I keep thinking: the Scimitar meets the Care Bears" ...
Related: Matthew Arildsen, "Why Wheaton’s move to fire controversial professor makes sense" (Washington Post, January 8, 2016).
Saturday, January 09, 2016
The world will LOVE this feel-good message from Pope Francis; but what does it mean?
What will it mean to the world? What does HE mean? Is anyone sure there is a definitive answer?
I keep thinking: the Scimitar meets the Care Bears" ...
Related: Matthew Arildsen, "Why Wheaton’s move to fire controversial professor makes sense" (Washington Post, January 8, 2016).
I keep thinking: the Scimitar meets the Care Bears" ...
Related: Matthew Arildsen, "Why Wheaton’s move to fire controversial professor makes sense" (Washington Post, January 8, 2016).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God (Gal 4: 4-7).
One becomes a child of God via Baptism.
That is Catholic Truth whereas what Franciscus claims is Masonic Heresy
"The meaning of masonry"
Now, therefore, why is Jesus the Christ not mentioned in the Masonic Ritual of the first three degrees? Those who ask this question should remember that Masonry has been, and is now, attempting to promote the idea of a universal brotherhood, a dwelling-together of all peoples on earth in harmony and peace. Though Avatars have come to all people at different times with the same essential message, nevertheless the Christian Avatar is still not acceptable to some peoples. The brotherhood of man, however, can be established upon the Fatherhood of God, which could and should be a universal unifying synthesis of sufficient power to draw all men together. Masonry proclaims the universal sovereignty of the All-Father, for it is He, the I Am That I Am, who has sent every divine messenger into the world of humanity to teach men the way, the Truth, and the Light. The ancient teachings were projected on the earth plane by the great teachers--Avatars, divine messengers, messiahs, way-showers, exemplars, elder Brothers, who at the behest of the Great Architect came into flesh from the Celestial Lodge at different times and to different races of men. Jesus of Nazareth was sent to be a light to the world to some branches of the human race, but other branches have had, and do now have, their Buddha, their Krishna, their Zoroaster, their Confucius, their Mohammed. Masonry declares that all these peoples, of whatever religion or creed, are children of God born into a particular race, religion, or creed to derive whatever benefits and self development they need, or are capable of, on their long journey back to the Celestial Lodge. As all men live and move and have their being in the Creator, all men are potential Brothers. Hence Masonry emphasizes no one Avatar in its Ritual more than another; and Masons all over the world express their first allegiance to God, as the Universal Father. . .
Now, if Franciscus fancies his own self the Grand High Exalted Head Potentate of the Ahab-Bektash Temple, let him declare it and then he can wear a Fez, get liquored-up and ride around in parades in a go-cart.
Near the end, the Holy Father, referring to people of all faiths and beliefs, declares that "we are all God's children."
Now in my metaphysics class, an interesting question arose in speaking of the three kinds of analogical language -- 1) an analogy of extrinsic attribution (like 'healthy' in "Apples are healthy"); 2) analogy expressed as metaphor (like "Herod is a fox," which is literally false but figuratively true), and 3) proper proportionality (like "God knows" as an analogy to "a cat knows," which is not literally false, but just proportionately different.
The relevant question that arose was whether "God is our Father" -- or, its flip side: "We are God's children" -- involves an analogy of metaphor or proper proportionality. I knew it couldn't be a metaphor, even though numerous gnostically-inclined modernist theologians would say so, because for those that are incorporated into the Body of Christ by adoption, God's 'Fatherhood' is not merely figurative, but profoundly true.
But I wanted to be sure. So I checked with our resident Jesuit theologian of broad learning and reliable theological instincts, and what he said to me is this:
The fatherhood of God is not properly applicable apart from those who are baptized into the Body of Christ and have Him for their brother and God for their common Father in Heaven. In other words, he said, it is simply not true that all people are "God's children" or that God is the "Father" of all.
Now isn't that interesting? It seems that the question redounds back upon the distinction drawn by Hart in that recent article of his to which I linked -- namely, that all of God's creatures are His by virtue of His having created them, but that Christ introduces an antithesis into the equation, such that there is a division, in principle, between the goats and the sheep, between the children of darkness and the children of light, between those in obstinate rebellion and those regenerated by the power of God.
Even Lewis' Chronicle of Narnia says as much by its distinction between "Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve," on the one hand, and those who have come over to the side of Aslan, on the other.
Which leaves me all the more puzzled that our Holy Father would say something like this. It strikes me as being at odds with the Catholic tradition, unless I am deeply mistaken.
Dear Doc. What he says is dependent upon his personal Creed (certainly not recognisably Catholic).
One has to think he is being honest in what he says and what he says is what he believes but what he believes is not Catholic.
Either we have a Pope who does not hold the Catholic Faith once delivered or we have a world class liar; well, ABS supposes he could simply be insane and, thus, not fully culpable for what he says and does.
As to the Bishops who elected him, what does that election say about them for it is not reasonable to presume this man was silent about his creed until he was elected.
As far as ABS can determine he is who he was when he was Abp and his reputation and praxis was such that Rorate Caeli was crestfallen immediately upon his election because they knew who he was.
Of course that unctuous video is 'at odds with Catholic tradition,' Prof. Blosser. Bergoglio and his modernist minions are hell-bent on destroying whatever still remains of the pre-conciliar Church. Their diabolical goal is to get rid of anything distinctively Catholic in the Church, so as to foster an Outback-Rodney King (No rules just right-Why can't we be friends?) mishmash rapprochement with other so-called faiths. God help us. Things are so bad in the Church right now (recent post on RC have been truly dispiriting) that good Catholics can only hope that the current pontificate is like a supernova: the violent spiritual expiration of a twisted generation of clerics who realize that their days are numbered. RFGA, Ph.D.
Post a Comment