Skip to main content

EWTN's World Over: Vatican "Pagan... Ceremony" was "Syncretism" & Francis's Pantheistic "New Age... Syncretism" Beliefs?

Update: October 15, 2019

LifeSiteNews reported that on Thursday on the EWTN World Over show, Canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray said that the Francis Vatican had a "pagan religious ceremony... This should not be - ever occur in a Catholic institution."
(LifeSiteNews, "Pope Francis causes 'confusion' by participating in 'pagan' ritual," October 11, 2019)

Also, on the EWTN show, The Catholic Thing editor Robert Royal called the ritual "syncretism" according to the LifeSiteNews article.

Is the reason that there was a pagan syncretistic ritual preceding the Amazon Synod because Francis apparently believes in Pantheistic "new age... syncretism"?

August 9, Crux reported that Francis said: 
"When asked why he convened a synod on the Amazon, Francis said, 'It is the ‘child’ of Laudato si’.'"
[https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/08/09/in-new-interview-pope-explains-aim-of-synod-warns-against-nationalism/]

It is important to show that what Francis is promoting in Laudato si is what I think is a sub-set of Pantheism called Panentheism.

The Washington Post explains that his radical environmental encyclical Laudato si teaches Panentheism:

'''The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face. The ideal is not only to pass from the exterior to the interior to discover the action of God in the soul, but also to discover God in all things. [Quote from Laudato si.]'"

"Mystical nature panentheism in a papal encyclical! And with a nod to liberation theology! And with a footnote to the Sufi mystic Ali al-Khawas, no less."

"Whatever impact “Laudato Si’” has in the political world remains to be seen. But that the pope is here embracing a nature-based mysticism, a highly adumbrated anthropocentrism, and a radical “integral ecology” places the encyclical alongside the best of radical, progressive religious environmentalism — and far outside what even mainline Protestant denominations have affirmed heretofore."
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/pope-francis-environmental-encyclical-is-even-more-radical-than-it-appears-commentary/2015/06/19/a51ebd98-16ca-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.17449a83446c]

What is Panentheism and why does it contradict Christianity?

Christian philosopher James N. Anderson spells out what it is and why it contradicts Christianity:

"There are many reasons why I reject panentheism, but in this post I want to mention just one. Panentheism comes from the Greek words for ‘all’, ‘in’, and ‘God’ — literally, “all-in-God-ism”. On this view, God is neither fully distinct from the universe (as in classical theism) nor identical with the universe (as in pantheism). Instead, the universe exists ‘in’ or ‘within’ God. The prepositions ‘in’ and ‘within’ are obviously not meant in a spatial sense (as in “Bob is in the kitchen”). Rather, they’re meant to capture the idea of ontological containment. God pervades and encompasses the universe in such an intimate fashion that there is an overlap or intersection between the being of God and the being of the universe. While God is more than the universe, there is no clear ontological distinction between God and the universe (which includes us, of course)."

"It’s not difficult to see the attractions of a panentheistic view of God. Who wouldn’t like to imagine that they’re within God — that their soul participates in the divine? Who wouldn’t like to think that — to put it somewhat crudely — they’re part of God? Such a view can do wonders for your self-esteem! (On the other hand, if you already have high self-esteem, panentheism nicely validates it.) Likewise, panentheism is convenient for legitimizing your lifestyle choices, whatever they happen to be. If it’s good enough for God, it’s good enough for me — and since it’s good enough for me, it must be good enough for God!'

Theism and Panentheism (not to scale)
"Despite these practical benefits, however, it seems to me that panentheism has a fundamental metaphysical flaw. According to biblical theism, God created the universe out of nothing and is ontologically distinct from it. There is a clean Creator-creation distinction. Moreover, God is not merely good (as though God were being judged by some external standard of goodness) but is goodness itself. God is the Absolute Good, the ultimate standard by which any other good is judged to be good. God is the norm and the universe is the normed (i.e., that which is subject to and judged by the norm). To use the classical categories, God is the Good, the True, and the Beautiful — originally, perfectly, and normatively. The universe is merely good (in part), true (in part), and beautiful (in part)."

"For the panentheist, however, matters must be very different indeed. Since the universe is in God, insofar as there is good in the universe there must be good in God. So far, so good — so to speak. But by the very same token, insofar as there is evil in the universe there must be evil in God. If the universe is a mixture of good and evil (which I take to be an obvious truth) then God must also be a mixture of good and evil, on the supposition that God contains the universe. Whatever pollutes the universe unavoidably pollutes God, on account of the ontological overlap between God and the universe."

"It follows that God cannot be the Absolute Good. If the panentheist takes seriously the reality of evil, he ought to conclude that God is not pure goodness. But then God can’t be the ultimate standard of goodness. So who or what is? The answer must be: nothing. For that standard would have to be independent of God, yet the panentheist maintains that everything is in God (“all-in-God”). In short, the root problem with panentheism is that it conflates the norm and the normed. Consequently, the very distinction between good and evil is obliterated. When there is no Absolute Good, there is no good at all — and therefore no evil."
[https://www.proginosko.com/2012/01/why-i-am-not-a-panentheist/]

The Christian Apologetics Alliance shows how Jesuit Karl Rahner's and apparently Francis's Panentheism is found "in New Age... syncretism":

"In discussing Panentheistic aspects of theologian Karl Rahner’s philosophy,authors Stanley Genz and Roger Olsen state that Rahner’s view implies that”the source of the difference between God and the world lies in God himself, and therefore the difference is not absolute” (20th Century Theology, InterVarsity Press, 1992, p. 249). Any stance which renders God’s interaction with the world a part of his nature or an interaction of necessity falls into the Panetheism category."

"Panentheism is also found commonly in the NEW AGE [my capitalization], forms of Christian-NEW AGE [my capitalization] syncretism (such as the beliefs expressed by Episcopal priest Matthew Fox), New Thought, Theosophy, and Neoplatonism."
[http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/11/22/evaluating-panentheism/]

Another panentheist was the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

"For Hegel, God does not exist apart from creation, perfect and complete. Instead, Hegel holds that God is actualized through the world."
(Springer.com, "Hegelian Panentheism," November 15, 2012)

It appears that what Hegel may have been saying is "God [who] does not exist apart from creation is actualized through the world" by "fully assuming the incarnation."

In other words, we don't need God the Creator of us and the universe to keep us in existence at every moment. Nor do we need His Incarnation to redeem us from our sin. Instead God needs us to be "actualized" and come into "reality" in the "particular, concrete."

It appears that Francis is a Hegelian Panentheist. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio wrote in 2006:

"It would be very difficult to make philosophy in the contemporary world by skipping Hegel... reality is always embodied, particular, concrete. There can be no access to universality without fully assuming the incarnation."
(Tierrasdeamerica.com, "Bergoglio, Hegel and Latin America, Notes of Cardinal Bergoglio's philosophy in the margin [preface] of a book by Amelia Podetti / American lands," January 17, 2014)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Comments

Ron Krumpos said…
To say the soul is united with the divine does not deny supremacy of the divine, any more than a ripple can reject the greatness of its ocean. Mysticism may seem pantheistic “The divine is in all,” theistic, “but all are not yet in the divine,” polytheistic, “It is called by many names,” and non-theistic, “but One underlies the many.” Most of the mystics were panentheistic: the divine is within and beyond all, both immanent and transcendent. That view is not total heresy.

Some mystics in ancient history, and a few in modern times, had been denounced, banished or persecuted by their religion for their beliefs during their lifetime. Many of those same persons became recognized as inspirational leaders of their faith and have been idealized - some as saints - usually long after they had passed on.
Ron Krumpos said…
Among Roman Catholics, there are 36 Doctors of the Church. Most of them were considered as mystics.
Fred Martinez said…
Are you a Catholic or a pagan?
Ron Krumpos said…
That is the only choice? No Eastern Orthodox, Protestant or other Christian? I was baptized, confirmed and married as a Congregationalist. I hope we are not pagans.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk