Did Pope Leo XIII Break with Traditional Virtue language for "Rights" Vatican II-like Francis language? & Moral Limits of A.I. with Exorcist Fr Ripperger.."[Fr Ripperger at 36:27 explains] The problem with the [ambiguous 'no one ever defines... fluid'] term 'rights'"
0:00 Coming up... 1:23 Introduction 4:41 Overall Impression of A.I. 6:45 Ethical Dangers of A.I. 13:36 YT's Age of A.I. series 16:08 Nefarious funding of A.I. 17:17 Difficulty of Controlling A.I. 21:22 What Freud got right... projection theory 24:44 Positive Singularity or A.I. taking over? 29:10 Real Danger and Biggest Concern 29:57 A.I. and Copyright Issues 36:27 The problem with the term "rights" 42:52 A.I. Image Generation 44:42 A.I. Bible and Theology? 50:12 Jordan Peterson's view on A.I. 51:38 Basic explanation of machine learning 53:23 Moral limits of A.I. in human augmentation 1:00:08 Demonic influence in A.I.? 1:04:51 Technology vs getting Back to the Land 1:14:13 Morality of A.I. taking jobs?
1:18:12 Importance of Movies? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPy8GzTs87I]
Philosopher John Rist wrote that the apparently liberal Pope Leo XIII in a "major break...with earlier Church practice" of "virtues and vices" traditional language seemed to "almost single-handedly... [have] 'invented'... defence of rights" which was "hitherto largely secularist territory" (Infallibility, pages 50-51).
Might Pope Leo have started a problematic poorly defined "rights" language that helped bring about the ambiguous Vatican II that in part has lead to the current Francis crisis with his "rights" language instead of the traditional virtue language?
Comments
And it still has a great influence on the Catholic milieu. But there are a few points made here that may help the Catholic to reflect more on this subject in order to discern it.
We can go back to the controversial texts of Vatican II that to this day divide many Catholics. In them we see in them a new definition of the identity of the Roman Catholic Church, even though it is a faith that does not change.
Lumen Gentium says, for example:
“[...] the Church in Christ is, as it were, the sacrament or sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of the unity of the whole human race [...]"
And this "as it were the sacrament" is a proof of the existence of the dialectic that evolves everything. It is a strange definition because it is contrary to the faithful identification of the Church of all times.
Gaudium et Spes also says this:
"For this reason, we proclaim the most lofty vocation of man and affirm that there is in him a divine seed, the Sacred Council offers to the human race the sincere collaboration of the Church for the establishment of a universal brotherhood that corresponds to this vocation."
This definition of the "divine seed" is a clear proof that it is a Gnostic definition imposed on the Church.
Thus the definition of the papacy in the face of the collegiality of the bishops changed, the papacy lost its supremacy over the bishops.
There was an ambiguity that generated an identity crisis for the pontificate.
The consequence was serious for the Church's own evangelical mission. It is well known that after the closure of Vatican II the crisis only increased.
[More]
And this is still active today, but the Gnostics can be recognized from what they themselves present expounding in the ever-destructive mode.
Dugin clearly lays out the plan against the Church in order to reach this chaotic climax. In Fronda Magazine, issues eleven and twelve, in 1998, he states:
"It is necessary to overthrow Catholicism from within, strengthening decent secular movements, promoting heterodox and anti-pope Catholicism. Catholicism cannot be a guarantee of defense against the New World Order, because it is a transitional stage for that order."
This is consistent with a Masonic Plan to Destroy the Church ("Chiesa Viva," number 483, June 2015) which reads:
"Choose an Antipope. Claim that it will lead back to the Protestants in the Church and perhaps even to the Jews. An Antipope could be elected if bishops were given the right to vote. Then many Antipopes will be elected as soon as an Antipope will be installed as a compromise. Affirm that the true Pope is dead."
They know that the papacy can never be destroyed, but they can inform the Masonic lodges the plan "that the real Pope is dead" has been completed. This logically means removing a canonically elected pope and replacing him with a non-canonically elected pope.
It is the same as placing the See of Peter in total impediment to its authentic leader from governing. It is Peter's characteristic of confirming the brethren in the faith, but that he was prevented from doing so.
Thus will originate a mantra that will be echoed strongly by the Gnostics in the media and at their closest: the antipope is a pope, the pope is an antipope. Thus the Gnostic contempt for divine laws and institutions will be completed in order to generate spiritual chaos in the mind of the believer.
The visibility of the Church will be more distorted. But it will be recognized according to the "realized ecclesiastical canons," as Pope St. Julius teaches.
I conclude here that this influence is dialectical of Gnostic origin. Although the world always "evolves," the doctrine of the Church remains the same when it is rooted in faith and morals.
I share what I learned from a Catholic professor, Orlando Fedeli, a former member of the TFP, who has studied a lot about this crisis in the Church. He had a great devotion to Benedict XVI and saw him as a sign of change against this influence.
I think that this hope of his has been fulfilled. The pope's selective action became a reality for the good of the Church.