Devilish ”Black Pope” Says Devil is Only Symbolic

(Rome) As he once said, the Jesuit General Arturo Sosa Abascal reiterated his claim that the devil exists only as a "symbolic reality".

Since October 2016, the Venezuelan Jesuit, Arturo Sosa Abascal, Superior General of the Jesuit Order and thus, is the 30th successor of St. Ignatius of Loyola. General Sosa distinguished himself in the 70s and 80s by trying to bring about a symbiosis of Christianity and Marxism. These aspirations were concretized by a jubilee address to the Communist Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Since his election to the Jesuit General Sosa attracted little favor. His spiritual "bon mots" range from syncretistic excursions to the polemical denial of the authenticity of the Gospels. Notorious for this is his answer in connection with the controversial post-synodal letter of Pope Francis, Amoris laetitia, whether the Lord’s command on the indissolubility of marriage is still valid. The "Black Pope" in all seriousness meant that at that time nobody had a tape recorder, so there was no sure proof of the authenticity of the Lord’s words.

In 2017, General Sosa also said that the devil is not a person and that his existence is only as a "symbolic figure" to name evil.

There was no official reaction from the Order or the Holy See either in one instance or the other. Pope Francis, otherwise stingy with criticism of his own ranks, did not utter a word of disapproval or correction to his religious superiors.

Now Sosa has repeated his adventurous thesis about the devil. On August 21, the weekly Tempi published an interview with the Black Pope, as the Jesuit General is traditionally called. He said:

Tempi: Father Sosa, does the devil exist?

Arturo Sosa Abascal: In different ways. We need to understand the cultural elements to refer to this figure. In the language of Saint Ignatius, it is the evil spirit that makes one do things that are directed against the Spirit of God. He exists as personified evil in different structures, but not in humans because he is not a person. He is a way to realize the evil. It is not a person like a human. It is a way of evil to be present in human life. Good and evil are in constant conflict in the human conscience and we have different ways to name them. We recognize God as good, as completely good. Symbols are part of reality, and the devil exists as a symbolic reality, not as a personal reality. 

According to the logic of the Jesuit general, is God, logically, only a "symbolic reality" that serves to name the good?

Will the General Curia of the Jesuit Order and the Holy See also stay away this time? Will Pope Francis remain silent this time, even though the Superior General of the Church's largest and traditionally most powerful order challenges the foundations of the Church and of religion as a whole? Some could at least recognize agnostic approaches in his words.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Wikicommons
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

Inexplicable Censorship -- Vatican Publisher Presents Transcript of Proceedings on Emperor Constantine the Great

In Hoc Signo Vinces - censorship in the Vatican against Constantine the Great

(Rome) "The impudence of those who are obviously moved, to the detriment of the truth by an ideological schema, is always worrying," said Corrrispondenza Romana.  During proceedings at the Vatican publishing house,  the conference transcript about the Emperor Constantine the Great and the Constantinian Shift has recently appeared. It's a transcript with curious surprises, revealing an alarming censorship.

From the 18th-21st April 2012 on  the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, an international meeting of historians took place on the figure of Emperor Constantine the Great. The meeting had been initiated by the reigning President until 2009 of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller. Renowned speakers discussed  key issues that ranged from the conversion of the emperor, to the relationship between Christians and the Roman Empire, and Constantine's vision before the decisive  victory of October 28th, 312.

Speech by Professor de Mattei disappears

Recently, the Vatican publishing house will publish the title "Constantine the Great.  On the Roots of Europe,"  as the conference's volume and which will be presented  in the Augustinianum in Rome. Among the "most important experts in the field", as the acting President of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences writes, there was also the  historian Roberto de Mattei, who illustrated in a highly regarded paper, the "archetypal significance of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge." The presentation by Professor de Mattei is, however, gone. It is not found in the conference proceedings in which the papers were published. De Mattei was also not invited to the presentation of the volume, which can be assessed as an additional personal rebuff by the publisher.

"How is such an inexplicable censorship possible?" asked Corrispondenza Romana. To many it may have caused some upset  that Professor de Mattei regarded the Vision of Constantine, with its luminous signs in form of a cross on the sun with the words "In Hoc Signo Vinces," as genuine.   In a time in which even Catholic theological faculties of priest-professors deny the authenticity of the miracles of Jesus, "because they are  scientifically impossible,"  someone may have felt provoked.

Vision and Victory of Constantine of "Archetypal Meaning"

Constantine the Great

The upset stomach of many must have grown, as de Mattei pointed out that in the vision of the emperor and its consequences  became a model for the following centuries, can be seen, and therefore taken up by Saint Pius X which he testified in the Apostolic Exhortation Universi christifidelibus, with which he announced the Constantinian Jubilee in commemoration of the historic event announced on 8 March 1913:

"At that time the Church Militant finally obtained the first of those triumphs which was relieved from previous epochs of all kinds of persecutions and stood ready on that day in the company of the human race for ever greater deeds."

What is significant to the battle of Saxa Rubra as  "military and political triumph," says Professor de Mattei in his speech, is "not separate from the wonderful intuition of Constantine." He continues: "Christ himself called on Constantine and his legions to fight on His behalf. Thus, He established the principle that it is lawful to fight on behalf of God, when the cause is just and the war is declared a holy war. The battle of 28 October proved not only the legality of Christians to serve in the army, but was declared instinctu divinitatis the first holy war of the Christian era."

"In Hoc Signo Vinces" means not only "internal victory over sin, but also public, armed victory"

So the motto "In Hoc Signo Vinces," the "Signum Crucis, binds the symbol of the cross to a victory that is not only the inner victory over the disordered passions and sin, but also a public, armed, military victory."

Although these statements by Professor de Mattei were covered in detail by the sources, they seem not to have fit the picture of someone in the Vatican, whether the Pontifical Committee for Historical Research, the Vatican publishing house or even someone in a high position. To invite a speaker as a designated expert to a meeting and then to dismiss his paper without any justification, without even mentioning the name of the speaker, is not only a personal affront, and not just a violation of all intellectual and academic practice, but pure censorship. It's a manipulation behind which hides a falsification of history.

Corrispondenza Romana provides the additional question: "Who is afraid of Constantine the Great?"

Second Lecture also Disappears

Proceedings

It was not only de Mattei's lecture which has disappeared. But  the presentation by Professor Gianluigi Falchi from the Lateran University also can not be found in the conference proceedings. Professor Falchi talked about freedom of religion and the baptism of Constantine. In this case, there was no "plausible" explanation either,  as the historian had died in the meantime and thus his text could no longer see the printing. However,  a complete eradication is still not justified. Propriety entirely demands the publication of  papers in such cases with a note.

The case of Professor de Mattei, however, offers no "plausible" explanation.  Therefore, there remains only the assumption that the contents of the lecture were not in fitting with the picture of that hasty distancing from the "Constantinian shift" matches in which to practice numerous church representatives.

When emerged from the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, as the chairman of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, the French Premonstratensian Bernard Ardura, writes in his foreword to the conference proceedings, really a "new world" and a Europe "in which the values ​​of human dignity, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of worship flourished ", it is difficult to understand that all this is depressed at the same time in connection with this meeting through censorship with feet that just wanted to emphasize these principles.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Corrispondenza Romana

The Devil's Servants in Religion

Edit:  Father Barron is often horrible, or just uninspiring, of dubious orthodoxy.  Of course, an Episcopalian woman dressing up as a bishop is a slow moving and easy target, but here's an excerpt:

But Bishop Jefferts Schori reads it as a tale of patriarchal oppression and intolerance. She preaches, "But Paul is annoyed, perhaps, for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness. Paul can't abide something he won't see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it." The Bishop correctly points out that the girl was saying true things about Paul and his friends, but demons say true things all the time in the New Testament. Think of the dark spirits who consistently confess that Jesus is the Holy One of God. That a Christian bishop would characterize the demonic possession of a young girl as something "beautiful and holy" simply beggars belief. 

But things get even more bizarre. We are told in Acts that the girl's owners are furious that Paul has effectively robbed them of their principal source of income and that they therefore stir up controversy and get him thrown in prison. But on the Bishop's reading, Paul is just getting what he deserved: "That's pretty much where he put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she too shares in God's nature, just as much as he does -- maybe more so!" She seems to rejoice that a mid-first-century Philippian version of the liberal thought police had the good sense to imprison the patriarchal Paul for his deep intolerance of fallen spirits! You see why this sermon reminded me of that New Yorker cartoon. 

That night in prison, we are told, Paul and Silas sang hymns of praise to God and preached the Gospel to their jailors. Jefferts Schori reads this, strangely, as Paul coming to his senses at last, remembering God, dropping the annoyance he felt toward the girl, and embracing the spirit of compassion. Wouldn't it be a lot simpler and clearer to say that Paul, who had never "forgotten God," quite consistently showed compassion both toward the possessed girl and the unevangelized jailor, delivering the former and preaching the Gospel to the latter?

Link to RealClearReligion....