Sunday, November 28, 2010

"Papal Ambiguity" has a Clear Trajectory

This is a reference to discussion underway HERE and HERE.

The usefulness of puzzling over, debating and discussing papal double-speak is limited. While we 'dialogue' over these two-faced statements, a single agenda forges steadily on a clear trajectory. Oh, it may zig a hair to the 'left' and zag a bit to the 'right' at times, but trajectory is determined from long-term trends, not on short term events.

Now, it may not seem very 'traditional' to some Traditionalists to take first principles from the founding text of Christianity rather than pious 15th-century mystical works or apparitions, but I guess it's my cross to be 'weird' or 'Protestant' in that sense. I look to the Gospel and see Jesus stating the principle that it's fruits, not words, that we know intent by. This is a crucial Christian principle. Why do so few heed it? Why do so many Christians behave as though Jesus taught, "Respect prevaricators and give them the benefit of the doubt in spite of all evidence" or "Yea-no speech should be 'dialogued' over until a consensus interpretation divorced from observable facts is arrived at"? The very presence of yea-no speech is proof that we're hearing evil rather than Christian teaching according to the Gospel principle taught by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

The Pope proclaims in his book, Light of the World, essentially, "Jesus is Savior of the Jews - to pray for Jews to convert to Jesus is to wound them." This is patent yea-no speech. According to Jesus' principle, we know we're hearing evil: "Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." The whole of yea-no speech is of evil. To seize upon the yea as evidence of orthodoxy as if the no didn't accompany it is to participate in the same evil.

Yea-no speech cannot proceed from a good motive. Neither can there be any good motive for an observer pretending that the yea hasn't a negating no attached. To do so is self-deception at best. On the test of Matthew 5;37 this Papal teaching is of evil.

Then, according to Jesus' test of Matthew 7;16-20 we look at the fruits. There is no evidence of Joseph Ratzinger in his 83 years ever converting one of these people he calls "Jews" to Jesus as far as I am aware, and I'm an avid researcher of such things. I've been asking doubters to produce such evidence since 2008 to no avail, but it seems a nonsensical exercise. Why would a man try to convert "Jews" if he believes so much as a prayer for their conversion that they don't even hear wounds them?

It's not for lack of opportunity that this man doesn't evangelize "Jews." He 'dialogues' with them weekly, visits their synagogues regularly and never uses it as an occasion to evangelize. On the contrary, he uses these occasions to confirm their error and delusion. The fruits of Joseph Ratzinger's work concerning "The Jews" are of the most rotten sort: not one conversion and mass delusion among "Jews" and Christians alike on this key Gospel doctrine.

Let's be frank, the fruits of the Pope's apocalyptic theology--praying for the end to come quickly so "The Jews" will convert--is of the same lunatic tree that bore "Pastors" John Hagee and Tim LaHaye's eschatology. What is Hagee and Benedict doing when they discourage evangelizing "Jews"? They've made the Gospel of no effect. They've neutralized the one thing that has the power to save their souls and impede their hostility against us. They're buying these "children of the covenant" time to build up Pharisaic Talmudism. How much time? All of it! For whatever time there is left until the end of time we're to refrain from "wounding" evangelization of "Jews" according to the Hagee-Ratzinger dispensation.

Think about this. This is as fraudulent and pernicious as the time-buying "Peace Process" by which an Israeli state steadily emerges on Palestinian land allegedly allocated for a Palestinian state. In that case the Israelis make an occasional token concession and feign a light at the end of a very long tunnel. Benedict's theology is a more plain raw deal than that; there's no concessions and the time-frame, by design, is until the end of time; we're to "deepen our religious relations" with people who're undermining our religion until there's no time left. What of the souls that will be lost, Christians, "Jews" and all, during this strange dispensation lasting until the eschaton? How do we begin to account for such a loss? It would be a spiritual catastrophe on a much greater scale than the temporal Palestinian catastrophe.

What can be said of 'traditionalists' who call this sucker deal--these innovations and their objective rotten fruits--consistent with tradition? Whether it be self-deception or willful deception of others, it's part and parcel of the evil from whence the teaching itself proceeds.

No comments: