Thursday, December 19, 2013

The New "Devangelization"

In Stephansdom (St. Stephen's), the Cathedral of Vienna, last December ...


[Hat tip to Fr. Z]


10 comments:








I am not Spartacus

said...

Speaking of that area of once Christian Europe, I find it interesting that he who was the Secretary of the Committee that wrote and assembled the Universal Catechism, Cardinal Schonborn (and the Sec of any Committee is the most powerful and influential man on any committee) not only allowed the Catechism entries on Scandal, I suspect he was their author.

For those unfamiliar with the entries, you ought to read them for they judge Jesus as guilty of giving scandal and the entires also teach that direct and indirect scandal are sinful (a change from the past as indirect scandal is not a sin in Trad Theology).

Objectively, the Church has taught that Jesus is guilty of serious sin.

This is the first Catechism to ever identify a person as having been guilty of giving scandal - and it is the Divine Person, Jesus, that this Catechism judges as guilty (it does it twice).

The double blasphemous Scandal of this Catechism renders it worthy of a righteous burning and if anybody wonders why the Church is in such dire straits, look no further for a reason; His spouse has publicly judged Him guilty of giving scandal.

We are lucky He has not smote her for her malign perfidy.

O, and here is some interesting background on the Cardinal's family.

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2013/11/schonborn-and-bnai-brith-ancestors.html





viverechristusest

said...

NotSparticus - I went to the paragraphs in the catechism on scandal, and I did not find what you say is there.
What's the deal?





viverechristusest

said...

Ok - I found what you were referring to. The statements that Jesus caused scandal are in a completely different section than the section on the sin of scandal (paragraphs in the 580s vs the 2280s), and, in context, have to do with a different kind of "scandal" - not the sinful kind - where a person by their behavior puts a "stumbling block" in the way of others; that, in this case, Christ, through his deeds and words, occasioned opposition to himself on the part of the pharisees. He could have done no different, of course, and so was not responsible for their sin.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Vierchristusest. I understand why you must deny the very reality before your eyes but it is therfe in balck and white.

His Spouse is teaching He sinned by giving scandal for, as it teaches in the catechism, even indirect Scandal is a sin





I am not Spartacus

said...

Mysterium Iniquitatis.


The entries about Scandal in the new Universal Catechism are aught but the rhetorical scourging of Jesus, The God-Man, He who personifies Divine ontological innocence, and He is judged by the New Theologians as guilty of having given Scandal.

This is a new blasphemous sin crying to Heaven for vengeance and at some time in the future, public apologies must - and will be - given for this most infamous blasphemy.


I reacted with extreme anger the first time I read this - when the Catechism was officially promulgated - and my soul weeps today because nobody in the Hierarchy even seems to be aware of this blasphemous scandal, to say nothing about repenting of it and correcting it.


And, yes, IANS has contacted both his Bishop and The Prefect of The Sacred Doctrine of the Faith with Bishop Barbarito, through his spokesman, agreeing with the Catechism while the CDF has yet to reply.


Any man who reads these entries and does not wail and moan and/or find himself driven to righteous anger is a man living outside of Grace.

Those standing amidst the destruction wrought by the Modernists and the New Theologians; those standing looking for love in the ruins; those wondering why events have so rapidly spun out of control need no look further for a cause;


We ought count our Blessings He has not smote His Church for having taught this to His children; as it is, we deserve infinitely worse than what we have received so far.





I am not Spartacus

said...




II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS


Respect for the souls of others: scandal


2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.


2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87


The Catechism teaches that Jesus gave scandal and it teaches that Jesus reproached the scribes for giving scandal; that is, objectively, it is teaching that Jesus was a hypocrite - one who both condemned scandal and gave scandal. Is there anyone with a lick of common sense who read these entries before promulgating them?

How can anybody be so criminally and sacrilegiously casual with the truth when it comes to He who IS Truth?





I am not Spartacus

said...



2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.


2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90



The greats of the New Theology foreclosed the solitary door they had to escape from their sinful and sacrilegious entries about Jesus and Scandal. They COULD have cited Indirect Scandal as NOT being sinful..

Fr Harndon Dictionary:

Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)

but the new theologians did not do that, but, rather, they changed the traditional understanding of indirect scandal and taught that even indirect scandal is sinful.





I am not Spartacus

said...

I have no idea what'n'hell sort of evil got into the new theologians but The Douai Rheims commentary warned against even thinking that Jesus caused scandal - say nothing about teaching that Jesus gave scandal...


Matt 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?


Ver. 12. Scandalized. When the Pharisees had received our Lord's answer, they had nothing to reply. His disciples perceiving their indignation, came and asked Jesus if he observed they were scandalized, i.e. offended. It is probable the disciples were also a little hurt, or afraid lest his words were contrary to the law of Moses or the tradition of the ancients, and took this occasion of having their scruples removed. St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom and Theophylactus understand this answer, Every plant, &c. to signify that every doctrine not proceeding from God, consequently the traditions of the Pharisees here in question, were to be eradicated by the promulgation of the gospel truths, which were not to remain unpublished on account of the scandal some interested or prejudiced persons might choose to take therefrom. (Jansenius) --- It must be here observed, that Christ was not the direct cause of scandal to the Jews, for such scandal would not be allowable; he only caused it indirectly, because it was his doctrine, at which, through their own perversity, they took scandal. (Denis the Carthusian)


CAPICHE? THey TOOK scandal. Jesus did NOT give scandal.

The perverse nature of the New Theology is such that they have ended-up sinning gravely; they have caused grave scandal and sinned mightily by teaching that Jesus gave scandal.

I completely and thoroughly condemn these entries in the New Catechism; they are the new sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance.

May Our Lord and Saviour have mercy on the souls who wrote, edited, and promulgated this monumental evil of a teaching that Jesus gave scandal.

How such evil passed ecclesiastical muster gives the lie to any and all claims of continuity. It is only a Church nearly completely corrupted that could have promulgated such filthy and fetid doctrines about My Lord and Saviour, my Creator and Redeemer

Cardinal Schonborn, Pope Blessed John Paul II and all of his successors are/will be guilty of giving scandal until these entries are corrected.

The Catholic Church gives continuing scandal





I am not Spartacus

said...

589 Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God's own attitude toward them.367 He went so far as to hint that by sharing the table of sinners he was admitting them to the messianic banquet.368 But it was most especially by forgiving sins that Jesus placed the religious authorities of Israel on the horns of a dilemma. Were they not entitled to demand in consternation, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?"369 By forgiving sins Jesus either is blaspheming as a man who made himself God's equal, or is speaking the truth and his person really does make present and reveal God's name.370

Hang on; Jesus placed the Devils on the horns of a dilemma. Does whomever wrote this entry even know the definition of Dilemma?


Choice between two alternatives that are equally inevitable or undesirable.


So much for Free Will; O, and since when is accepting Jesus as Messias undesirable in any acceptable meaning of that word?


Jesus is undesirable?


The Devils of Deicide are putatively exonerated owing to Jesus having placed the Devils on the horns of a dilemma but what about the Jews who accepted Jesus as The Messias?


Why were they not also placed on a dilemma by Jesus?


Or were they not placed on the horns of a dilemma because their hearts were open to the Truth?


Blaming Jesus for the hateful perfidy of the Devils a sulphurous malignity because it is the pluperfect example of blaming the innocent.

591 Jesus asked the religious authorities of Jerusalem to believe in him because of the Father's works which he accomplished.373 But such an act of faith must go through a mysterious death to self, for a new "birth from above" under the influence of divine grace.374 Such a demand for conversion in the face of so surprising a fulfillment of the promises375 allows one to understand the Sanhedrin's tragic misunderstanding of Jesus: they judged that he deserved the death sentence as a blasphemer.376 The members of the Sanhedrin were thus acting at the same time out of "ignorance" and the "hardness" of their "unbelief".377

Yup, who can blame the devils of Deicide for Jesus only fulfilled over 300 - OVER THREE HUNDRED prophecies but we supposed to understand them...

But not, Jesus; no Sir; He is twice judged as giving scandal. I guess the new theologians spent their sympathy of the Devils of Deicide and had none left for Jesus...

Advancing exculpatory arguments of behalf of the Devils of Deicide is decidedly diabolical and such attempts bespeak a real tragedy - the Judaising of Tradition on the art of modernists and their progeny, The New Theologians.





I am not Spartacus

said...

We have already seen in the universal Catechism that the Catholic Church judged Jesus guilty of giving scandal - a most serious sin - and yet we read in Holy Writ how it was that Jesus was careful about not giving or causing scandal...



Matthew 17; But that we may not scandalize them.....

Do the new theologians think Jesus was duplicitous or merely careless at times and not really aware of what He was doing?


Our new theologians have been nothing if not loathe to judge sodomites as serious sinners but when it comes to Our Lord and Saviour, Our Creator, Redeemer, and Saviour?


Twice, they judge him Guilty of giving scandal.


It is no wonder He has withdrawn His grace from these phonies and frauds.

It is the Catholic Church and the modern Popes who are the ones who are giving scandal.

Jesus being judged by the likes of these?

Please.

The Catholic Catechism gives scandal; The Cardinals, Bishops, Theologians and Pope who wrote, edited, and promulgated this Catechism give scandal; the Catholic Church gives scandal.

What sort of man would ever publicly accuse his innocent wife of giving scandal? A weak and reprehensible man.

Now, what can be said about those who publicly judged Jesus guilty of giving scandal?