Skip to main content

@FeserEdward.."[Pico’s] word dignity can of course be interpreted as..inverting the relation between man and God"..Barzun..be cautious..accent on the divine dignity rather than on our dignity..sticking a word like 'infinite' in front of the latter accomplishes the reverse of this"


Some reminders for readers of Dignitas Infinita that words and concepts have histories: “The very expression dignity of man, even when Pico della Mirandola coined it in the fifteenth century, had a blasphemous ring to it” Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, p. 180 “[Pico’s] word dignity can of course be interpreted as flouting the gospel’s call to humility and denying the reality of sin. Humanism is accordingly charged with inverting the relation between man and God” Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence, p. 60 When responding, please don’t say something stupid like “But the Declaration is obviously not a manifesto for Renaissance humanism!!” Yes, I know that. That’s not the point. The point is that modern people, from the Renaissance onward, have gotten progressively more drunk on the idea of their own dignity – and, correspondingly, less and less cognizant of the fact that what is most grave about sin is not that it dishonors us, but that it dishonors God. This, and not their own dignity, is what they most need reminding of. Hence, while it is not wrong to speak of human dignity, one must be cautious and always put the accent on the divine dignity rather than on our dignity. I submit that sticking a word like “infinite” in front of the latter accomplishes the reverse of this.

Comments

Renato said…
I met Professor Orlando Fedeli and he talked a lot about Gnosis, although he was surrounded by a lot of criticism and ridicule for it, because it was not an easy subject to understand.

This was the cause of the lack of interest in this topic among the Catholics at the time in my country.

Today, these classes by this Brazilian of Italian origin on the study of Gnosis have become important for me as a discernment. And they show today what this Church is, by fitting the pieces of an illegitimate pontificate according to the canonical teachings of the Church and other sources, which today is far worse than the forty antipopes in its ecclesial history.

Fedeli says:

"[...] it is known that the tree of the forbidden fruit of Eden was exactly the tree of the knowledge or knowledge of good and evil (Gen. II, 10). Thus, gnosis would have been Adam's temptation. In fact, the serpent promised our first parents that if they ate the forbidden fruit, "they would be like gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen., III, 5). Adam and Eve's temptation was to become gods. This is the great temptation of man, who, driven by pride, like Lucifer, does not admit his finitude, does not accept its contingency."

The word finitude above comes from finite and means the human condition of being limited, that is, having an end.

In modern times they call the man with this behavior is self-centered or narcissistic; The triumph in the serpent's deception is thus made possible by blindness to his own reality: he is contingent, that is, uncertain in his works through his own fault for the original sin he has committed, because he is proud.

Divine grace vanishes in him, and he will never alone comprehend this truth.

That is why the magisterium of Bergoglio's Church is always turned to impenitence, to arrogantly believing the lie about the divine seed. The man of impenitence believes in himself only as if he were god; The condemnation of hell is inaccessible to him for this reason.

True God for him is evil, and this also becomes a false justification for not serving Him.

Pope Francis is the head of the Church, but of sin because it is turned in the same pride as Lucifer.

https://www.montfort.org.br/bra/veritas/religiao/gnose/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Fedeli



Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...