Did Pope Francis Say It's Not Necessary to Believe in God? | Snopes.com
- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.
Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives
Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?
Unfortunately, what has happened
is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible
ordinary magisterial teachings
(such as,
for instance,
the
role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the
current Magisterium
promulgates
them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things
that neoconservatives do
are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they
have not fully
or explicitly
considered. Many of them would deny this characterization
because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact,
are their operative
principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html]
- "Some... assembled [Council] prelates advocated... harsh measures
towards the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers... Athanasius, however, proposed
more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such [Semi-Arian] bishops as had
communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be
recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary;
but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be
admitted to lay-communion... Yet it cannot be denied, that men of zeal
and boldness were found among the [Semi-Arian] Arianizers. Two laymen,
Flavian and Diodorus, protested with spirit against the [unambiguous
Arian] heterodoxy of the crafty Leontius, and kept alive an orthodox
[Catholic] party in the midst of the [Arian] Eusebian communion."
(The Arians of the Fourth Century, By John Henry Newman, Pages 198-199)
'Yet the men were better than their creed; and it is satisfactory to
be able to detect amid the impiety and worldliness of the heretical
party any elements of a purer spirit, which gradually exerted itself
and worked out from the corrupt mass, in which it was embedded. Even
thus viewed as distinct from their political associates, the
Semi-Arians are a motley party at best; yet they may be considered as
Saints and Martyrs, when compared with the Eusebians, and in fact some
of them have actually been acknowledged as such by the Catholics of
subsequent times. Their zeal in detecting the humanitarianism of
Marcellus and Photinus, and their good service in withstanding the
{300} Anomœans, who arrived at the same humanitarianism by a bolder
course of thought, will presently be mentioned. On the whole they were
men of correct and exemplary life, and earnest according to their
views; and they even made pretensions to sanctity in their outward
deportment, in which they differed from the true Eusebians, who, as
far as the times allowed it, affected the manners and principles of
the world. It may be added, that both Athanasius and Hilary, two of
the most uncompromising supporters of the Catholic doctrine, speak
favourably of them. Athanasius does not hesitate to call them brothers
[Note 7]; considering that,
however necessary it was for the edification of the Church at large,
that the Homoüsion should be enforced on the clergy, yet that the
privileges of private Christian fellowship were not to be denied to
those, who from one cause or other stumbled at the use of it [Note
8]. It is remarkable, that the Semi-Arians, on the contrary, in
their most celebrated Synod (at Ancyra, A.D.
358) anathematized the holders of the Homoüsion, as if crypto-Sabellians
[Note 9]."
[http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter4-2.html]
- Cardinal John Henry Newman
What is a Semi-Modernist and could Fr. Thomas Weinandy be a Semi-Modernist in recently promoting the Francis agenda?
Why were the conservative
Vatican II popes and why are almost all the conservative present day
bishops and conservative Catholics so afraid of a schism with the
Modernist heretic faction?
Might
it be because like in the Arian crisis when there were Arians and
Semi-Arians so today there are Semi-Modernists who because of "weakness" don't want schism and want communion with the total Modernist heretics?
Remember what Cardinal Newman said:
"Athanasius, however, proposed
more temperate measures... A decree was passed, that such [Semi-Arian] bishops as had
communicated with the Arians through weakness or surprise, should be
recognized in their respective sees, on signing the Nicene formulary;
but that those, who publicly defended the heresy, should only be
admitted to lay-communion."
Semi-Arians
were those who attempted the practically almost impossible task of
being loyal to the traditional teachings of the Church while holding on
to Semi-Arian ambiguous teachings because they were afraid of being in
schism with the total Arian heretics who were supported and protected by the Roman government.
So
today, it appears that most conservative Catholics like the
Semi-Arians have tried to do the
practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible
teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Modernist
ambiguous teachings as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II because
they are afraid of being in schism with the Modernist heretics.
Newman said that during the Arian Heresy Crisis 80% of the
bishops were Arians or semi-Arains which is probably similar to the number of bishops
who today have fallen into Modernism or Semi-Modernism.
Francis's closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez
Maradiaga apparently declared himself, Francis and all liberals to be
total Modernist heretics since Vatican II:
"The Second Vatican Council... meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and Modernism...
Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and
abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of the person."
(Whispers in the Loggia Website, "The Council's 'Unfinished Business,'
The Church's 'Return to Jesus"... and Dreams of "The Next Pope" - A
Southern Weekend with Francis' 'Discovery Channel,'" October 28, 2013)
The journalist conservative Catholic Milo Yiannopoulos in his book "Diabolical" reported:
"Since Vatican II, most popes have been preoccupied with holding
together the conservative [Semi-Modernist] and liberal [Modernist heretic]
factions that emerged in its wake."
Again, I say during the Arian crisis, Semi-Arians
were those who attempted the practically almost impossible task of
being loyal to the traditional teachings of the Church while holding on
to Semi-Arian ambiguous teachings because they were afraid of being in
schism with the total Arian heretics.
So
today, it appears that most conservative Catholics like the
Semi-Arians have tried to do the
practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible
teachings of the Church while holding on to Semi-Modernist
ambiguous teachings as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II because
they are afraid of being in schism with the Modernist heretics.
Might
it be because like in the Arian crisis when there were Arians and
Semi-Arians so today there are Semi-Modernists who because of "weakness" don't want schism and want communion with the total Modernist heretics?
If Francis is a Modernist then, might the conservative Fr. Thomas Weinandy possibly hold Semi-Modernist and Semi-Arian opinions?
This Project MUSE theological article seems to present the case that Weinandy might possibly hold Semi-Arian poistions:
This article responds to Thomas Weinandy's account of the consciousness and knowledge of Christ. Deserving of careful consideration, his is a rich and multifaceted proposal on a difficult and complex topic. Some of the complexity is theological in nature, not all of which I will be able to avoid in my response. Still, this response is meant to be primarily philosophical in nature. And it appears that there are two kinds of philosophical presuppositions that typically go unacknowledged in discussions of this topic. One concerns theories of personhood and self-consciousness. The other has to do with the "principle of perfection," a "principle of fittingness"—or what Thomas Weinandy calls "the false presupposition" of Thomas Aquinas's Christology. To my mind, both are philosophical presuppositions, but the first (on personhood and self-consciousness) fits the theme of this volume more closely, and so it will be the topic of this response.
Person versus I—The Trinity
Weinandy's proposal regarding the human consciousness of Christ seems peculiar if not unique in that it suggests that in Christ there is no divine I, but only a human I. In fact, in this proposal none of the divine persons has an I—though I am not sure the suggestion is that they share a common [End Page 425] I.2 Thus Christ would be a divine person without a divine I. The personal pronoun I would be connected with a human nature as self-conscious, rather than with the divine person in which this nature subsists.
[... ]I do not currently see any philosophical objections to this suggestion regarding the Trinity. But neither do I see what would force us to make this assumption. By contrast, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, for example, would hold that there are three intelligent and free subjects in God.4 And [End Page 426] indeed, though the three persons are distinct from each other, each is not "really" distinct from the divine essence, and we would therefore expect each person to have all the properties that the essence has. The persons are distinct only by their proper relationality with each other. And this relationality consists in the way in which each person passes on the whole and entire essence to the other.5 Thus the Son has the whole essence as received from the Father; he has the essence in a filial way. He has the divine will in a filial manner, and the divine mind as "conceived" or in the form of a concept, word, or logos. If therefore self-consciousness is a property of the divine essence—for God is Spirit—and if persons are beings that have a nature or essence, then each of the divine persons has this one divine essence and the property of self." [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/735101]
It appears that the Sedevacantist friendly website, aka Catholic, may be making a big deal for their cause about the apparent Semi-Modernist and possible Arian Fr. Weinandy jumping on board with Francis's "Synodal Path to a Synodal Church":
Based on his 2017 letter to Jorge, it appeared that he had at least some semblance of Catholic faith coursing through his veins. Did someone spike the Capuchin’s cappuccino? Was he blackmailed? Did Jorge’s operatives threaten to shoot his puppy?
While any and all of these things are possible given the level of
evil presently dwelling in occupied Rome, the real answer is far more
obvious:
Weinandy is just another man of the Council. As such,
whenever or wherever his words or deeds give the appearance of
orthodoxy, it is just this, mere appearance. In reality, he, like the
rest of his conciliar con freres, is tainted with more than a little
leaven of error. They belong to a counterfeit church. As the Baltimore
Catechism states:
“If any Catholic denies only one article of faith, though he believes all the rest, he ceases to be a Catholic, and is cut off from the Church” (see Q. 129, 1945 edition, p. 142).
Consider Weinandy’s passionate praise for the Almighty Council and its abundant fruit published just last year:
– “Without Vatican II, it would be hard to imagine Karol Wojtyla being elected Pope.” [https://akacatholic.com/what-happened-to-stompin-tom-weinandy/]
Before we move to the next point that Sedevacantists and Francis Traditionalists like Steve Skojec are in agreement that Francis and Benedict as well as John Paul II are the same, let's look at the problems with Sedevacantism.
Number one is Vatican I.
Are they prepared to deny Vatican I?
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:
"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and
the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy
and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor
Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of
Sedevantism (Part 1)).
Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains some other problems with them:
Getting
back to the Sedevacantist and Francis Traditionalists like Skojec
thinking Francis and Benedict as well as John Paul II are the same.
The Remnant and Skojec are right in saying that the Vatican II's
ambiguities which were a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia's ambiguity lead
to the problems within the Church and outside including false ecumenism.
Strangely, the non-traditionalist conservative Matthew Schmitz put it best:
"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on
paper but not in reality as led to widespread corruption... a culture
of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."
It allowed the Church of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to keep
heretics and homosexual predators in the hierarchy such as McCarrick
and others like him to flourish and to promote neo-sacrilegious media
productions such as the Assisi fiasco and the kissing of the Koran.
This was wrong and God will judge them for their failures to be good
fathers (popes) in allowing evil men into God's Church to abuse and to
lead many to indifferentism and away from salvation which is only in
Jesus through His Church.
Both sincerely in my opinion because of false philosophical personal
ideas while not totally abandoning Thomism tried to do the practically
almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the
Church while holding on to neo-modernist Personalist versions of
Kantian and Hegelian philosophy as well as the ambiguities of Vatican
II.
Benedict if you read his later writings finally rejected Kantianism, but apparently couldn't completely give up Hegelianism.
However, he realized in a vague way that the ambiguity of Vatican II was
destroying the Church so he brought back the Traditional Latin Mass and
attempted to fight against sex abuse, the Vatican gay lobby and reform
the finances to the Church.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, these efforts united the financially
corrupt old guard of Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the Vatican gay lobby
which brought about Vatileaks and other pressures against Benedict that
eventually lead to the Benedict resignation and the papacy of Jorge
Bergoglio whose pontifical validity has been questioned by many even in
the hierarchy from the beginning to this day.
As Bishop René Gracida has said there was never universal acceptance of Bergoglio by the Church.
But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the
validity of Benedict's resignation and Bergoglio's lawful election to
the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop
Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals
as John Paul's conclave constitution explicitly states.
This is one reason that Francis is not the same as Benedict and John Paul.
The other reason that The Remnant and Skojec are wrong about saying
Francis is the same as Benedict and John Paul can be put simply in
analogy:
John Paul and Benedict were sincere doctors with medicine that was getting the patient sicker.
Benedict realized the medicine was bad and slowly started giving good medicine.
But in my opinion, Francis is a doctor who is trying to kill the patient by slow poisoning.
In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis doesn't have even a remnant of
Thomism. Nor does he apparently care about being loyal to the
infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a nihilistic postmodernist
like his favorite theologian Michel de Certeau.
Francis's only grasp of reality or meaning appears to be leftist and
Peronist ideology as well as his close friend the kissing bishop's
Bernard Haring Hegelian situation ethics all dressed in religious
language.
While Benedict and John Paul upheld Church teachings on paper while not
always in reality, Francis with Amoris Laetitia, the Argentine letter,
the death penalty Catechism change and the latest indifferentism papal
statement isn't even upholding the infallible teachings on paper.
George Gilder wrote a book called "Sexual Suicide" which helped me
return to the Church because it showed that the Catholic teachings on
sexuality were true and those outside those teachings were committing
slow suicide.
Francis in my opinion is trying to kill the Church by slow suicide.
He will not succeed because Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Those who don't oppose him in my opinion are his accomplices unless they are in invincible ignorance.
In my opinion, it appears that if Francis doesn't convert he may be
heading down a path of destruction along with all his accomplices if
they don't convert if they aren't in invincible ignorance.
I feel sorry for them.
We must pray for him and his accomplices, but most of all we must pray
for all those abused and lead away from salvation by their promotion of
heresy.