Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

'Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.' ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

Thursday, 23 February 2017

Re-Interpreting Jesus and the Order Formerly Known as His Society



We can in a sense be grateful to the Superior General of the Society of Jesus for bringing our attention to the true source and origin of the current crisis in the Church. The crisis concerns, of course, the Person of Jesus Christ and how He is thus viewed or 'interpreted', what Faith in Him means, or whether it really means anything at all.

Naturally, the only disagreement I would have with the Superior General would be that I would call this desire to 're-interpret Jesus' an expression of this crisis, where he would see no crisis, but only 'renewal'.

Making our image of Christ depend entirely on the whim of whoever is sitting on the Chair of Peter, or those who surround the Chair, or simply an image from our own imagination, or of those who have the Pope's ear is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary and utterly mad. One need not exercise one's grey matter too much to 'discern' that when a Jesuit says it is time to 're-interpret' Jesus, His words and His teachings, it is most likely time to discard his true teachings and replace them with his own novel ideas. These ideas will, most likely, lead to a dramatic decrease in emphasis on Our Lord's divinity and a sudden spike in emphasis on His humanity to the detriment of His divinity. I'm sure there's a good graph one could do for this to illustrate what happens as it does, in an exponential manner in our ratio.

A helpful Jesuit re-interpretation device...

Nevertheless, the 're-interpreters' are on incredibly shaky ground, since those who refuse to build their house on Rock - the Rock that is Christ - will be constrained to build their house on sand. One wonders what an electronic Jesuit interpretation machine would produce, should it be built. If I were to speak into it some words of Our Lord such as...

'And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'


...we can assume that the Jesuit re-interpretation would exit our machine as follows...


'And Jesus said to him: I am among a host of wise men from ages gone, but you shall see a Marxist blueprint for society in nearly all of my sayings. And whatever I say about human sexuality and marriage: let's just forget that, eh? No? The 'eh' and the 'no' is important because it reminds us that Our Lord comes from Buenos Aires...for now. Basically, Lucifer was right about nearly everything.'


Or something such like. We can be more or less certain that the 're-interpretation' of Christ and His Teachings follow a similar path from clear and forthright teachings rubber-stamped 'absolute truth for your Eternal Salvation' to a mixture of wise sayings and heavily edited epithets that make the Gospel incredibly easy for modern man, that refuse to confront man about his reality and the reality of God's existence and that render Jesus Christ meaningless and irrelevant to all who may hear His Holy Name or read His Words. Indeed, as the Holy See is transformed from the fearless proclaimer of Catholic Truth to a subservient 'Ministry of Truth' for the worldly powers foreseen in 1984, we can expect precisely this method of sending the True Christ out to the peripheries and a false Christ being invited in, if, indeed, he hasn't already entered.

Do I have this right? Christ's teachings on marriage and sexuality would eventually be rendered completely acceptable to contemporary man, Hell's existence, even Heaven's existence will be reduced to philosophical ideas. I think we know the score. Christ's words on even the Eucharist, the very words of institution which provide His children with His Most Sacred Body and Most Precious Blood can be 're-interpreted', His Blood no longer poured out for the forgiveness of sins but a 'healing remedy' for the unification and brotherhood of Christian churches and religions?

Image result for modern jesus
Probably a Protestant meme, but pretty accurate of our friendly Jesuit work of 're-interpretation'...

However, for those who are concerned about all of this, take a grain of consolation from the fact that if Jesus Christ, the Lord Almighty can be subject to such blasphemous 're-interpretation' then mere men, Jesuits such as Fr Arturo Sosa S.J, His Holiness Pope Francis (not Persons of the Most Holy Trinity) are fair game. I look forward to those years in the future, should God grant us them, when Pope Francis and the Superior General of the Jesuits (though such figures as Jesuit Superior Generals can be so easily ignored) have their words and authoritative statements) subject to such a 're-interpretation' that they no longer mean what they intended them to mean. One can imagine future clergy, bishops and laity sitting around talking about those words of Pope Francis, or a future Pope entrusted with his 're-interpretation' for contemporary man.

So when Pope Francis said things like...

'People who follow the Ten Commandments rigidly are in some way sick/psychologically flawed'...

'...what he intended to say - in fact what he meant - was...

'...the Ten Commandments were given by God to be followed by mankind without exception and that those who break these grievously offend against these Commandments and die in unrepentant mortal sin will be cast into the everlasting fiery torments of Hell.'

If Christ the Second Person of the Trinity can be 're-interpreted' for modern man, then so can Pope Francis, right? If 're-interpreting Christ Who is the Lord' can be achieved so easily, then 're-interpreting Pope Francis' for Catholics should be a pushover. After all, if we can do this for Christ, whose words are 'recorded' from when He spoke in the past, the words of Pope Francis which are 'recorded' from when he spoke in the past can be made to mean the complete opposite of what the words recorded actually say. Perhaps one day a Pope will have to do that. That'll be messy, but it will also be necessary.

'We see in this image how His Holiness Pope Francis dealt graciously with wannabe deaconettes who were to be later burned at a date of his pleasure. He later granted to them pardon upon their repentance, for he was a merciful Pope.'

Let's not hear any protestations from the Jesuits when/if that happens. After all, if God's Word can be subject to such a radical interpretation, then so can those of this Pope who will one day belong to the past. Besides, it isn't as if Pope Francis is / can be more authoritative than Almighty God, is it? That would simply be illogical. We'll need to borrow that Jesuit 'interpretation' device and turn it into something a little/lot more orthodox, maybe get some Dominicans or some of the FFI to re-wire it but nevertheless, let's not hear any complaints when the words of Pope Francis are made to sound completely, resolutely Catholic and utterly in conformity with both the words of Our Blessed Saviour and the Sacred Tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I can just hear the screams of horror! You can't re-interpret Pope Francis in continuity with His predecessors to render his words and strange doctrines irrelevant??! Is nothing sacred!?? How dare you break the First Commandment of Bergoglio-Church! Infidels! Heretics!


How long, O Lord, how long?!

5 comments:

Highland Cathedral said...

Abascal: So then, there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular.
Q: But if all the worlds of Jesus must be examined and brought back to their historical context, they do not have an absolute value.
Abascal: Over the last century in the Church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say… That is not relativism, but attests that the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons… So it is true that no one can change the word of Jesus, but one must know what it was!
So, given that the reflection of the Church over the previous two thousand years on what the words of Jesus mean, has no significance for the here and now, just how long does any modern ‘discernment’ last for? A year? A month? A week? A day? An hour? A minute? A nano-second?
Or is the current head of the Jesuits a kind of Maoist, calling for “Permanent Discernment”? Meaning, “Permanent Re-Discernment!”.
And is any 'discernment' more authoritative than another or can we all get in on the act and produce our own, equally valid, discernments?

Highland Cathedral said...

The members of ARCIC won't like this. After all, what's the point of discussing doctrinal agreement when 'discernment' will make any so-called agreement redundant before the ink gets dry.

cogito said...

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.”

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

There WAS a time when a 'tache like indicated the wearer was NOT in orders. Is sr el General trying to tell us something?

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails