222. A constant tension exists between fullness and limitation. Fullness evokes the desire for complete possession, while limitation is a wall set before us. Broadly speaking, “time” has to do with fullness as an expression of the horizon which constantly opens before us, while each individual moment has to do with limitation as an expression of enclosure. People live poised between each individual moment and the greater, brighter horizon of the utopian future as the final cause which draws us to itself. Here we see a first principle for progress in building a people: time is greater than space.
What the heck? Sounds like a magic spell got passed from the Kabbalah to German existential thinkers to some Novus Ordo 'theologians'.
Hello CMJ. I believe bergoglio is referring here (indirectly) to Teilhard's Omega Point -- the cosmic Jesus.ReplyDelete
Teilhard was after all a fellow Jesuit and fellow heretic -- at least he was condemned as a heretic prior to Vatican II. This is a belief in a sort of super-evolution.
(You remind me that I was planning on writing an article on this subject.)
I've mentioned before the relationship between this type of thinking and transhumanism. There is also what Ray Kurzweil calls "the singuarity" which is the secular equivalent of Teilhard's Omega Point.
BTW, Kurzweil is one of the "chosen people". Wikipedia says he was born to secular jewish parents, but that he is now an agnostic and "panpsychist" -- whatever that is.
Did anyone here ever do a close up analyses of the weird pectoral cross worn by the present pope?ReplyDelete
I don’t know if is just me, but I can see an (not so dissimulated) owl in the bottom part, between the legs of the figure. But it gets even more bizarre if you look at the picture turned upside down, the face of the shepherd seems to be another face, kind of scary! But I have to say that, so far, only have seen it on the photos released by media.
Is it the same PAN figure that is on the novus ordo Catechism of the Catholic Church, and which Ratzinger wore on his inaugural miter - the one that recently deceased German author Wigand Siebel wrote about in his pamphlet (with Carl Angermayr) "Ratzinger's Roman Apostasy"? This was also covered in Chiesa Viva on the Pan miter of Benedict XVI.Delete
Masonry and the new world order are all about open diabolism and "magickal" acts according to the practice of the Kabbalah. Aren't even the 'sacrifice of Cain" passages from the novus ordo missae directly from the kabbalistic books? "Fruit of the vine and the work of human hands - it will become our spiritual drink?" I was told that passage came straight out of the Kabbalistic books. I would certainly like to see more exposure of that. Thanks as always for your great great blog.ReplyDelete
No Sir, excuse-me, but you are wrong in mocking the Pope because your knowledge of theology and thomistic philosophy is very restreined and it unables you to correctly interpret his infallible magisterium. So, I will try to help you understand the thougth of Francis. Let us put his doctrine in another way, I think it will be easier for you. Here is what he tried to say in this quite difficult sentence: « There is a will of the people between utopia and future. The tension that it causes attracts the fullness of everything, and the limit is the first space that become for us principle. «Time», widely regarded, refers to the construction of a people, in the very moment that something new spread upon us, and the horizon is an expression of the light that lives in a bounded time. Citizens live in bipolar fullness between the final cause and the expression of a longer horizon of light that draws us time after time as the main limit which arises endlessly. From here on, a space is needed before the situation can be solved: the whole is greater than the time. » I hope this time you got it!ReplyDelete
I get what you are saying. He's Franny with an "r"Delete
Way to clarify the matter and thanks for setting us straight alesolap!Delete
Hello CMJ. I wrote an article about Teilhard's influence on bergoglio based on the quote from Evangelii Gaudium that you provided titled "Extrapolating evolution into an anti-Christian vision of the future":ReplyDelete
To Anon. I also wrote an article on bergoglio's strange pectoral cross titled "bergoglio's un-holy cross":
Both these articles are somewhat speculative. However, it can be said without speculation that these statements that bergoglio makes and the symbols he uses are very strange and NOT Catholic. And therefore they beg for an explanation. At best they cause confusion among the faithful. And IMO they are signs that bergoglio himself is NOT Catholic.
Benedict XVI admired Teilhard as much as any other. His influence amongst the post-conciliar papacies has been explicit as well as decisive. While Bergolio is certainly influenced too he is actually subject to a wide range of liberal modernist strands. Pantheism is integral to ecumenism and interconfessionalism as indeed it is to the destruction of Roman Catholicism. Francis I is absolutely committed to eradicating any remnants of traditional Faith. His policies are in line though with all of his modernistic predecessors. Paul VI was overtly destructive while hiding behind a very thin veil of supposed orthodoxy usually alleged as found in Humanae Vitae but, of course, he tried to abolish sacred liturgical tradition demonstrating his intentions clearly enough. John Paul II misinterpreted the fact that many Roman Catholics remained traditional out of sentiment - he used the expression himself., while he continued to phenomenologise Catholic thought with an anthropocentric emphasis. Benedict XVI was the most astute of them all as one has only to analyse the phraseology of the SP which completely duped neo-conservatives as much as Bishop Fellay. He quietly sought to draw traditionalists into the medley of sects comprising the new post-conciliar church aa a prelude to liturgical hybridisation. Frankly speaking, He also continued the liberalisation of the sanctification process begun by JP II in 1983 by pushing forward key beatification and canonisations imperative to the modernist validation of their programme of conciliar subversion, trying to place it beyond reproach. Francis I is the ideal sequel for the final solution which is to undo the traditionalist movement completely and to implement the pantheistic masterstroke of total ecumenisation of the church with all other denominations and members of other religions who are willing to join, Talmudic Jewry first.ReplyDelete
Any Catholic who cannot understand the de facto schism of the papacy now will not be able to discern the imminent total apostasy. Francis is merely continuing the process - therein lies the insistence of Benedict XVI towards his alleged hermeneutic of continuity - he effectively wanted to give credence to the falsehood denying the all too obvious rupture with Tradition. He exploited the liturgy, some traditional vestments and key ritual symbols as part of his strategy.
Professor Albert Drexel wrote a book about Teilhard de Chardin called "A New Prophet " it has not been translated yet from German to English ,it will be well worth reading ,as is his book "Faith is Greater then Obedience ",Rev Drexel never said the new Mass .the New Mass is steering towards the worship of man not God.ReplyDelete
The NO Rite is all about ecumenism and bringing everyone together no matter what they believe: it is the self-fulfilling prophecy of pantheism - everything and everyone is converging towards Teilhard's Omega Point. This pope is not Roman Catholic; he is not literate as he knows no Latin; he has rejected the orthodox papal environment symbollically enough; he is unnervingly voluble and he is unequivocally anti-tradition. Almost every liturgical sign he makes is revolutionary. This is no ordinary man - he has an obvious agenda which is to fulfill the revolutionary liberal modernist agenda in its totality.Delete
However, he will not succeed because he will most probably die before he gets that far. No wonder Our Blessed lady has called on us to pray for the holy father: a title which has become honourary only these days.
This point 222 was written by a very known poor and fake teologian of Argentina, close friend and partner of Bergoglio who promoted him to the dignity of archbishop -against the whole negative opinion of all the roman curia and a vast portion of argentinian bishops- to keep his mouth shut due to some economical and financial "anomalyties" inside the Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina. You may find the news simply by googling. So, my foreigners brothers and sisters in Christ: this is only a small issue among all the doctrinal, moral and pastoral tsunami to come urbi et orbi and beyond. as Buzzlightyear said, the Hoy Church.ReplyDelete
We´ve already suffered his sui generis catholic sincretism in our own soil: an advance in miniature of the great world apostasy above us ready to fall.
Just take a look at the current Buenos Aires´ state of Faith and eclesiastical moral or liturgical mess and you´ll get the full picture for the coming months.
In Christo et Maria
Rodolfo El Lobo Fischer
Incoherent nonsense - from a Pope!ReplyDelete