Nominalism’s Post-Truth Francis & RINO Kennedy World of the Denial of Law of Non-Contradiction: If Justice Kennedy is a “Satanist,” then is Francis a “Satanist,” too?
I had intended to write today about the translation error in the English version of the recent Synod’s final document.
However, over at The Catholic Thing, Robert Royal covers the issue well and says many of the same things I had intended to say, and he does so masterfully. I urge you to read his piece.
Royal also comments on the demotion of Card. Burke, saying:
There’s a double sadness here. Pope Francis clearly approved these moves – whether they were instigated by him personally or by advisers he listens to. But it’s precisely voices like Burke’s that he needs to keep around.
He’s already hearing plenty from often unreliable counselors like Cardinals Maradiaga, Marx, and Kasper. The last in particular seems more and more incoherent as he tries to explain precisely why marriage is indissoluble and yet those in a second sexual relationship – though not a marriage – may be absolved and return to receiving Communion. The only way that’s possible is if God repeals the Law of Non-contradiction. I don’t think that’s on his to-do list.
But there’s more and, I think, worse. I’m not especially given to conspiracy theories in sacred or secular contexts. But there’s some – let’s say – systemic problem within the Vatican that having a loyal truth-teller like Burke around helps to correct. The Catholic Monitor [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2018/11/fr-z-flashback-cdl-burke-fired-god.html]
There have been something like FORTY antipopes in the past 2000 years, and every one was contested in real time, and almost all were deposed and ejected whilst squatting upon the See of Peter. One of the reasons that the Antipapacy of Anacletus II is so unusual is precisely because he died naturally “in office” after an eight year usurpation. St. Bernard of Clairvaux was the man who went to Rome WHILE ANACLETUS was still alive, and methodically demonstrated to the clergy and the aristocracy of Rome that Anacletus II was an Antipope, such that after Anacletus II died and his “successor” Antipope Victor IV was “elected”, Antipope Victor IV quickly repented after TWO DAYS as Antipope and presented himself to the true Pope, Innocent II. Bernard of Clairvaux and others worked tirelessly and persistently to correct the situation, remove the Antipope and restore the true Pope to the Chair IN REAL TIME. If one listens to the irrational gibberish being spewed today by these intransigent “Fwanciss is Pope shuddup stoopid schismatic!” partisans, one would have to declare that St. Bernard of Clairvaux committed the MORTAL SIN of SCHISM for even daring to question the legal and ontological truth of the identity of the Vicar of Christ on earth. Even though St. Bernard was 100% correct, according to these people today who, if one didn’t know better might think that they belong to some sort of cult that revolves around the violation of the Law of Non-contradiction as its very creed, are arguing that he was in “mortal sin” for EVEN ASKING THE QUESTION. So, according to the “Fwanciss is Pope shuddup stoopid schismatic” set, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was BOTH an unrepentant mortally sinful schismatic, AND is a SAINT AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH. Yet another fat, juicy violation of the Law of Non-contradiction. Another attempted denial and upending of Reality itself. Remember folks, ONLY THE REAL COUNTS. ONLY THE REAL MATTERS. Anything that involves any violation of the Law of Non-contradiction is either a LIE or a FANTASY. – Ann Barnhardt [https://www.barnhardt.biz/]
I don’t mean the bloody red demon exorcist green-pea-soup satanism, though that certainly exists and is the true darker side of it, and I don’t mean the LARPy dress-up ackshually satanism of redditors. I mean in the worst sense, the Luciferian Freemasonic sense, where man thinks himself Godlike. This is beyond the idea that man sole measure of all things, but that man is also the creator of things. – Renowned statistician and scholar William Briggs
Ironically, Francis conservative Carl E. Olson shows the history of nominalism and it’s implicit Lutheran connection to Francis’s relativistic Amoris Laetitia. He explains what Francis’s most eminent modern theologian Certeau’s nonimalism teachings ultimately are and implicitly why Francis’s beloved Martin Luther noninalistic thinking helped bring about the present Certeau/Derrida WOKE “hyper-nominalism” of Joe Biden’s transgender post-truth America and the world. – The Catholic Monitor
In January, renowned statistician and scholar William Briggs wrote that “Justice Anthony Kennedy Is A Satanist”:
Anthony Kennedy, while sitting as a Supreme Court Justice, in an infamous ruling wrote, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
This is satanism.
I don’t mean the bloody red demon exorcist green-pea-soup satanism, though that certainly exists and is the true darker side of it, and I don’t mean the LARPy dress-up ackshually satanism of redditors. I mean in the worst sense, the Luciferian Freemasonic sense, where man thinks himself Godlike.. This is beyond the idea that man sole measure of all things, but that man is also the creator of things…
… If Kennedy is right, you have no foundation, no basis at all, to prove me wrong. You may only disagree. Your disagreement means nothing. It is mere air. Especially if you are weaker than I, and it is dinner time.
As idiotic as this disproof is, it is valid because it relies on ideas we all have embedded into us, or we quickly learn, which are certain universal notions. It is that now we (especially the young) deny them. Or pretend to. It is the retreat from universalism that led to Kennedy and to us.
We can thank especially William of Ockham, he of the dull razor fame, for this. At the peak of Realism in philosophy, the glorious Middle Ages (an apt term), certain academic thoughts occurred to those impatient with the rigor of the schoolmen. Thoughts of doubt. Which became a mark of sophistication. Which, through the passing of years and encrustation of theory, led to the considered-brilliant solution: we are certain we can never be certain.
Anyway, Ockham was the father of nominalism, which is the denial of universals, and therefore of underlying fixed Reality. [https://wmbriggs.com/post/38845/]
If “nominalist” Justice Kennedy is a “satanist” then is Francis a “satanist,” too?
Does Francis believe that there is no objective basis for truth and that there is no objective meaning or reality like Kennedy seems to think due to his aparent nominalism?
The nominalist Michel de Certeau believed in all of the above.
In simple words, de Certeau’s theology denies objective truth.
The Francis considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:
“For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today.” (onepeterfive.com, March 8, 2016, “Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to Private Audience”)
De Certeau in his greatest book “Heterologies” said:
“It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge… It is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness of history.” (“Heterologogies,” Pages 195-196)
Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope’s favorite modern theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no outside reality. Windschuttle wrote:
“Of all the French theorists… de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression… he argues… writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation…”
“Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and not to any real, outside world…”
“De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of writing, all history is also fiction.” (“The Killing of History,” Pages 31-34)
The Pope’s favorite theologian’s central religious idea according to de Certeau Scholar Johannes Hoff are:
“According to this new approach to the Biblical narrative, the focal event of Christianity is not the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection of Christ, but the empty tomb. The Christian form of life is no longer associated with a place, a body, or an institution, but with a quest for a missing body: the missing body of the people of Israel, and mutatis mutandis the missing body of Jesus.”
(Article by Johannes Hoff, “Mysticism, Ecclesiology And The Body Christ: Certeau’s (Mis-) Reading of Corpus Mystium and the Legacy of Henri de Lubac” Page 87, Titus Brandsma Institute Studies In Spirituality, Supplement 24, “Spiritual Spaces: History and Mysticism in Michel De Certeau”)
The nihilist theologian believes that the central truths of Christianity are about “absence” or nonexistence. De Certeau scholar Graham Ward wrote:
“For de Lubac the… Eucharist is not a sign of the presence of Christ’s body, it is Christ’s body… And yet Certeau… makes the Eucharist (as later the church and body of mystical text he treats) into substitutes, acts of bereavement, signs of absence.” (“Michel de Certeau – in the Plural, ” Page 511)
In other words, Francis’s greatest modern theologian believes that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ present, he doesn’t even believe it is a sign of the presence of Christ’s body like some Protestants, but a sign of “absence.”
Might de Certeau’s influence on Francis be the reason he never kneels before the Eucharist, but kneels to wash the feet of those he like Certeau might consider oppressed?
De Certeau’s key ideas are oppression of groups and the deconstruction of meaning.
For the most part, de Certeau appears to have gotten these ideas from the postmodernist Jacques Derrida.
The scholar Pablo Markin states that Francis “departs from…Thomistic positions” in his “close” following of apparent nominalist Marion’s teachings in his encyclical Amoris Laetitia:
“Oltvai argues that Pope Francis, born as Jorge Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina, departs from the Thomistic positions of his predecessor, while adopting the notions of the face, the gaze and the other in his pontifical communication, such as in Evangelii gaudium and Amoris Laetitia. This stands close to the philosophical positions of not only Levinas, but also those of Marion, a French Catholic theologian, phenomenological philosopher and a student of [postmodernist Heideggerian] Jacques Derrida.” [https://dgo.hypotheses.org/221]
The Pro Quest website showed that Francis’s most important theologian and nominalist Derrida are close collaborators:
This article presents the connection between Michel de Certeau and Jacques Derrida on two key issues for both authors: the mystical and writing. Their positions and common grounds about desire, necessity and the ineffable are shown here through references to their main works.[https://www.proquest.com/docview/2089762984]
The Cairn Information site says that the top teacher Francis is a type of mystical tradition of nominalism:
The question of language enables us to make our way through the entire work. Quite early on, the mystical tradition appeared to Certeau as a particular writing, a language whose characteristics it was important to define. In doing so, he tore spirituality away from insolvable theological debates that it had become the prisoner of. At the same time, he encountered the radical questions posed to philosophy and theology by taking seriously how language functions, from the nominalist crisis to Wittgenstein and Derrida. [https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RSR_161_0033–michel-de-certeau-and-the-question-of.htm]
Ironically, Francis conservative Carl E. Olson shows the history of nominalism and it’s implicit Lutheran connection to Francis’s relativistic Amoris Laetitia. He explains what Francis’s most eminent modern theologian Certeau’s nonimalism teachings ultimately are and implicitly why Francis’s beloved Martin Luther noninalistic thinking helped bring about the present Certeau/Derrida WOKE “hyper-nominalism” of Joe Biden’s transgender post-truth America and the world:
Whereas St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) had taught that man can know the true, objective essence of things, Ockham denied it was possible. As Benjamin Wiker observed in Moral Darwinism (InterVarsity, 2002), Ockham believed that “when we use the word dog there is really no universal entity, essence or dog-ness that we perceive. Dog is merely a name we apply to particular things that happen to look alike. Hence, the name of his system, nominalism, for the Latin nomen, ‘name.'”
In other words, nominalism is a philosophical system claiming that everything outside the mind is completely individual: Reality cannot be comprehended through the use of universal and abstract concepts but only through the empirical study of specific, individual objects. Historian and Benedictine monk David Knowles, in The Evolution of Medieval Thought, wrote that nominalism holds that “there is no such thing as a universal, and it is nonsense to speak of the thing known as present in an intelligible form in the mind of the knower.”
Ockham went so far as to say that the Incarnation had value only to the extent God gave it value; God could have redeemed mankind just as easily by becoming a stone, tree, or donkey. If there is no common, or universal, human nature, the Incarnation was not so much about the Logos taking on human nature as it was about God working as he wishes, in a manner unrelated to any sort of logic or reason.
Because of the arbitrary nature of reality, man cannot know the essential nature of sin and grace. Thus, he has no way of knowing his state before God — outside of intuition and inner experience…
… Ockham went so far as to say that the Incarnation had value only to the extent God gave it value; God could have redeemed mankind just as easily by becoming a stone, tree, or donkey. If there is no common, or universal, human nature, the Incarnation was not so much about the Logos taking on human nature as it was about God working as he wishes, in a manner unrelated to any sort of logic or reason.
Because of the arbitrary nature of reality, man cannot know the essential nature of sin and grace. Thus, he has no way of knowing his state before God — outside of intuition and inner experience…
… Like a stream growing as it flows from a mountain into a valley, nominalism has helped shape modernity’s view of God, man, and reality. Ockham’s focus on empirical knowledge played a vital role in Luther and Calvin looking inwardly in search of faith. But it was not long before Enlightenment thinkers would cast aside the tenuous reality of self-enclosed faith and begin searching for data and evidence in a new way…
… What the Protestant revolt and later modernity had in common was that a subjective, individualistic view of reality turned into the essential basis of knowledge. The difference was in the object of focus. The Reformers looked to God, relying on intuitive, subjective experience. Later thinkers, relying on their own intuitive experiences, concluded that man is autonomous and God is unnecessary. The former resulted in Lutheranism, Calvinism and a host of splintering groups. The latter resulted in all sorts of nasty “isms”: empiricism, positivism, moral relativism, and deconstructionism.
Summarized, the move toward subjective and intuitive knowledge, opposed to abstract and universal knowledge, led to increasingly radical philosophical propositions. G.W. F. Hegel, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Marx pushed the envelope of nominalist-indebted thought. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) wrote, “There are no facts, only interpretations” — a sentiment echoed in the common contemporary refrain: “There is no truth, only opinions.” In the twentieth century, Jacques Derrida’s work in deconstruction — which asserts that truth cannot be known and words lack real meaning — was a type of hyper-nominalism.[https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6802]
Hyper-nominalism is just another word for Modernism. Is Francis a Modernist (hyper-nominalist)?
- “[T]he [Modernist] Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics… If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?” – Neo-Modernist AnthonyCarroll
- “Between [Modernist Maurice] Blondel’s philosophy of action and Pope Francis’ pastoral action, there are significant coincidence.”- Francis’s close longtime theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone
At the Irving Convention Center in Texas on 2013, Francis’s closest adviser and collaborator Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga apparently declared himself a Modernist or at the very least at a Neo-Modernist and appeared to claim that Modernism to some extent was Francis’s agenda and the “dreams of ‘the next Pope”:
“The Second Vatican Council… meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and Modernism… Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and rights of the person.”
(Whispers in the Loggia Website, “The Council’s ‘Unfinished Business,’ The Church’s ‘Return to Jesus”… and Dreams of “The Next Pope” – A Southern Weekend with Francis’ ‘Discovery Channel,'” October 28, 2013)
Francis’s close longtime theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone said there is “significant coincidence” or concurrence between Francis’s pastoral theology and Modernism:
“Between [Modernist Maurice] Blondel’s philosophy of action and Pope Francis’ pastoral action, there are significant coincidence.”
(La Civilta Catholics, 2015 III)
The greatest theologian of the twentieth century Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange explained the Modernism of Blondel:
“One sees the danger of the new definition of truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality but the conformity of mind and life… Maurice Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution… Truth is no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it is evolved with him, in him and through him. (Denz. 2058) One understands why Pius X said of modernist: ‘they pervert the eternal concept of truth 11 (Denz. 2080)”
(Archive.org, Catholic Family News Reprint Series, Where is the New Theology)
Simply put, Modernism is the denial of objective truth in which the individual’s conscience and opinion or sentiment is supreme.
According to Pope John Paul II, the theology of Blondel leads to “the inescapable claims of truth disappear[ing].”
Below is the evidence that Francis is a Modernist heretic:
If Francis is a Modernist it explains why his teachings in Amoris Laetitia as interpreted by his “authentic magisterium” Argentine Letter are exactly the opposite of twenty centuries of Church doctrine and Familiaris Consortio as well as deny the existence of objective truth and objective morality according to Veritatis Splendor.
Father Raymond J. de Souza said:
“Veritatis Splendor, entitled ‘Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,’ warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor.”
Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:
“Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute… This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil… But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.“[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:
“This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
John Paul II’s above teachings reject the denial of objective truth and situation ethics or the denial of objective morality, but Veritatis Splendor explicitly says situation ethics by making the “individual conscience… a supreme tribunal of… good and evil” leads or causes “the inescapable claims of truth [to] disappear.”
This article will show that Modernism, that is the denial of truth, also, leads to situation ethics or the denial of objective morality.
Francis’s Amoris Laetitia goes against the above teachings of John Paul II because of his apparent denial of truth which leads to his promoting “situation ethics” which by name was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1956. (CatholicCitizens.org, “Pius XII’s Condemnation of Situation Ethics: ‘Accusations of rigidity first attack the adorable person of Christ,'” 5-30-2017)
Theologian Dr. E. Christian Brugger, writing on AL 305, gives a quick summary of the Pope’s situation ethics:
“But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are ‘in God’s grace’, and that their pastor can know it too… The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes ‘the help of the sacraments… ‘”
“Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is ‘objectively’ sinful, so they can return to the sacraments.”
Francis in Amoris Laetitia and at a Holy Thursday liturgy appeared to be promoting the heresy of situation ethics because he denies truth. Canon lawyer Fr. Gerald E. Murray, in The Catholic Thing, wrote at the Chrism Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Holy Thursday morning “Francis made a startling claim” when he called truth an idol:
“We must be careful not to fall into the temptation of making idols of certain abstract truths. They can be comfortable idols, always within easy reach; they offer a certain prestige and power and are difficult to discern. Because the “truth-idol” imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart. Much worse, it distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of Jesus.”
Fr. Murray then defines truth as the Catholic Church and St. Thomas Aquinas teaches and shows that apparently Francis denies truth and makes “erroneous opinion into an idol”:
“Truth is the conformity of mind and reality. The truth about God is understood when we accurately grasp the nature and purpose of His creation (natural theology), and when we believe in any supernatural revelation He may make. Jesus told us that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All truths have their origin in the Truth who is God made man. The Christian understands that the truth is a Person.”
“… Pope Francis states that “the ‘truth-idol’ imitates, it dresses itself up in the words of the Gospel, but does not let those words touch the heart.” Is the Gospel obscured or falsified by truths taught by the Magisterium of the Church – which are drawn from that Gospel?”
“If the truth could be an idol, then naturally any use of the Scriptures to illustrate that particular truth would be a charade. But the truth of God cannot be an idol because what God has made known to us is our means of entering into His reality – the goal of our existence.”
“Francis states that this ‘truth-idolatry’ in fact ‘distances ordinary people from the healing closeness of the word and of the sacraments of Jesus.’”
“Here we have the interpretative key to what I think he is getting at. He is defending his decision in Amoris Laetitia to allow some people who are living in adulterous unions to receive the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharistic while intending to continue to engage in adulterous relations.”
“… The truth will set you free, it will not enslave you in error and darkness. Those who seek to be healed by coming close to Christ in his sacraments will only realize that goal by knowing and doing what Jesus asks of them. To reject in practice his words about the permanence of marriage and the obligation to avoid adultery, and then assert a right to receive the sacraments risks making an erroneous opinion into an idol.” [https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/04/21/of-truth-and-idols/]
Francis because of his apparent denial of truth appears to be denying objective morality and intrinsically evil acts. Professor Claudio Pierantoni, a Patristic Scholar of Medieval Philosophy at the University of Chile and Member of JAHLF (John Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family), said that Francis’s Gaudete et Exsultate appears to deny “the existence of intrinsically evil acts” and is promoting “situation ethics”:
“[T]he document is read within the context of the present controversies in the Church, especially that about Amoris Laetitia and situation ethics, one gets the strong impression that many passages are directly aimed at harshly rebuking all those people (cardinals, scholars, journalists and simple laypeople writing on blogs) that have opposed the papal agenda about giving Communion to the divorced and remarried, Communion to Protestants, permitting contraception in certain cases, too mild opposition or silence in the face of anti-family and anti-life legislation (pro-abortion, pro-birth control pro-euthanasia and pro same-sex marriage). In this sense, the document brings no progress or clarity in any of the most controversial and anti-doctrinal stances of Pope Francis. Quite to the contrary, it seems to represent one more step towards giving a kind of official approval to situation ethics.”
“So, the reading of this document should once more to urge us to plead before the Pope for an answer to the dubia, and in particular to dubium no. 2 about the existence of intrinsically evil acts, which are not justifiable in any situation. We should not forget that to deny this doctrine, or sow doubts about it, in any field of ethics, is the principal heresy of our times and the most dangerous enemy of sanctity.” [http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/professor-pierantoni-gaudete-et-exsultate-supports-error-of-situational-eth#.WuLDtN9lDqC]
Why does Francis deny truth which has lead to his promoting situation ethics?
Francis expert Austen Ivereigh points to how this happened:
“Bergoglio’s fascination with polarities began in the 1960s, when he first began exploring as a Jesuit via Gaston Fessard’s 1956 monumental anti-Hegelian work on the dialectics of grace and freedom in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises. Fessard Francis tells Borghesi, ‘gave me so many of the elements that later got mixed in.’”
“Fessard was one of a 1950s group of Lyons-based jésuites blondéliens – that is, Jesuits inspired by Maurice Blondel – that included Henri de Lubac, Gaston Fessard and Michel de Certeau.” [https://cruxnow.com/book-review/2017/11/18/new-book-looks-intellectual-history-francis-pope-polarity/]
Francis theological advisor Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone connects the final dots of the close connection of Francis’s thinking with Blondel’s teachings which explains why the Pope does not believe in truth and promotes situation ethics:
“Between Blondel’s philosophy of action and Pope Francis’ pastoral action, there are significant coincidences, probably because they both draw from the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. However, indirect links between the two should not be excluded, for example, through the relationshipbetween Gaston Fessard (strongly influenced by Blondel) and Miguel Ángel Fiorito, much appreciated by Bergoglio. This article focuses first on the convergences regarding action; then it compares the coincidences between the two authors regarding the overcoming of social and existential conflicts. Finally, it studies the parallelism between the «logic of love», nominated and applied by the Pope, and the «logic of a moral life» by Blondel, focused on charity. ( La Civiltà Cattolica 2015 III / www.laciviltacattolica.it )” [https://m.facebook.com/civiltacattolica/photos/a.10150836993325245.745627.379688310244/10242607255245/?type=3]
Scannone connecting the Pope’s thinking to Blondel is very important because he is one of “Francis’ closest theological advisors” according to an expert on Latin America and Francis’s theology, Claudio Remeseira:
“In the almost fifty years since its appearance, the Theology of the People has become the Argentine theological school by default. The generation of its founders was followed by a second generation of disseminators, the most prolific of whom is father Scannone… Scannone, Galli, and Fernández are among Francis’ closest theological advisors. [“https://medium.com/@hispanicnewyork/pope-francis-per%C3%B3n-and-god-s-people-the-political-religion-of-jorge-mario-bergoglio-2a85787e7abe ]
Theologian John Lamont explains what Blondel taught:
“The neomodernists, due to their historical perspectivism, did not think that the theology and dogma of previous epochs could satisfy this understanding, but they did not want to dismiss them as false. They accordingly held that dogma was true, but that its truth could not be understood in Aristotle’s sense. Garrigou-Lagrange saw them as reviving the philosopher Maurice Blondel’s rejection of the traditional definition of truth as bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’) in favour of an account of truth as bringing thought into line with life (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’). While this definition of truth was not explicitly stated by the neomodernists, the importance of Blondel for their thought makes this interpretation a plausible one; Bouillard, for example, wrote extensively and approvingly on Blondel.12 What they did explicitly assert was that the truth of past dogmatic pronouncements does not consist in their being an accurate description of reality, and that a theology that was not relevant to the present day (‘actuel’) was untrue.” [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-christmastide-gift-for-our-readers.html?m=1]
Even liberal Neo-Modernist philosophy writer Anthony Carroll wrote:
“Conscious of the challenge to the traditional Thomist theory of knowledge that had been ushered in by modern philosophy, Blondel, for example, sought to identify the practical level of human action as the place where one might find a new apologetic for the Christian faith. In his L’Action (1893), he analyses the dynamics of human action and argues that the distance between what we desire and what we actually realise in our actions indicates that what we truly desire lies always beyond the particular object that we are momentarily fixed upon. This transcendental horizon of desire draws the mind and heart towards God as the only One who can satisfy truly our infinite longings. For Blondel, it is this Augustinian unrest that leaves a trace of the divine in our human experience. Such a turn to the interiority of human experience as grounds for the proof of God’s existence is what is meant by immanentism in Pascendi.”
“Rather than pointing towards the historical existence of Jesus, the factual occurrence of miracles and the fulfilment of earlier prophecies for proof of God’s existence, the Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics of the time, which had been constructed on the basis that external revelation could be taken for granted. With this turn to the interior experience of the human subject, more than simply philosophical questions were raised. If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?” [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]
Finally, the great theologian and teacher of Pope John Paul II, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., wrote about Blondel and why anyone who was influenced by his teachings, directly or indirectly, would deny truth, as apparently Francis is influenced according one of his closest advisor’s Scannone:
“One sees the danger of the new definition of
truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality
but the conformity of mind and life.™ When Maurice
Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution, he did not
foresee all of the consequences for the faith. Would he
himself not be terrified, or at least very troubled?
What life” is meant in this definition of: “conformity
of mind and life”? It means human life. And so then,
how can one avoid the modernist definition: “Truth is
no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it
is evolved with him, in him and through him. (Denz.
2058) One understands why Pius X said of the
modernists: “they pervert the eternal concept of truth. 11
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: