Pope Francis calls for a new theology not always ‘corresponding to the Christian face of God’
Draw from non-Christian images of God
Pope Francis’ new mode of theological study directed Catholic theologians to draw from, or promote, the “people’s common sense” in an “inductive method.”
Such a method would start from the “different contexts and concrete situations in which peoples are inserted, allowing itself to be seriously challenged by reality,” and all these contextual considerations would lead to theologians assessing “signs of the times.”
But in order to practice the new theological style, wrote Francis, theologians would have to prioritize “common” ideas found amongst people, even though such ideas reject the Catholic concept of God:
Therefore, it is necessary that the knowledge of people’s common sense, which is in fact a theological place in which so many images of God dwell, often not corresponding to the Christian face of God, only and always love, be privileged first of all.
Such an epochal change, argued Francis, requires an essentially different character and identity for the sacred science of theology. Citing his first ecological document, “Laudato si’,” Francis called for a “paradigm shift” in the Church’ approach to theology.
Francis further argued that theology would necessarily move away from a path of presenting and teaching truths, “into a culture of dialogue and encounter between different traditions and different knowledge, between different Christian denominations and different religions, openly confronting everyone, believers and non-believers alike.”
This argument, however, flies in the face of the unchanging teaching of the Church, regarding its God-given mission.
Pope Leo XIII writes in Satis Cognitum that the Church’s task is to teach the faith of Christ, not to look for knowledge from other traditions or religions. The pope wrote: “For what did Christ, the Lord, ask? What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated.”
As far as we can tell, he can’t be. The debates rage about Francis, and that must happen, but for us, we figured out the only path a long time ago. Personally I don’t say his name during the part of the Mass where we promise to be united to the pope. We haven’t considered him pope since about his second year on the Chair. We’ve identified so many errors, almost if not outright heresies, blasphemies, insults and outrages, if he is pope, religion is dead. Having him found not-pope would make our lives easier, but we found him not-pope, and that’s enough. There is no way this man is pope. That would by definition mean the last 1500 years of church history is false, the saints were dummies and got it wrong, former holy popes got it wrong, the martyrs died for nothing. He not only sets off our sensus fidelium, he leaves it ringing like a four alarm fire bell. We don’t think he has any cell in his body that is Christian. He’s godless, pagan at best. This is why he has turned to Marxism, paganism, and why he is an angry, petty, vindictive person. He will destroy the church and the faith if he is allowed to get away with it, and given the Cardinals and bishops we have, he might. Not one American bishop stood up for Bishop Strickland. That speaks volumes for what we have in our church and the likelihood of anyone standing up to him for the sake of Christ and His church. But it is not impossible, because God raises up saints.
The Second Council up of Constantinople understood the gates of hell to be the death dealing tongues of heretics and the pope is understood to keep the gates of hell from prevailing. How then can a pope himself be a heretic if he’s the one who keeps them from prevailing?
Life Site News is a good publication but I really wish they would stop it with the “pope francis” stuff. Every, single day it is more and more obvious that Jorge Bergoglio is NOT the pope, let alone a Catholic. He is our holy father about as much as the average witch doctor in the Amazon, running around eating coca leaves.
How much of a heretic would a “pope” have to be to be no longer Catholic and no longer (if ever) the Pope? Jorge Bergoglio has always been obvious. But. How heretical is too heretical? Is a little heresy mixed in with otherwise semi-traditional devotion acceptable? It’s odd that suddenly so many people point to JB’s heresy and/or apostasy as support for his not being the Pope when there has been quite a lot of modernism from men who have been accepted as popes and even saints in the past sixty years. It’s inconsistent.
Assisi 1986.
Just gonna leave that there.
I never thought JP2 should’ve been canonized in particular because of these acts. He was not a good pope.
However, JP2 never taught heresy, never demanded that his writings be called magisterial. He never taught that hell didn’t exist, that souls turn into nothing, that divorce is permissible, etc.
Modernism ruined the Church and those are the errors of Russia that Mary warned about that no pope, pre and post Vatican 2 did anything about.
So it’s a total failing of the Church for the last 100 years. Bergoglio is an antipope, which allows him to be a full blown heretic.
He’s not even Catholic.
Formal heresy. When you know what the Church always taught and just don’t care.
Strangely enough when you actually analyze what they say you do not find clear cut heresy. While JPII says that the Old Covenant was never revoked “by God”, Bergoglio said it was never revoked period. True enough, it’s the Jews who were unfaithful. God will never break a promise, to say so would be blasphemous. This is just one example of something showing that popes are under the protection of the Holy Spirit from teaching heresies. I can’t find any clear cut heresy when I examine 1958 sede claims, not even when I read VII documents, keeping in mind the history of the Church and past teachings.
For example, the first Christians were persecuted by the pagan state, who saw it as a foreign cult. It was only when Rome became a Catholic state that it became tenable to make it confessional. But then the Catholic state cannot be dogmatic or essential for the Church’s mission, for at the beginning it lacked it. Nor do I think Jesus taught his disciples how to build Christendom.
The Holy Spirit’s protection does not prevent a pope from being evil or making lapses in judgement. It does not prevent scandals, as Pope Honorious shows.
Bergoglio is a heretic because he’s not the pope. He’s an antipope.
Today’s gospel warns us that when we see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, we should flee..If Bergoglio is a formal heretic, would we consider him the a of d?
Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio teaches that heretics and schismatics are imperfectly part of the Church, in direct contradiction to dogmatic declaration of the Council of Florence, which twaches that Jews, heretics, and schismatics are outside the Church of Christ and absolutely cannot be saved, saves abjuring their errors. That is heresy, and thus cannot have come from the Church (according to Vatican I and Pius XI’s Quad Primas). That heretical doctrine was held by JPII, BXVI, and Paul VI.
Heresy is simply the acceptance of doctrines that have been condemned by the Church (like that of Unitatis Redintegratio), or acceptance of doctrines that contradict what has been defined by the Church. A heretic is one who manifestly and pertinaciously holds such positions. Heretics have always been viewed as ipso facto excised from the Church (as St. Paul tells us in Titus). As numerous popes have condemned as gravely sinful and contrary to the Faith public interfaith prayer meetings, to publicly hold one would be to manifest heresy, and to encourage them (as the ’83 CIC does) is to be pertinacious.
In commemorating the death of the Calvinist Taize founder, Ratzinger (and JPII) held that he was surely in heaven. This is heresy, as the individual in question 1) was outside the Church, 2) never abjured his errors, but persisted in them, and 3) rejected the papacy as essential to salvation (clearly enunciated in the Bull Unam Sanctam).
And since I will be gone for a while, I leave you with follow up questions.
If they are saved are they inside or outside the Church, these invincible ignorant heretics of good will? They are heretics, so how can they be inside the Church? But they are saved, so how can they be outside the Church? But if they are both inside and out, are they not imperfectly connected to the Church? If you accept this how did Vatican II err? And if not, was Pope Pius IX a modernist?
This started with V2, not Bergoglio. He is just the ugly manifestation of all the freemasonic, modernist heresies that were infused into that diabolical “ecumenical council”. All the post V2 popes were heretics, Bergoglio is just blatantly obvious in showing it. Personally, I believe the 1958 sedes are correct.
Bless you dear Catherine. I’ve never been so satisfied or more at peace then when I accepted the SVist position. Open invitation to any regular reader here; if you’re ever in Michigan, Detroit area, lmk. My home is open and my chapel is in walking distance. My priest is a gem and I’d introduce you to some lovely Catholics.
If the sedes are correct, why are they sedes? Why did they start their own fruity little club instead of fighting from within the Church? The sedes are just another protestant section.
“Assisi 1986.
Just gonna leave that there.”
Yes! Assisi; stained glass window for unlearned, illiterate Catholics.
Sede Vacante of the ’58 variety is the true Catholic position.
Are people who die with invincible ignorance and are of good will saved? What if they’re baptized heretics (so you cannot claim they are saved because of baptism of desire)?
Don’t know. Culpability must be left to God’s judgement and our prayers for them….most especially before they die.
Because you cannot remain in communion with a false religion, which was what Roncalli started, he even said he was going to modernize the Church. The Home Alone position is the only position that makes sense, or you do risk sect formation, cults of personality, etc. because of the loss of papal leadership (vital, and why they subverted the papacy) and priestly mission. The One True Faith is apostolic, the papacy the supreme monarchy, protected by the Holy Ghost. The Church has lost that protection, the Great Apostasy began with the installation of freemason Roncalli by the corrupt hierarchy. Scripture tells us that the Victim and the Sacrifice would fail. The hierarchy rejected it in installing freemasonic heretics, the “masses” are invalid, the “priests” and “bishops” invalid, papal authority under attack, triggered by the evil Bergoglio (to whom the falsepope and modernist Ratzinger handed over power) flagrantly and vindictively abusing it. The Gates of hell have not prevailed against the Faith, which is not buildings, or even priests. The Faith is there, diminished in size and the sheep are scattered without a shepherd, leading to sect formation, contrived ordinations (risky due to the lack of a valid shepherd with Protection), etc.. That was the intent of the unholy ones who have infiltrated and subverted the Church. We do have the examples of the saints, the Magisterium (pre-“V2”), Scripture, earlier catechisms. We can have Acts of Contrition, prayer, the Rosary (very important), marriage, baptism. The Bride is undergoing persecution and is suffering, as did the Bridegroom. It is going to get worse. Being Home Alone may be the path to being a surviving remnant. I do know unequivocally that staying in any way in communication with the V2 falsechurch is following a false religion. Flee, lest you share in their punishment. Pray for wisdom and discernment, guidance, mercy.
Sorry, completely disagree. But you are certainly welcome here so long as you are charitable.
Thank you, Mark. I absolutely respect your disagreement. We must all follow what we see as the righteous path. I am ’58 sede, but unable to accept (at least at this time, but I am open to argument) the epikeia view, and ordinations outside the apostolic Church, which we no longer have. The scattered sheep are all wandering, trying to find their way, without the leadership Christ instituted. I apologize if I came off as uncharitable.