Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Francis' Trinitarian Theology

This needs little comment from the peanut gallery, as the selection speaks for itself. This is from an article on Crux about an Argentinian theologian who thinks she understands and can explain the thought of P. Francis.
She [Dr. Emilce Cuda] says Francis urged them to do theological ethics with a “hermeneutic of unity in difference,” an idea that the network has already embraced before his election. It’s a theme that recurs in the pope’s intellectual passions: creating processes in which the Holy Spirit forges new synthesis out of disparities and disagreements.
In the meeting, the pope jokingly likened this to the way the Holy Trinity functions. “Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors,” Cuda says Francis told them, “but on the outside they give the picture of unity.”
Cuda says his comparison made her think of something more earthy attributed to Argentina’s famous leader Juan Domingo Perón. “In Peronism, when they hear cats shrieking, people outside think they’re fighting; in fact, they’re reproducing.”
There are few words for this kind of casual blasphemy, only a rising desire to do a great deal of penance. God have mercy on us all.


  1. Blasphemy with a pinch of heresy. What a day!

    1. Mrs. Cuda's crude commentary on Francis' theology doesn't help, either.

  2. I am Not too impressed with His Theological Training.
    Until 1965,Argentine Seminaries had Bastardized Scholastic Thomism taught with flabby zeal.

  3. Nothing really surprises me anymore when it comes to him. It's all comical at this point.

  4. Even the most zealous members of the Patheos Posse must, at times, consider rounding-up their "He was misquoted" commentary to at least - "O, well that is a problem "- if they can't consider his praxis and round it up to heresy.

  5. Franciscus is nothing compared to the Catechism. ABS knows this is OT, but the Catechism entries on scandal are blistering blasphemies - go look them up - for, objectively,they teach:

    It is always a sin to give scandal
    Jesus gave scandal
    Jesus is a sinner

    The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church published that blistering blasphemy and has not done one damn thing since to apologise for doing that, removing those heresies, and replacing those entires with sane faithful ones and, so , Franciscus is the result.

    1. 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

      2326 Scandal is a grave offense when by deed or omission it deliberately leads others to sin.

      Clearly it's describing the sinful scandal. The kind of scandal our Lord caused is not that kind of scandal.

      Pulling such things out of one's bottom on the other hand is ignorance at best and calumny at worst.

    2. Our Lord was scandalous to some during His time on earth in the Greek sense of the word 'scandolos', meaning barrier or obstrution. While the Pharisees saved Judaism from syncretism during the Maccabean revolt, they remained too attached to their ways to hear Our Lord, hence a 'scandal.'

      Bergoglio's words are scandalous more in the sense Marko has drawn from the CCC.

  6. Dear Rad Trad. Thanks for tolerating the OT matter.

    ABS would just like to add one last thing.

    "Now, it is quite clear that the Catholic Catechism teaches that scandal is a grave sin when it leads others to commit grave offenses (2284); Deicide, the killing of Christ, would certainly be a great offense, and Jesus Himself speaks of the Pharisees who had Him put to death as guilty of the "greater sin" (John 19:11). Therefore, Jesus gave scandal to the Pharisees because He provoked them to do an act of grave evil - i.e., put Him to death.

    It is also quite clear that the Catholic Catechism teaches that scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of the one who gives scandal. In this example, the scandal was given by Jesus Himself, who is the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. Is there anyone of higher authority? It appears then that Jesus would be supremely guilty because His authority was so great.

    It is quite clear that the Catholic Catechism teaches that anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it causes others to do wrong becomes "guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly caused" (CCC 2287). The teaching presented here is that one is guilty of the sin of scandal even if the scandal is given indirectly.

    It is quite clear that the Catholic Catechism teaches that Jesus Himself gave scandal, at least two times: "Jesus scandalized the Pharisees" (588) and "Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God's own attitude toward them" (599). What is the implication here? If we put it together, this cluster of confusion apparently means the Catechism is teaching that Jesus is guilty of seriously grave sin."

    ABS knows IANS and can attest he is as handsome as he is provocative

    1. The Sacred Scripture says that the pharisees were scandalised.
      Now, it is pretty clear that the meaning isn't the sinful scandal.

      Moreover for there truly to be a scandal, the act provoking the scandal must itself be evil.

      Medice, cura te ipsum.

    2. He didn't provoked them. He let them choose since they thought of themselves worthy - unscathed by sin - to judge. The Pharisees were the order created to judge. They were supposed to be right. They had to be. But they did not judge him but kept it vague, brought Pilates in who was clueless in spiritual matters, he still tried to fend it off. Then they brought their own people to judge, the masses being dumb usually.
      When we see people today blatantly offending God, blaming Him, how can we judge His Lamb, His Son who had helped us from the beginning, since Christ is an ipostasis of the Holy Trinity, He has been there from the start, who eventually said to judge Him if we are that certain of it. But He did warn is the greatest sin. They must've said He is selfish or other common wordly 'wisdom'...
      Another sadly dangerous event is that the demons and Satan intervened to NOT have Him crucified, also bowed and obbeyed Him.
      If today universally sucks.. to be human... we are ripping what we saw with our true selves.. which are not flowers like hindi junkies claim. But all is irrelevant there because they said they would not find the relevant.
      You know the newly renovated Tomb of Christ is in danger of collapsing. They also said their tech measuring machines have gone crazy inside of it. I think we just did another boo boo...
      At least Rome didn't initiate this vandalizing but our own dear Patriarchy or Jerusalem. You are far better where you are... Francis is just this guy...change him. Maybe Burke should focus not only on criciticism but in preparing for responsability. Take it, keep it.
      May God help!

    3. ABS, you're misquoting the text of the Catechism. It reads: "directly or indirectly encouraged," not "directly or indirectly caused" (CCC 2287;

  7. J. Yes, you're right and ABS apologises, It should read encouraged not caused but that does nothing to change the blistering blasphemy as Jesus is still guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil; that is, Jesus is a sinner.

    Now, proper Catechisms ought not be written in that sloppy fashion which suggest the author (s) of these sections had little love for Jesus and absolutely no fear of offending Him.

    How does ABS know that? Because the author(s) would not publicly teach that the reigning Pope had caused scandal nor would any man worthy of his salt publicly accuse his Bride of scandal.

    Now, the then Pope, Pope Saint John Paul II would not likely have silently and passively endured being singled-out publicly as one who gave scandal in the very Catechism he promulgated, but Jesus being accused of giving scandal? No biggie.

    But, the Bride of today has no qualms about teaching, two times, that the Bridegroom gives scandal.

    This is the First time in the 2000 year history of the Church that a Catechism has identified one individual who has given scandal and, thus, sinned.

    Unfortunately, that person is a Divine Person, Jesus Christ, and thus, Franciscus.

    Rese. Active passive scandal. Perfect ones scandalizing others... It will be useful to you.

    1. Upthread ABS posted a link to USC piece he co-wrote (former S/N of IANS) with Boniface and in that piece passive and active scandal are well explicated.

      The problem is not ABS' knowledge of scandal, the problem is with the Catechism and its entires on scandal but, as experience has shown him, most Catholics have no problem with those entries.

      C'est la vie.

      Rad Trad. Thanks for your patience on this

      pax tecum

    2. I see what you're trying to say. I'm sorry if i have been harsh.

  9. Marko No need to apologise. You weren't harsh