Showing posts with label Fourth Estate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fourth Estate. Show all posts

Monday, December 30, 2013

"Pope Francis Just Abolished Sin" --- Scalfari's New Christendom, Where God is Replaced by I

(Rome) In his usual Sunday sermon, the atheist Eugenio Scalfari returned in his personal "wire" to Pope Francis, who last summer wrote the well-known left-wing journalist of old Masonic family a letter and granted an interview (see separate reports There is no Absolute Truth? - Pope's Letter Misunderstood by Atheist Eugenio Scalfari and Truth and Belief - The Case of Misunderstanding in Dialogue with Non-believers and Christ is Not an Option Among Many, and Certainly Not for his Deputy on Earth - Why We do Not Like this Pope ). Scalfari claimed yesterday in his commentary once again that Pope Francis had 'de facto abolished sin'.

Scalfari: "Pope has De Facto Abolished Sin With Evangelii Gaudium"

The founder of the daily newspaper La Repubblica refers back not to the direct contact with the Pope, but to his recently published Apostolic Letter. The "abolition of sin," says Scalfari, was included in Evangelii Gaudium. An "abolition", which was done by means of two instruments: on the one hand by equating the revealed Christ,  the Christian God, with love, mercy and forgiveness. And then by granting people complete freedom of conscience.

Pope Francis had raised conscience as the last instance of human action already in his letter to Scalfari and this statement was confirmed in his interview with Scalfari later. The Pope's answers were indeed formulated by Scalfari himself, but the writing was just the Pope's words again. The interview, was initially published on the website of the Vatican, as if it were part of the papal Magisterium, though it has since been removed, but a distancing from the highly controversial, non-Catholic statement has not occurred to date.

Strained Mercy

The renewed insistence by the well-known journalist outrageously appear in the polemics about the authenticity of the papal statements. Scalfari does not give up on the issue of freedom of conscience, he was actually jubilant about the basic message of the papal interviews. In fact, it would have been a historical sensation, if the papal statement had been done. This means that the Pope would make of the past 300 years of his own Church, which with good reason rejected and fought against basic tenets of Freemasonry.

"What can I say except that it's a real mess?" Today writes the daily Il Giornale . "It is pure chaos, if you want to discuss about Christianity, by placing Jesus Christ in parentheses. Scalfari recognizes that the central argument of the Magisterium of Francis is mercy and divine forgiveness. Good: but what need there should be for this mercy, when sin would be abolished? What would God forgive if there is no more sin?"

Scalfari lets the Pope Live, but Christ Abolishes Christ

Scalfari's interpretation, which is regarded to be relevant and most especially raises many questions to the most influential of those distant from the Church who interpret the pontificate of Pope Francis. Most Vaticanists, including Andrea Tornielli, only dare to ask some of the questions in criticizing Scalfari. So says Tornielli that Scalfari, in order to abolish sin would equally abolish the entire teaching of the new pope: "The Pope has referred to himself many times as 'sinner' and very often speaks of the mercy and forgiveness of sins. To know the mercy of God, a merciful God, who is never tired of forgiving, one must be aware of his own limitations, our sin, our weakness, our evil and our need for salvation, forgiveness, love and mercy. Therefore, it requires the awareness that we are sinners, and therefore the exact contrary of that 'abolition' of sin that Scalfari effects to ascribe to the Pope. "

Scalfari's Appeals to Pope Francis - Consent by Silence of the Vatican?

But that only addresses one side. Implicitly, the questions remain to Pope Francis, which Scalfari - by reason of the criteria - had chosen, to write him a letter. In this letter is already the controversial redefinition of freedom of conscience included as a kind of absolute standard. Scalfari reinforced the message in the Pope's interview, which was indeed formulated by him, but previously submitted by him to the Pope for approval. A permission that has been expressly granted by the Pope. Also after criticism of the statement, which is very heavily weighted against a pope in the Church context, to date, no correction was made. Can Scalfari properly invoke to Pope Francis? He does it and as long as the Vatican does not oppose this, it must be assumed that this invocation is done with the consent of the Pope. But this would raise questions of principle of enormous dimension. Because then the question would be standing in space, what Pope Francis ever meant by sin. Similarly, the question of how the apparent contradiction between the statement on conscience with the Pope's actual assertions to reconcile is to proclaim what is laid down in the Catechism of the Church.

Replace God by I

But above all is the frightening abyss taking place in the ambivalent relationship between the Pope and Francis Eugenio Scalfari. To accuse a Pope of heresy is no less abysmal as Scalfari speaks with real and fictional appeal to the Pope about religion and there nothing left but exclude Christ. Both areas are "dangerous", as well as Il Giornale noticed. The atheist Scalfari seems here, "to house a tailor-made, fluid and relativistic Christianity," said Il Giornale. But why does Pope Francis let him act freely. After all, the Pope again declared recently to be looking forward to the next meeting with the Doyen of Left journalism in Italy. Yet in Scalfaris' way God will ultimately be replaced by the ego. Since there is not a God of the atheists, then the I will be deified and the word and the connected idea of God and divinity will be redefined. And what does the Pope say to that?

Text: Giuseppe Nardi image: Tempi Trans:

Link to Katholisches...

Edit: a world where journalists attempt to authoritatively interpret and rule on the Magisterium.  Listen closely to them, they are more anxious about what Catholic doctrine means than most clergy, and are deeply upset that people are still believing Catholics.  Didn't Vatican II do away with people like you?


Monday, February 25, 2013

Damian Thompson’s Fangs Come Out : Celibacy

The Fourth Estate Continues its Assault on Behalf of Powers and Principalities.

Edit: noting the increasingly and unsurprising hostility of the Telegraph in recent times is interesting, especially in reading Damian Thompson’s diatribe against priestly celibacy.  The boyish, single and industrious editor is now insisting that something which has worked for centuries no longer works.  Like the most annoying heathen media personality, he’s taking a very censorious tone indeed.

We’ve noted earlier that he’s been slyly pushing the envelope on the Gomorrah front for a while.  Did Damian Thompson receive Holy Orders recently?

Thompson insists that having a married clergy was an ancient tradition of the Church, but what he fails to note is that clerical celibacy is of Apostolic origin, as Cardinal Levada himself insists.  Indeed, the Apostles, though married, took up their staffs and followed Christ, leaving their families behind.

He writes:

Yesterday, Cardinal O’Brien was in the headlines for a different reason. He has been reported to the Vatican for alleged “inappropriate acts” with three priests and one ex-priest of his diocese. The papal ambassador to Britain, Archbishop Antonio Mennini, has forwarded the allegations to Rome.

It’s important to say that the Cardinal has not been charged with an offence. But the juxtaposition of these allegations with his claim that universal celibacy is an unrealistic ideal illustrates the sexual tension that is pulling apart the Catholic priesthood. To put it bluntly, the new Pope must confront the suffocating hypocrisy of the Vatican and Bishops’ Conferences on this subject. For example, I’ve never heard a bishop acknowledge what is obvious to so many of us: that in certain large cities in the Western world, a majority of Catholic priests are gay, albeit celibate. If the Vatican were to enforce its current ruling that homosexuals per se are unsuitable for the priesthood, then it would have innumerable empty urban churches on its hands. And furious parishioners, too, since discreetly gay men often make wonderful priests. On the other hand, you don’t have to be a homophobe to wonder whether it’s healthy to have such an imbalance between the sexual instincts of priests and their flocks.