The Liberation Theology Pope Proves Conquest’s Second Law

Posted on Comments

Here are two sentences that caught my attention:

When word that [Cardinal Raymond Leo] Burke was on his way out [from the Apostolic Signatura] began circulating last month, it signaled that Francis would take major steps to reshape the church. It coincided with the selection of a new archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich, who Catholic progressives celebrated for positions like breaking with the American church hierarchy when it withheld its support for President Obama’s health reform law over questions of abortion and contraception.

The word you’re looking for is “schism.”

Papal infallibility relies on a pope being in full solidarity with the bishops of the church, and this week solidarity is not easy to find.

Decades of growing leftist influence within the Catholic Church, which John Paul II and Benedict XVI had temporarily suppressed, but could not ultimately stop, has now elevated an Argentine leftist to the papal throne. Catholic conservatives are and will continue to be purged from positions of influence. Conquest’s Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.”  Catholics are seeing it confirmed.

This is now the Catholic church of the Berrigan Brothers, “Nuns on the Bus” and Dignity USA. Because conservative Catholics would not excommunicate the heretics when they had the chance, now the heretics are in control. The attempt to paint a smiley face on this disaster includes, e.g., an editorial about “how gay Catholics can lead the rest of the Church to a greater understanding of God’s truth.”

Ri-iiight. Your next pedophile priest scandal in 3, 2, 1 . . .

As a conservative Protestant, I have for years resisted the “road to Rome” solicitations of my conservative Catholic friends, mainly because of ancestral prejudice — coming from a long line of stubbornly independent-minded Calvinist types — but also because I knew something like this would happen to the Catholic church sooner or later. As far as I’m concerned Rerum Novarum is ample refutation of “papal infallibility.” It’s just bad economics and Quadragesimo Anno is arguably worse. If “Catholic social teaching” is divinely inspired, why is its fundamental economic theory so laughably wrong?

Seriously, my conservative Catholic friends, why do you think you now have a socialist Pope? And don’t deny try to deny the obvious truth: Francis is somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders. You have a socialist Pope because, when you had a conservative Pope, nobody thought to hand him a copy of Human Action or The Mirage of Social Justice and say, “Here, learn something about how the economy really works.” Then get together a confab to produce a revision of “Catholic social teaching” that reflects actual facts.

Also, if you ever get another conservative Pope, excommunicate some heretics. Maybe burn a few of them at the stake, just to get the point across. But definitely excommunicate them. What’s the point of having a Pope, if he’s not excommunicating heretics?

 


 

204 comments

  1. Much as I offered my private celebration of the Divine Liturgy this morning for all true believers to be comforted by the Holy Spirit and strengthened in their faith to our Lord and Savior the Risen Christ.

  2. No, they’re actually nothing alike — one is a licit and valid Eucharistic sacrifice, the other is play-acting.

    It’s one thing to pull the whole “spiritual but not religious” nonsense. But when you’re actually pretending to be a priest, well, that takes things to a whole other level.

  3. OMG.
    MOST of the comments here resemble either (pick one, the intent behind both is the same)
    A) counting the number of angels on the head of a pin
    ***OR***
    B) a religious p!§§!ng match

    IN EITHER CASE,

    most of you seem intent upon MISSING RSM’s basic point about the Catholic Church under Pope Francis’ leadership heading in the same Leftist homo (among other poison-Leftist-tenets)-direction as some Protestant faiths have.

    Talk about the Right being easily distracted.
    WAKE UP, kiddies!

  4. The question is not whether it’s in the Bible, but whether it contradicts the Bible or purports to present a new additional revelation about God. Those things you mention, do not do the latter.

  5. The reason Catholics do not excommunicate those heretics is that the Protestants will immediately turn around and proclaim: “See, the Catholics are just mindless drones marching in lockstep with their Pope!” – and we’ll be right back to where we were when the Know-Nothings ran the show.

    Such is the price of trying to integrate Catholics into the American populous.

  7. Augustine is recognized as teh 1st Roman Catholic Theologian. Gregory “The Great” is recognized as the first Pope as we now recognize them now (for many years all Bishops carried the title of Papa). As a result, it took about 500 years for the Roman Catholic Church to form. As the evolution continued, the Eastern Church refused to grant the Bishop of Rome the status of Primus inter pares, and rejected the western church over the filoque controversy. In the end, the mutual anathemas were published, rendering the idea that the original church has remained unsplit.

  8. They were stated by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. Imagine, all those billions of Catholics who have walked the earth and are going to hell, according to you, because you are right and they were wrong. I choose to let Jesus sort that out.

  9. “But the one thing that I have found in all True Believers is an absolute belief that their particular book, method, faith, interpretation, or silly hat is The Only Acceptable Choice. They will ignore anything that anyone else does if it doesn’t adhere totally to The True Way. Worse, they will overlook mistakes and abuses made by the people on the correct side, even as they violate the principles they hold central to their belief.”

    I may have written it nine years ago, but it still holds true.

    I almost feel like I should be eating popcorn.

  11. No. They live here on earth. There is not a single example in the Bible – except in a bad way – of people on earth making contact with the spirit world, unless it’s to God. Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazerus demonstrates this lack of contact between humans on earth and spirits (except for God).

    I don’t understand why anyone would want to pray to some alleged saint anyway to ask them to intercede, when you can pray to God yourself, lifting your voice directly to God with other saints here on earth. It seems to me it would be pretty risky anyway, and possibly opn the door to satanic deception, because how could you know for certain where any spirit resides?

  12. This is why I say, read this one book. Until you completely understand the depravity of man, you can’t understand election. I’m not a Calvinist myself. I’m a fundamentalist, leaning Reformed on this one issue. I go to a Calvary Chapel. Even Spurgeon (and Luther, for that matter) held this same position on the matter of election and predestination.

    Nothing extra-Biblical holds the authority of divinely-inspired Scripture, but through study and prayer, we can find ourselves informed.

    No need to slam the mental doors shut, QM. 😀 At the least, you would be able to better understand why some people believe this way.

  13. One thing I have not said here before is that I have read the original, Calvin’s Institutes, so I know where Sproul is coming and have already considered why both Calvin and Sproul are wrong.

    Man is depraved, no doubt about it. But Calvin took things to an extreme even his theological predecessor, Augustine, would have, and did, reject. Calvinism ignores many passages that teach us differently than Calvin taught.

  14. Christ will sort it all out. There are going to be many people that have thought they were on the right path, and will be shocked to discover they are not.

    And, no, they were not stated by Christ at the last supper. The RCC has a warped, anti-biblical stand on that as well.

  15. It’s not that I’m above “that sort of thing,” it’s that when I told certain people “that same thing” in shorter language, they promptly informed me that they never engaged in that behavior.

    And here they are, doing exactly “that sort of thing.”

  17. You’re really fixated on the Great Schism, aren’t you? Unfortunately, it’s not relevant to the question I actually asked.

    St. Paul quotes from the Apostolic liturgy in 1 Corinthians, which was, I believe, written well before the sixth century.

  18. You said it.

    When Napoleon kidnapped Pius VII, the story goes, he told the Pope, “I will destroy your church.” The Pontiff replied, “You may try, but you will not succeed, when the Church’s own bishops have tried and failed.”

  19. Your statement of necromancy; if you’re speaking of the Real Presence, you forget Christ’s words to the Apostles; if of praying through the intercession of the saints, you forget that they live in heaven.

  20. Do you believe that the Host is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ? If not, you contradict scripture; Matt 26; And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

  21. See, you’re setting yourself up to determine what Christ will think when he sees me. Do you really think that’s your role? Because it isn’t.

  23. You don’t have the right to contradict the Church that Christ founded. St. Thomas More is in heaven; we know this, first due to his martyrdom. The first saint was St Stephen who was stoned to death for his belief in Christ.

  24. Were you there? How do you know? Why do you think I should rely on your interpretation rather than 2 milennia of the Church?

  26. Keep in mind that at last count there were over 20,000 protestant sects. How do you know that Calvin had it right rather than the guy who used to live across the street from my mom or the couple who was just ordained in some tradition?

  27. The Council of Trent was a Catholic Church council in response to the heresies of Martin Luther, who had taken vows of poverty chastity and obedience. In the end , the only vow he failed to break was poverty.

  29. We are never told the “pray through the saints.” The pattern Christ gave the disciples had us pray to the father, and no one else.

    What you are doing is necromancy, something forbidden by God.

  30. Most Orthodox tha tyou have met are likely converts and are in the holier than thou phase; they also tend to go Orthodox because they have an axe to grind with Catholicism, not realizing that most of the doctrine is the same. They did make a point of changing communion, so it is no longer in yoru terms, biblical; Jesus broke the bread and drank the wine separately, the Orthodox now use leavened bread and receive by intinction. They also have odd ideas about marriage and its sacramental nature; in their tradition, a person can get married up to three times, rather than being bonded for life. That isn’t what Jesus taught; he taught that Moses allowed divorce because the Jews had hard hearts and that what God brought together let no man put asunder. They don’t follow.

  34. Really? What would Christ think of that? Didn’t he caution the Apostles on their limitations of who could be with them? He did indeed.

  36. You mean like protestant denominations? Organizations created for men by men, as opposed to the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ.

  38. I will pray for your immortal soul. You can’t reach salvation that way; to follow Orthodox tradition without belonging to the Church is to waft in the wind alone. I will also pray for his soul for leading you astray; it’s as sin to do that.

  41. Read St. Ignatius of Antioch. You will find otherwise. You really shouldn’t rely on modern authors as your link above is by protestant revisionist historians. Read the Church fathers.

  42. Read the five Apostolic fathers, one of which is St Ignatius of Antioch for early authority in the Church. He was the first to use the word Catholic to describe the Church and was appointed to his see by St. Peter.

  43. It doens’t fit his narrative. He’s schismatic himself so it boosts his ego to think that the Church wasn’t one from the beginning.

  44. Seriously, you need to go to Mass sometime and compare the words used with the words in the synoptic gospels.

    If you do your research, you’ll find that the words the priest uses are those of Christ at the last supper; the words we say prior to receiving communion recall the Centurion who wanted Christ to heal his servant; lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed. The difference is that at Mass, we say “my soul” rather than “my servant,”

    You write but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

  45. Except that it isn’t. Read the link on Voris’s page which has Francis’s closing remarks. He can’t change doctrine. That’s not how it works. What he can do is remind people that the church is a hospital for sinners and that we’re all sinners and encourage people to come in for their medicine.

  46. I know, right? The Church is the Church is the Church. Doctrine will not change. The only thing different is that technology gives us greater awareness of what’s going on in Rome.

  47. There are 4 parallel passages on the
    subject, 3 in the Gospels, 1 in First Corinthians. The 3 in the
    Gospels,

    Matthew 26:26-29

    26
    And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it,
    and brake it,
    and gave it
    to the disciples, and said, Take,
    eat; this is my body.
    27
    And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it
    to them, saying, Drink
    ye all of it;
    28
    For
    this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the
    remission of sins.
    29
    But
    I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the
    vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s
    kingdom.

    Mark 14:22-25

    Mar
    14:22
    And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it,
    and gave to them, and said, Take,
    eat: this is my body.
    23
    And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it
    to them: and they all drank of it. 24
    And he said unto them, This
    is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
    25
    Verily
    I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until
    that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

    Luke 22:17-20

    17
    And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take
    this, and divide
    it
    among
    yourselves:
    18
    For
    I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the
    kingdom of God shall come.
    19
    And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it,
    and gave unto them, saying, This
    is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
    20
    Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This
    cup
    is
    the
    new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    One in Paul’s 1st letter to
    the Corinthians,

    1 Corinthains 11:23-27

    23
    For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto
    you, That the Lord Jesus the same
    night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24
    And when he had given thanks, he brake it,
    and said, Take,
    eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance
    of me.
    25
    After the same manner also he
    took
    the cup, when he had supped, saying, This
    cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink
    it,
    in
    remembrance of me.
    26
    For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew
    the Lord’s death till he come. 27
    Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this
    cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of
    the Lord.

    One firm principle of hermeneutics is
    the law of non-contradiction. God, being omniscient, does not
    contradict Himself. If you, and the RCC, are correct, these passages
    present a very serious problem for you. The RCC has not harmonized
    them, but instead has simply taken one and produced a doctrine. That
    is eisegesis.

    Give it some thought. The stakes for
    your understanding of scripture is eternity itself. You can believe
    the word, or you can believe the RCC. Give it some very serious
    thought.

  48. I’ve been to mass before. You can think what you will, but you have as yet to show that I have no understanding of Roman Catholic doctrine of praxis.

  49. Why not read them all? I have these in hard copy and electronically. The difference between the early church and the Roman Catholic Church is stark.

    And no, they were/are not the same thing. Not even close.

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf10

  50. Hardly. Catholic simply means universal. The early church had a far different view of what that means than you do.

Comments are closed.