Protestantism, Modernism, Atheism

“The reality of the apostasy of faith in our time rightly and profoundly frightens us,” said Cardinal Burke in honor of Fatima’s centenary.

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X declared himself “terrified” by humanity’s self-destructive apostasy from God: “For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish” (Ps. 72:27). How much more “daunting,” said Cardinal Burke, is today’s “widespread apostasy.”

In 1910, St. Pius X condemned the movement for a “One-World Church” without dogmas, hierarchy, or “curb for the passions”—a church which, “under the pretext of freedom,” would impose “legalized cunning and force.” How much more, said Cardinal Burke, do today’s “movements for a single government of the world” and “certain movements with the Church herself” disregard sin and salvation?

In Pascendi, St. Pius X named the trajectory toward the “annihilation of all religion”: “The first step … was taken by Protestantism; the second … by [the heresy of] Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.”

So let us, said Cardinal Burke, heed Fatima’s call for prayer, penance, and reparation. Let us be “agents” of the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

A few weeks after that speech, the Vatican announced its shining tribute to the Protestant revolution: a golden stamp with Luther and Melanchthon at the foot of the cross, triumphantly supplanting the Blessed Virgin and St. John.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has asked how the Vatican can call Luther a “witness to the gospel” when he “called the Mass … a blasphemy” and “the papacy an invention of Satan.” The signatories of the filial correction have expressed “wonderment and sorrow” at a statue of Luther in the Vatican—and documented the “affinity” between “Luther’s ideas on law, justification, and marriage” and Pope Francis’s statements.

At a 2016 joint “commemoration” of the Protestant revolution, Pope Francis expressed “joy” for its myriad “gifts.” He and pro-abortion Lutherans with female clergy jointly declared that “what unites us is greater than what divides us.” Together they “raise[d]” their “voices” against “violence.” They prayed for the conversion of those who exploit the earth. They declared the “goal” of receiving the Eucharist “at one table” to express their “full unity.”

In Martin Luther: An Ecumenical Perspective, Cardinal Kasper confirms that the excommunicated, apostate monk is now a “common church father,” a new St. Francis of Assisi. This prophet of the “new evangelization” was “forced” into calling the pope the Antichrist after his “call for repentance was not heard.” But Kasper finds ecumenical hope in Luther’s “statement that he would…kiss the feet of a pope who allows and acknowledges his gospel.”

Kasper says Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium, “without mentioning him by name,” makes Luther’s concerns “stand in the center.”

So it’s Luther’s “gospel of grace and mercy” behind, apparently, the high disdain for “self-absorbed promethean neopelagianis[ts]” plagued by a “soundness of doctrine” that’s “narcissistic and authoritarian” (EG 94).

So it’s Luther—the bizarre protagonist of “ecumenical unity”—behind the demand for a “conversion of the papacy” that gives “genuine doctrinal authority” to episcopal conferences (EG 32). Sandro Magister says the pope is already creating a “federation of national Churches endowed with extensive autonomy” through liturgical decentralization.

So it’s Luther behind the demand to “accept the unruly freedom of the word, which accomplishes what it wills in ways that surpass our…ways of thinking” (EG 22). Kasper says Luther’s faith in the “self-implementation of the word of God” gave him a heroic “openness to the future.”

Ultimately, Kasper’s Luther—a prophet of “openness” to futurity, a “Catholic reformer” waiting for a sympathetic pope—emerges as a symbolic father for Modernism’s struggle to change the Church from within. Modernism falsely claims that God evolves with history—making truth utterly mutable. So Kasper the Modernist says dogmas can be “stupid” and Church structures can spring from “ideology” and denying the Eucharist to adulterers because of “one phrase” from Christ is “ideological,” too.

Kasper baldly calls the “changeless” God an “offense to man”:

One must deny him for man’s sake, because he claims for himself the dignity and honor that belong by right to man….

We must resist this God … also for God’s sake. He is not the true God at all, but rather a wretched idol. For a God … who is not himself history is a finite God. If we call such a being God, then for the sake of the Absolute we must become absolute atheists. Such a God springs from a rigid worldview; he is the guarantor of the status quo and the enemy of the new.

A shocking ultimatum from the man hailed as “the pope’s theologian”: either embrace a mutable God who’s not an “enemy of the new”—or profess “absolute,” unflinching, hardcore atheism.

Kasper says the Church must be led by a “spirit” that “is not primarily the third divine person.” That ominous “spirit,” says Thomas Stark, is apparently some Hegelian agent of creation’s self-perfection. Pope Francis, against all the “sourpusses” (EG 85), describes our “final cause” as “the utopian future” (EG 222). Because God wants us to be “happy” in this world, it’s “no longer possible to claim that religion … exists only to prepare souls for heaven” (EG 182).

But Christ said, “In the world you shall have distress” (Jn. 16:33). The 1907 dystopian novel The Lord of the World hauntingly imagines the travails of history’s last days, when humanity has heeded Kasper’s call to “resist” God with absolute atheism if necessary. By this point, “Protestantism is dead,” for men “recognize at last that a supernatural religion involves an absolute authority.” Those with “any supernatural belief left” are Catholic—persecuted by a world professing “no God but man, no priest but the politician.”

More and more clergy apostatize. Man “has learned his own divinity.” Yet Fr. Percy Franklin still adores the Eucharistic Lord, still believes that “the reconciling of a soul to God” is greater than the reconciling of nations. He secretly hears a dying woman’s confession before the “real priests”—the euthanizers—come.

Her daughter-in-law, Mabel, scoffs that the new atheism has perfected Catholicism:

Do you not understand that all which Jesus Christ promised has come true, though in another way? The reign of God has really begun; but we know now who God is. You said just now you wanted the forgiveness of Sins; well, you have that; we all have it, because there is no such thing as sin. There is only Crime.

And then Communion. You used to believe that that made you a partaker of God; well, we are all partakers of God, because we are all human beings.

Mabel and the rapt multitudes ritually worship Man. God was a “hideous nightmare.” Their spirits swoon before a politician promising “the universal brotherhood of man.”

That “savior of the world” is the Antichrist. All must deny God or die.

For history, like the novel itself, ends not with rapturous utopia but with tribulation, apostasy, martyrdoms, and “God’s triumph over the revolt of evil [in] the form of the Last Judgment” (CCC 677). In the throes of his own tribulation, Fr. Franklin calls us to cling to the faith and those refuges of old:

The mass, prayer, the rosary. These first and last. The world denies their power: it is on their power that Christians must throw all their weight.

>>Amazing they can put this together but not in the “2000 year” existence of their denomination have they bothered to put together a verse by verse exegetical position on the verses of the very book they claim to have given us.<<

You are contradicting yourself here. You constantly bash the Catholic Church for dictating to Catholics how they must interpret Scripture--allowing no freedom of thought or freedom of interpretation.

Actually it is Rome who allows its members no freedom of thought or freedom of interpretation.

Council of Trent

Fourth Session, Second Decree

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Council/Trent/Fourth_Session,_Second_Decree.html

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

NOW you are admitting that the Catholic Church does NOT, and NEVER HAS, dictated to Catholics an official, binding interpretation of every verse of Scripture. In other words, Catholics are free to interpret practically all verses in Scripture according to their learning and intelligence.

Actually it is the Roman Catholic Church that is admitting it has failed to put together a verse by verse exegetical position on the verses of the very book they claim to have given us.

Though I see you cite one passage from John as having been defined by the RCC.

Wow! What progress. One verse in 2000 years....and even then they got that interpretation wrong.

(No one has ever explained how Jesus expected the Apostles to make these judgments if people were not going to CONFESS their sins.)

Actually they have. Well, Peter and the disciples understood it as did Paul.

34Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. 36“The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)— 37you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39“We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40“God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, 41not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.

43“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. Acts 10:34-48 NASB

“Uh...yes, it does matter who wrote it. Your issue is with the owners of the website. Take it up with them.”

I have no issue with the owners of the website. The author was wrong - but they only made one error and it was extremely minor. You, on the other hand, make errors in almost every substantial post you write. You consistently get things wrong. You can’t be trusted. They can. I believe they want to get things right. I have never seen you put any effort in getting things right. I have no issue with the authors of the website.

“You insinuated in your prior post that I had written the words that were from the website in question.”

How often do you insinuate things? I consistently get things right - OBJECTIVELY - and you consistently get things wrong - OBJECTIVELY - and yet all you’ll do is resort to posting about “Vlad’s Rules”. That’s the apparent level of your argumentation.

“You’re compounding your growing list of errors on this thread.”

Except for a typo here or there I have yet to make one about what we’re arguing about. I made no error with scripture, no error with history, no error with the catechism, no error in doctrine, no error in logic. None. I rarely do. I just care about getting things right - and I usually do get things right - but I see no such care on your end. You don’t seem to give a damn about getting things right. When you cite BEGINNINGcatholic.com (OBVIOUS EMPHASIS ADDED) as if they have done something wrong for only posting the Traditional Catechetical Formula when the bottom of the page links to the CCC pages on the three versions of the commandments what on earth do you think you are achieving??? When you cite another webpage that has both the Biblical text and the TCF versions and you have to admit it does in your own post after talking about it as if there was something wrong, what do you think you’re accomplishing? What?

When you say, “Beginningcatholic.com does have the link to the Catechism...never said it didn’t” you’re making a fool out of yourself. Go back and look at what you actually wrote. You failed to take into account the very name of the website: BEGINNINGcatholic.com (OBVIOUS EMPHASIS ADDED). You failed to mention that it was clearly using the TCF because it was easiest for people to grasp and memorize. And you failed to mention that it linked to the CCC which clearly shows they were not trying to hide anything from anyone in any way.

And very early on the illogic of your position was shown to be simply erroneous. If Catholics were trying to cover up something with the TCF version then why on earth do the Eastern Orthodox use essentially the same numbering as Protestants and yet often have CHURCHES FILLED WITH IMAGES FROM FLOOR TO CEILING????? Lutherans also use the same TCF as Catholics and yet they too often use images and they pride themselves - at least historically - on being a sola scriptura people. Those two points right there completely shoot to pieces any anti-Catholic’s claim of some nefarious cover up with the TCF. And I think that’s exactly why in post after post after post where I mentioned those points YOU HAVE NOT DEALT WITH THEM.

“See how you are? AMPU (spelling!) throws you a nice comment and you act like the south end of a north bound mule...hence Vlad’s Rule of Internet Debate #1...always use ad hominem attacks.”

Why do you assume that aMPU was making a “nice comment” if he is mocking a book of the Bible? Why would you think someone mocking a book of the Bible as “Siracha sauce” - a play on the name for a condiment - is making a “nice comment”? Do you see how YOU ARE? How you actually claim mocking the Bible - when it’s done to a Catholic - is a “nice comment”? Now the reason why you apparently think this will fly is that you failed (I guess) to take notice that I cited the Book of Sirach to aMPU in the previous post. In other words, you apparently have no idea of what you’re talking about - as is so common the case. I went back and found that post because I truly believe that you’re pretty helpless and hapless in finding things on the internet: http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3608661/posts?page=430#430

So I posted Sirach 6:22 to aMPU and his comeback was “I love the Siracha sauce Vlad! Good recommendation” mocking the Bible. And you think the fact that I point out he spelled it wrong is. . . what? Not taking kindly to a “nice comment”? What “nice comment”? Seriously, do you see how YOU are - to borrow your question?

And what did I respond to him with? “You mean Sriracha sauce. You couldn’t even get that right. Par for the course.”

In your book, mocking a book of the Bible is making a “nice comment”. “See how you are?” Do you see how YOU are?

“It can sometimes also be spelled Siracha...just as AMPU (spelling!) did. You can go look it up.”

You could only say that if you are ignoring - or just plain pretending - that post 430 does not exist. It does.

Sirach - a Book of the Bible.

Sriracha - a condiment.

Siracha - a mocking comment about a book of the Bible done as a poor play on the name of a condiment.

I made no error on this at all. If you’re an honest man, however, you’ll admit, at the very least, that you did not see post 430. I would really hate to think (but would not be surprised) that you knew 430 was there all along and are posting as you are anyway. And what would that say about you?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.