicitly informed us about.
These are, namely, the existence of Hell, Purgatory, Heaven, the reality of Judgment, Divine Justice and, apparently, if rumours of the unpublished, inconvenient secret be true, a Chastisement set upon the earth so devastating that it could outdo the times of Noah, as God presses the 'reset' button on mankind in such a manner as to leave the living envious of the dead. This life, whether we be rich or poor is a preparation for the life to come. If the Church does not have man's spiritual condition at the top of the Her priorities, not just mankind is threatened, but She Herself, is doomed to irrelevance in every age. Almighty God will judge the poor with equity and knowing we are to be judged by Almighty God, we should treat them with utmost respect and dignity.
 | ||
| Lived Lumen Gentium centuries before Lumen Gentium |
The social teaching of the Catholic Church is indeed a jewel - a veritable gem - in the Crown of the Bride of Christ, but it is not, in itself, the essence of the message of the Gospel. It is one aspect of a whole. It is the overflowing of God's love in the soul. If it is not that, it is probably of little worth. It is an effect. It is not the cause. Our greatest need and desire is for the Salvation that comes from the grace and mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything else - e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g that is good flows from our salvific relationship with Him in His Church.
Read it and weep for the insanity that is about to take over the Catholic Church now that the 'errors of Russia' are emanating from the very heart of Rome! What Cardinal Mardiaga is teaching did not work for Latin America. It will not work either in the United States, or in Africa, or in Europe. What we thirst for is God. What we truly desire is Salvation. Only the Catholic Church can offer it to the World. So why on Earth would a Prince of the Church hide the Church's very Light, Jesus Christ Himself, under a bushel and offer to the World 'something else' instead? Do yourself a favour, readers. Buy yourself a pair of flares now. We're a-going right back to the 70s. These Princes do not get it yet, after forty years in a spiritual wilderness, that this agenda wins admiration, but not converts or people who desire the Lord Jesus Christ. Cardinal. You may just as well hand the keys of the Vatican over to the UN. Have readers ever noticed that the Orthodox Church does not suffer this kind of insanity? Why? I'll tell you why. It is because the Devil has zero interest in destroying the Orthodox Church.
Note to Cardinal Maradiaga. God help you and us. If you do not address the real crisis of Faith and the schism that is opening up within the Bride of Christ - if you do not read the riot act to those in rebellion against the Faith of Christ, they themselves will think you are on their side. By ignoring them and trying to shift attention to some social work project, you are ignoring the reality of apostasy and very likely schism within the Church.
People can find everything but Jesus Christ outside of the Catholic Church. Why would they wish to come and unite themselves to the Bride of Christ if they can find what you desire to offer them outside of the Catholic Church? Is that not, Your Eminence, the story of Latin America, 'all over'? The evangelicals are taking over because you did not give to your people the Lord Jesus! Spare the Vatican some needless work. The laity do not require a 'Congregation for the Laity'. The laity need holy, sound, Catholic magisterial teaching from wise, prudent and faithful Shepherds - those who Christ has appointed to be Successors to the Apostles - to do exactly that and not a great deal else. Grrr!!! When will they learn?!
29 comments:
St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle and...Michael Voris! This is a Catholic MAN!!!!
So what's your point? This is just another rant with no clarity or logic.
The point?
Bishops are meant to teach the Holy Faith - not a modern interpretation of the Gospels from which the real reason for Christ's coming to Earth, His Passion, Death and Resurrection are entirely absent.
What is it exactly about the speech that you don't like? I can't see what there is to disagree with. He picks up on the major themes of Vatican 2 very well. Is that what you don't like?
Good post, Laurence. He sounds like a man who just has no knowledge of Our Lord - who has no faith.
I don't think we need to worry about his false gospel being approved by Rome, though. Surely this is exactly what Pope Francis means by "turning the Church into an NGO" - and he really doesn't seem keen on the idea.
It also does not seem the kind of "liberation theology" that Mueller would go for.
I still think the momentum is with the re-evaluation of Vatican II in the light of Tradition, and the likes of Mariadaga are just a geriatric throwback to the 1960's hippy-cult. This is the last gasp of the "bread and circuses" solution to retaining power, but it is dead at its core - lifeless, soul-less, sterile, begotten of non-being. Its a diabolical distraction from the essence of what Christianity is.
South American Catholicism will have to change if it is not to be wiped out by Protestant sects who at least have some belief in Jesus Christ. But it doesn't appear to have any leaders who are capable of turning it around.
No Wayne.
I am saying that Jesus Christ told the Church what to do with regard to the poor.
It is there, in the Gospels, clear as crystal and, indeed, woe to those who ignore the poor and do not pay heed to their cries!
The Second Vatican Council did not begin the Church's 'outreach'. It has always been there.
What I am saying is that Cardinals and Bishops have a duty, mandated by Christ, with authority to teach the Faith of Jesus Christ - to give to people sound and wise instruction on the salvation of our souls.
Anyone would think that they think we are already 'saved'. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Souls are in their fatherly care. To reduce the Church's mission to Michael Jackson's 'heal the world' is nonsense and it does not bring anyone closer to Jesus Christ.
It's a distraction from the real event - the true meaning of our existence. The salvation of our immortal souls.
Come on, this is easy pickins. There's no need whatsoever to defend Maradiaga in his "high" mode like this, and to do so, Wayne, is to besmirch your own credibility. If Maradiaga is right, then the hermeneutic of continuity is bunkum, which not even the pope, apparently, wants to say. Maradiaga's speech in Dallas (and the related megachurchy maelstrom in Miami) is a litany of howlers and I'm not the only one that knows it. Why this man is the pope's handpicked coordinator of the C-8, God only knows.
-- Codgitator (Cadgertator)
Yes, Maradiaga wants to return us to the worst interpretation of Vatican II, that is compromise with the World, which means surrender to the World.
The collapse, the shambles of the Church in the post Vatican II period is but a measure of the degree that we went down this path. He now wants us to go further. As for his reference to growth elsewhere, it is every bit as heterodox.
Two Vatican II factors are striking as seen from the perspective of half a century, namely, the focus and preparedness of the liberal/Modernist heretics and the astonishing naivety and incomprehension of Popes and bishops, inspite of the warnings of St Pius X. The danger is that this will be repeated.
Personally, I have been inclined for some time to the hypothesis that we are in the middle of a new Reformation, a Modernist one. As with the last it will take time and several more Popes and another Council to resolve.
Your comments on Voris are interesting. He is good, very good. He represents a growing body of laity and some clergy who talk sound straight orthodox Catholicism, in the silence and vacillation of our bishops – as in the Arian Heresy.
A very perceptive post Laurence - thanks.
Great Post! Thank you.
Bravo Lauarence! When I converted to the Church just over 3 years ago I had no idea it was in such a crisis. Not that I regret my conversion - certainly not, it is still the only option IMO but my, there is such work to be done, so much praying to do that the Lord may send his Holy Spirit to rekindle our faith, our orthodoxy and our obedient loyalty to the immemorial teachings of the Holy Bride of Christ.
Where does Maradiaga not preach the gospel? You appear hell bent on deliberately mis-interpreting and mis-characterising anything to do with this Pope.
Old codger / Jacobi - the hermeneutic of continuity was always bunkum. Pope Benedict actually spoke of the hermeneutic of REFORM (in continuity) versus the hermeneutic of discontinuity. It was other people who spun his speech to mean no change / return to pre-Vatican 2 ways. The church is called always to constantly reform.
Yes, thank you.
I must say I listened to the speech and read the text. For me his manner is slightly irritating but apart from that I do not find anything particularly wrong. He is from Latin America and typical thereof. These are countries which have been slow to develop. They blame all their woes on the USA (here referred to as globalisation) and capitalism disregarding their own faults. The grinding poverty that exists in Latin America is very much something which you cannot avoid seeing and thus it is something which will concern any sincere Catholic more than elsewhere. He does say we should practice our faith (he says that a non-practising Catholic is NOT a Catholic - this is something we have a lot of in the UK and not many would make the point so bluntly). He says we should spread the faith and be missionary and joyful. Okay he does not go much into the detail of that faith as being salvation but perhaps he does on other occasions? He is a bit triumphalist about having a Latin American Pope for the first time but that is understandable. Subtract Marxism and violence from Liberation Theology and there are some sound ideas even if the economic analysis is often flawed.
Wayne, lets get it right. I can let you have the whole speech if you wish.
Benedict contrasted “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" with “ "a hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us “ - and in that order.
He refers in the next paragraph to the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture as one which “risks”, a nice diplomatic word if I may say, “ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church.
Now a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture ending in a split is a very good description of what Luther initiated in 1517 and which ended in a split, that is, a large element of the pre-Reformation Church breaking away into an ever diffuse and disintegrating ecclesial body which we today call Protestantism.
Let us pray that does not happen again – but there is a real risk!
Wayne:
You're missing the forest for the trees. The key is not how the Church is reformed into the likeness of its Creator, but whether that reform is continuous or discontinuous with the Church's Biblical Tradition. The pope has plainly endorsed a leading scholar of the hermeneutic of continuity, so the ball's in your court.
Thanks, Laurence. We need our attention called to this man, so close to the pope. I attended a mass he celebrated in New Orleans about five years ago, and it was chilling. He came with an Hispanic entourage, and they lounged around the sanctuary before mass, leaning on the walls and flirting with the women setting things up. The congregation was equally ominous. There was no sense from them that they were in the Presence of God. They visited loudly, screamed greetings to newcomers, groomed each other's hair, ate and drank and threw the wrappings on the floor. And the mass itself was one long political rally of which the theme was, The Church on the Move! as inscribed on a huge red banner that had been draped across the ceiling of the sanctuary. This was not in the cathedral in the Quarter but in a very lovely church on the other side of the Mississippi, on the south side of it, and I believe it was severely damaged by Katrina. The church might have, in its dignity, communicated restraint to the faithful, but Maradiaga did his best to get just the opposite, leading the crowd in chants and cheers. He paraded around and around the church, and his 'sermon' was a political rant. He paid much attention to the senoritas in his circulating, and is a very good looking man who brought out excessive gestures from the girls. I fear he is being groomed now for higher positions; I fear he is The One.
To those who do not understand what is wrong with his sermon, I wish I could have it before me and not throw away the com box in doing so--weakness of blogger--but could you just consider what it means, to emphasize 'equality' over 'virtue'? You know, heresy is only 1/8 of an inch over from orthodoxy--not a mile, not a meter. I'm borrowing that from the buddhists, that heaven is 'just an eighth of an inch over,' but it's the same principle. Just keep on emphasizing equality over virtue, over the immediate inequality of the results of grace and response, and you have a political club, not the Mystical Body. To Deacon Augustine, in Latin America this 'religion' is alive and well and infectious. It gathers strength from the protestant cults taking so many Catholics away, it is seen as preventative. I don't know what effect it might have in Europe, but Italy seems to like Francis' version quite well enough.
I hope I can log in with Anonymous or URL, having trouble with blogger using my email.
As I said the whole concept of the hermeneutic of continuity is a fabrication of what Pope Benedict talking about, which was the hermeneutic of reform and renewal (in continuity)...
http://americamagazine.org/issue/684/article/novelty-continuity
One might have expected Pope Benedict to call the position he favors the “hermeneutics of continuity,” and careless commentators have used that term to describe his view. Instead, he calls it the “hermeneutics of reform.” He devotes the greater part of his talk (85 percent by word-count) to explaining what he means by the phrase. And the greater part of this explanation sets out why at the time of the council there was need for a certain measure of discontinuity. After all, if there is no discontinuity, one can hardly speak of reform.
http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Hermeneutic-of-Continity-Day.pdf
For those who are asking what is wrong with the speech; it states that modernism is true. This is a position that denies that the teachings of the Catholic faith are actually true descriptions of reality, and asserts that they are just symbolic expressions that are adjustable according to the needs of the times. for example, Fr. George Tyrrell, a leading modernist, thought that Jesus Christ did not intend to found a Church. Here is a good example of his approach:
'I would not say to a Mussulman child or peasant : Mahomet is not God s prophet. If he believed me he would conclude that there was no God at all ; if he did not he would conclude I was an atheist. Tell a simple Catholic that Christ was not born of a Virgin and the result will be similar. For him there is far more untruth than truth connected with the statement. But all Catholics are not simple, and for the unsimple it is necessary to say that what is not true in history may stand for a faith-truth. Gradually the simple will disappear and then the faith- truth can be better expressed in the language of concepts than in that of myths and images.' (Tyrrell, Letters, at http://archive.org/stream/tyrrellsletters00tyrruoft/tyrrellsletters00tyrruoft_djvu.txt). His general position was that '" a Creed has representative
truth so far as it constantly and universally fosters the Spirit-life." This should sound familiar. It is a rejection of divine revelation as such - the synthesis of all the heresies, as St. Pius X taught.
On the social teaching of the Church; Leo XIII insisted that this teaching was a part of the broader teaching about the social kingship of Christ, and only made sense within that broader teaching. See his encyclicals on freedom, the nature of the state, and the Christian as citizen - all available on the Vatican website.
John L: Thank you for that description of modernism where the quotation from Tyrell is a wonderful piece of mumbo-jumbo. However can you point me to the passage in Maradiaga's speech spoken or written which you feel states that modernism is true?
This man would seem to be excommunicated.
May God bless you and yours!
You said exactly what needs to be said about the violence Maradiaga, as one of Our Holy Father's 8 chosen advisers, has publicly and explicitly stated he wishes to do to Holy Mother Church.
Charity and Justice have kissed.
‘Be watchful and strengthen the things that remain, which are ready to die’ (Apoc.3:2).
Maradiaga’s speech is from the Modernist mould. It offers the guise of orthodoxy, particularly at the beginning and end, while insinuating in between so many implicit heresies.
Typical!
As St Pius X said, they are “the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church’, since they harm her from within and not from without”. They thrive on ambiguity and unclarity.
It may be that the Holy Father wishes all stands of opinion within his gang of eight, although how outright Modernist, or even liberal/Modernist opinion is legitimate, is beyond me.
On re-reading the text I see he does say: "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.
What struck me about that was that as far as I know religious modernism was not condemned by the first Vatican Council but somewhat later by Pius X. "Modernism" has many meanings e.g. the modernist movement in literature and the arts etc and I am not convinced that the Cardinal is talking about the modernism condemned by Pius X.
Is he for instance adopting the "higher criticism" of the Bible? He does not appear to be when he talks about the Gospel. He writes: To discern what constitutes abuse or infidelity within the Church we have no other measure but the Gospel. Many of the traditions established in the Church could lead her to a veritable self-imprisonment.
However here again one wonders what he means by "traditions". Does he mean THE tradition or merely incidentals to the life of the Church?
In response to the desire of some women to be ordained to the ministerial priesthood he seems to dismiss the idea in his talk by pointing out that all men and women belong to the "common priesthood" of the laity. He maintains the distinction between this "common priesthood" and what he calls the Presbyterium who administer the sacraments.
He then goes on with remarks about "globalization" which are fairly typical of people from Latin America who blame all their woes on the capitalism of the USA rather than looking at their own faults. Rather than regarding capitalism as some huge conspiracy theory against the poor I think he needs to engage with the realities of the modern world and try and tease out what is good and what is bad in capitalism and try to improve it.
His analysis of how to improve the lot of the poor seems very simplistic to me and certainly left-wing.
He rightly emphasises the need for good works and does not ignore the ultimate destination of salvation. He writes: Her [the Church's] foremost goal is to care for the penultimate (hunger, housing, clothing, shoes, health, education…) to be then able to care for the ultimate, those problems that rob us of sleep after work (our finiteness, our solitude before death, the meaning of life, pain, and evil…). The answer the Church gives to the “penultimate” will entitle her to speak about the “ultimate.” For that reason, the Church must show herself as a Samaritan on earth –so she can some day partake of the eternal goods.
My problem with that is to prioritise the "penultimate" i.e. doing good works, to such a degree may well lead to the "ultimate" i.e. the road to salvation, being ignored.
All in all I see his talk and writings as being very much from a Latin American angle which is not all that relevant in the developed world. I do not think prioritising good works over faith is the right approach. As Chesterton said a heresy is often the over-emphasis on one particular good at the expense of others (or something like that!).
I do not think one can accuse him of a heresy but just some rather confused thinking!
Modernism as of course later condemned by St. Pius X, but its principal ideas were in fact condemned by Vatican I in the dogmatic constitution 'Dei Filius':
'For the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity. Rather, it has been delivered as a Divine Deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared. Nor is that meaning ever to be departed from, under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them. Let then the intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and at all times, increase and flourish in abundance and vigor; but simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one and the same sense, one and the same judgment (Vincent of Lerins, Common. n, 28).
3. If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema. '
I think we can credit Cardinal Madariaga with knowing what the term 'modernism' means and with knowing what Vatican I taught about it.
John L: Thank you for that. On further reflection I think Cardinal Maradiaga's thoughts are rather shallow. Listening to him talk he sounds more like a politician promising heaven on earth if we vote for him. I am afraid his followers will be disappointed! Is he not similar to some of those Protestant sects doing such damage in Latin America who tell their followers that if they follow Christ they will get a swimming-pool?
Listening to Michael Voris on Madariaga I was astounded to read what the Cardinal said about the Jews having fomented the allegations of child abuse by Catholic priests. For me that rather places him near to Bishop Williamson of the SSPX!
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-councils-unfinished-business.html
Some good stuff there AFAICS - with some less so.
Number of hits for the word "salvation": 2
"Heaven": "Phrase not found"
"redemption": "Phrase not found"
"Savio[u]r": "Phrase not found"
"redeem": "Phrase not found"
"save": "Phrase not found"
"Holy Spirit": "Phrase not found"
"Mary": "Phrase not found"
"sacraments": 1
"spiritual": 2
"spirit": 4
"holy": 2
"priest/priests/priesthood": 18
"Jesus": 29
"Christ*" - 35 hits, about 15 for "Christ",
the others for "Christian", "Christians", "Christianity", & "non-Christians
"resurrect*": 1
"crucifixion": 1
"Lord"/"lords"/"lord": 7
So, not a lot about what one might call interior religion. 64 mentions of Jesus Christ (which is excellent) - but not much about the salvation He brings. The Kingdom of God cannot be limited to a "social Gospel", important as that undoubtedly is, as the Gospel makes clear. The renewal of the individual & of society is not possible without the Cross & the Resurrection
This is basically a social Gospel, without the supernatural Divine acts that alone make it part of the Gospel rather than social work, however admirable. This is really sad. And it will not feed the unappeasable hunger that can be satisfied only by the knowledge of Jesus Christ as Saviour, Redeemer, Lord & God.
Grace - 2 hits
Virgin - "Phrase not found".
preach - 1 hit
evangel* - 10 hits
This is serious, because the speech is titled "THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NEW EVANGELIZATION" - but evangelisation & preaching are impossible without the grace of God, and Our Lady is integral to the Gospel & its preaching. God has made her that.
But instead we are told, by the Cardinal:
"The calling of the Church, in the likeness of Jesus, is to proclaim the Kingdom of God. Even Christ himself did not proclaim or preach Himself, but the Kingdom."
## He didn't, while on Earth - but the implication, that He is not central to the Gospel, is utterly false. As St Paul & St John - to name no other NT authors - make abundantly clear.
"The Church, as His disciple and His servant, ought to do the same.
## Not preach Christ, does he mean ? Not possible - the Apostles preached Jesus Christ as Saviour, Messiah & Lord, Risen gloriously from the dead; any "evangelisation" that does not, is a sham & a lie.
"Her calling is to serve, not to rule: “Servant of Humanity,” Pope Paul VI called her. She must do this service living in the world, herself a part of the world and in solidarity with it, because “the world is the only subject that interests God.”"
## That last quotation, from Pope Paul VI, is disgraceful. It is not true. If it were, why bother with the Mass ?
Post a comment