Another disturbing development in the Pope Francis papacy.
Aside from St. John Paul II''s concerns about Fr. Arrupe's spiritual malfeasance, I know very little about Fr. Arrupe. But, it seems to me Catholics with long histories of condoning gay sex are rallying around the cause for his sainthood, so I'm extremely suspicious about what exactly is on the trajectory for beatification.
Beatifications are not infallible, so even if Pope Francis puts heresy on the fast track for beatification, I am assuming the episcopal see has enough faithful prelates to gum up the canonization.
I should think the 'cause' will be short-lived as it would be impossible to get beyond this phase:
Cebollada, who is responsible for overseeing the sainthood causes of Jesuits, told CNS that he has met with the judicial vicar of the Diocese of Rome to discuss the initial phase of gathering information regarding Arrupe’s life and works.
He also is tasked with collecting all of Arrupe’s writings, which will be studied by theological censors who will “testify whether or not there is anything against the faith or tradition of the Church.”IMHO, this is right up there with the daffy theologians who have been looking everywhere but infallible teaching to see if women can be ordained to the diaconate.
Last week, fur was flying when 'the Vatican' published an 'ecumenical declaration' written by a few episcopal apostates opining the Catholic Church may ordain women to the diaconate in the future.
Even should Pope Francis announces the Catholic Church can ordain women to the diaconate and does a victorious pirouette atop the obelisk in St. Peter's Square, it isn't going to happen.
The diaconate requires an ordination and Catholic teaching that women can and will never be ordained in the Catholic Church is infallible and irreversible. In the first place, even Pope Francis has confirmed he assents to the infallible teaching that only males can be ordained.
All the intemperate off-the-cuff sophomoric and bad theology our families and salvation have been burdened with during this papacy, none of it has crossed the lines of formal heresy.
Rising to the level of formal heresy would end a papacy. The devil knows the key to his success is longevity, so he will continue to use pride, cowardice and ineptitude to fracture Christ's people from the teachings of the Church without crossing over to formal heresy. Neither of the above initiatives survive such scrutiny. And the devil knows it.
I do think we will see many heretical and apostate initiatives get traction in the theological chaos imposed by Pope Francis. These initiatives will have the capacity to rob people of salvation, but the traction will never reach the goal line. The goal line isn't even on the devil's radar. When apostate and heretical initiatives start to threaten his longevity, he'll abandon them and start another one.
Pleased to meet you!
Hope you'll guess my name!
Ahh, but what's puzzlin' you, is the nature of my game...
"All the intemperate off-the-cuff sophomoric and bad theology our families and salvation have been burdened with during this papacy, none of it has crossed the lines of formal heresy."
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to your reasoning. My understanding of "formal" heresy is that it has nothing to do with where you say it or how you say it, but rather whether you actually mean it, have been given a decent interval to change your mind after having it explained to you, know it to be heresy, etc.
My own view is that, among other things, some of the statements in Amoris Laetitia, coupled with the dubia (which implicitly pointed out their heretical nature), coupled with the reaction/non-reaction of Bergoglio and his men to the dubia, coupled with subsequent words and actions such as citing with approval the interpretation of the Argentinian bishops constitutes formal heresy. That it hasn't yet been explicitly recognized as such by some official body is technically irrelevant.
How would you respond to that?
Oakes, I wholeheartedly agree the content is heretical. But IMO, its a product of a synod and he claims he didn't see or read the paragraphs t hat contain heresy. It was done at arms length, making it a lot harder to pin it directly on him. Of course he's approved it, is responsible for the content, has refused to correct it, thanked people for heretical interpretations-- but its been a lot of denying, lying and innuendo and carrying its fruit out is done layers and layers underneath him.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same old chestnut the wolves have been using for decades-- you hire heretics to teach and then pretend the heresy being taught has nothing to do with you--you are faithful! The same sleazeball lying tactics used in nearly every chancery and parish in the USA. Absolutely demonic.
My own feeling is, beatifying Arrupe or instituting invalid ordinations of women are actions that have to directly come from Pope Francis hand.
Thoughts?
I don't have the religious credentials, having only gone to Catholic Schools through 8th grade and having never taken a course that was explicitly Catholic after those days. But, what comes out of Bergoglio's sycophants' teachings is not consistent with what I was taught in those first eight grades.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of Father Arrupe. Nor do I want to.
Karl
"My own feeling is, beatifying Arrupe or instituting invalid ordinations of women are actions that have to directly come from Pope Francis hand."
ReplyDeleteMy own feeling is that when Pope Francis does those things you will still be making excuses for your own heresy. Really, if J23 & JP2 are saints, why not P6 and Arrupe too. Hell, why not Martin Luther (cause we are talking about demons in hell)?
If Paul VI can be "canonized" so can Arrupe or anyone, especially if they are "spirit" of V2 or modernist perhaps. You can tell that I can no longer accept that modern false church "canonizations" are infallible. Political agendas.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty close with St. John Paul II. Know a lot about him, his writings, his papacy, his powers beyond the grave. He's one of the greatest (and most powerful) saints who ever lived. Paul VI, I'm not that familiar with--he did write Humanae Vitae, so I think his critics are likely mistaken.
ReplyDelete