This is so diabolical. “New” and “renew” are actually more like antonyms than synonyms. I shall explain.
But first:
Pope Francis (sic) warned the 185 prelates taking part against being “smothered by the ashes of fear and concern” in defense of the church’s status quo.
In a homily for the opening Mass of the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon region, which will continue through Oct. 27, the pontiff (sic) said that while Catholic prelates are called to be prudent, they are also called to be open to the possibility of new things.
“Prudence is not indecision; it is not a defensive attitude,” the pope (sic) told the bishops gathered in St. Peter’s Basilica. “It is the virtue of the pastor who, in order to serve with wisdom, is able to discern, to be receptive to the newness of the Spirit.”
“Rekindling our gift in the fire of the Spirit is the opposite of letting things take their course without doing anything,” said Francis, asking that God would give the prelates attending the meeting a “daring prudence … to renew the paths of the church.” HERE
No.
Prudence, one of the four Cardinal Virtues, is “an intellectual habit enabling us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other…Its function is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any round of concrete circumstances.” HERE
There is nothing “daring” about Prudence. If anything, “daring” is directly opposed to it. But hey, what else have we come to expect, except buckets of diabolical inversion of truth? Get yourself right with the Angelic Doctor, and learn all about Prudence HERE. Note especially that Prudence does NOT belong to speculative reason (II-II:47:2).
So now, how are we to understand the difference between “renew” and “new?” These words are being used as synonyms in order to confuse you.
To renew something means to restore it to its former state, to transform a thing back to its original purpose/meaning/quality. It is a restoration: to make something like it was when it was new, because over time it had deformed in some way. Jesus brought a lot of renewal when he came, restoring the law and restoring our own chance for redemption. His victory over the Cross, over Original Sin and fallen human nature, as ransom for each of our personal sins, is literally the restoration par excellence.
In contrast, “New” means…. new. Something that never existed before. See the difference?
There is no such thing as “new,” as it relates to God. To suggest that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune Godhead, is capable of change, or newness of some kind, is heresy. How do we know God doesn’t change? Because time is a construct. Time was created by God, just like all the material dimensions were created by God. God exists outside of time. Change cannot occur without the element of linear time. Furthermore, God is perfect. Since it is impossible to improve upon perfection, there cannot suddenly be something new about God. But what if +Hummes didn’t mean God is new, he meant we should seek something of God that is new TO US? Well, it’s also impossible for there to be something newly revealed, because divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. If it were otherwise, we could never know if/when we had the full deposit of faith.
So ++Hummes calling Jesus “Christ the new,” and claiming “Christ is what is new,” and “we must not fear newness”… this is heretical anti-reality, folks.
But what about that powerful quote from the Passion movie, where Christ says, “Behold, I make all things new?” Glad you asked! That line is actually not from the Passion, but rather it was taken from Revelation 21:5, where the subject at hand is the Beatific Vision, which is described figuratively as the New Heaven and New Earth and New Jerusalem (Rev 21:1-2).
Now if you look at what Cardinal Hummes said, and what antipope Bergoglio taught at the top of this post, what should we expect to see over the next three weeks of the Amazonian Synod? For starters, we can expect that any proposals which are “daring and new” will be given pride of place, regardless of their merit, because being daring and new automatically lends greater weight in the anti-magisterium of the anti-church… the substance or essence of the thing being proposed being only a secondary consideration. Radical change is the prime directive. Remember that satan’s realm is anti-reality.
I am proposing a small prayer petition for the duration of the synod. It is a prayer against newness, novelty, modernity, cha cha cha changes. Simply tack it onto your morning prayer, your evening prayer, or your daily Rosary. You ARE praying your daily Rosary, aren’t you?
We could call it, “Immutability: The Malachi 3:6/Hebrews 13:8 Initiative.”
Except that’s really clunky sounding, so let’s just read out the text:
“I am the LORD, and I change not. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Newness is so 1968. Hippie Jesuits, let them be anathema.
