Ladaria the Silent Speaks, Defines “Promethean Neo-Pelagian” and other Papal Insults

Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, Cardinal Muller's Replacement at the CDFArchbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, Cardinal Muller’s Replacement at the CDF

Placuit Deo is interesting, if for no other reason than in it, Ladaria the Silent, Ladaria the Absent, suddenly speaks. And I say this as one who was more than expecting a Bergoglian nuke this afternoon. A Rome-based journalist I consulted about the document told me, “The most interesting part of this is it’s from Ladaria.”

Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, is the Jesuit chosen by Francis to replace the beleaguered Cardinal Muller as prefect of CDF. So far, perhaps the most singular thing we know about him has been his, and under him the CDF’s, absolute silence through the entire furor over Amoris Laetitia, an unprecedented mass-apostasy with bishops, national conferences and even cardinals openly declaring that the Church’s teaching on marriage no longer applies, that same-sex partnerings can be somehow “blessed” by the Church and, most recently, that non-Catholics can receive Holy Communion[1].

So perfectly has Ladaria’s cloaking device been functioning since his appointment in July last year, no one has really even bothered to ask where he’s been. I suppose we assumed that he understood the irrelevance of his dicastery under the New Paradigm since the abject failure of Gerhard Muller’s efforts – quite voluble in the closing years of Benedict XVI but immediately subdued and diffident after March 2013 – to get the Germans to come back to the Faith, or at least to stop openly declaring themselves schismatic. History will show that one of the most significant changes under Francis has been the irrelevance-ing of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – perhaps reflecting the Bergoglians’ total lack of interest in Catholic doctrine as the term has always been understood[2].

But Hark! Ladaria speaks! Of course, as one would expect, the first thing he said at today’s press conference in Rome was a declaration of loyalty to Francis: “I am in a deep and spontaneous harmony with the Pope.” After that it got interesting.

Placuit Deo, “It pleased God,” is a letter from the CDF –  not an “instruction,” just a “letter” – addressed to the bishops of the world, on “neo-pelagianism” and “neo-gnosticism.” In short, the letter is an attempt to offer a doctrinally sound and reasonable definition of the terms that have often featured in recent papal writings and speeches.

FYI: Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, Gregory Burke Present “Placuit Deo”, March 1, 2018. (In Italian)

These tendencies, it says, “resemble certain aspects of two ancient heresies,” without being identical to them. “Both neo-Pelagian individualism and the neo-Gnostic disregard of the body deface the confession of faith in Christ, the one, universal Saviour.”

As a friend in the Vatican told me, the letter at least “pins an authentic, authoritative meaning to the terms, and that’s significant because that’s just not something we do these days. It means that from now on, this is how these words are going to be understood, at least officially, so they can no longer just be flung like a rock at anyone who happens to annoy.”

Someone else suggested that it was Ladaria attempting to politely correct or at least clarify the pope, but this is probably going too far. The letter was approved for immediate publication by Francis, so seems unlikely that it is taking away one of his favourite toy guns, or even significantly restraining his own loosey-goosey way of using theological language.

Even more interestingly, it does actually seem to be identifying a genuine problem in modern, secularist society, a pattern of thinking that has sunk deep into what’s left of Catholic culture:

A new form of Pelagianism is spreading in our days, one in which the individual, understood to be radically autonomous, presumes to save oneself, without recognizing that, at the deepest level of being, he or she derives from God and from others. According to this way of thinking, salvation depends on the strength of the individual or on purely human structures, which are incapable of welcoming the newness of the Spirit of God.

On the other hand, a new form of Gnosticism puts forward a model of salvation that is merely interior, closed off in its own subjectivism. In this model, salvation consists of improving oneself, of being “intellectually capable of rising above the flesh of Jesus towards the mysteries of the unknown divinity.” It presumes to liberate the human person from the body and from the material universe, in which traces of the provident hand of the Creator are no longer found, but only a reality deprived of meaning, foreign to the fundamental identity of the person, and easily manipulated by the interests of man.

As to the pope’s use of the terms, Ladaria responds, “Clearly, the comparison with the Pelagian and Gnostic heresies intends only to recall general common features, without entering into judgments on the exact nature of the ancient errors.”

“There is a great difference between modern, secularized society and the social context of early Christianity, in which these two heresies were born. However, insofar as Gnosticism and Pelagianism represent perennial dangers for misunderstanding Biblical faith, it is possible to find similarities between the ancient heresies and the modern tendencies just described.”

Is it possible that Ladaria has taken upon himself the task of Catholicising Francis, at least for the official record[3]? Does that mean he has joined the ranks of the internet’s Francis-Explainers? Does it make him the Jimmy Akin of the Vatican? Can we call this “12 Things to Know and Share about Promethean Neo-Pelagianism”? “What the pope really meant was…”

If nothing else, it’s a relief to read something coming out of Rome that isn’t just another sample of jargon-wallpaper, and at just over 3000 words it’s actually possible to read the thing in one sitting and get the gist. The jargon is not entirely absent, but at least it starts with the assumption that words have meaning. It reads like a minor document of the early Benedict era: cheerful “Catholic-lite,” instead of the demoralizing spell cast by the guttural, anti-rational Black Speech of Bergoglio. In short, it’s the best we can say about the current Vatican; we can’t expect anyone in there to substantively address the ongoing catastrophe, but at least today we didn’t get a beating. That’s something…

Meanwhile, where were we?

One of the aspects of this pontificate that many find “confusing” is the frequent use of terms and expressions that are never defined, “promethean neo-pelagian” “anthropocentric immanentism” … an apparently never-ending smorgasbord of choice Bergoglian effusions, usually aimed at un-named and only vaguely identifiable targets.

It is one of the more useful principles of rational discourse that we have to start with a general agreement about what words mean. At least we do if we are going to understand who, exactly, is being insulted, and how. Behind this, of course, is the usually un-articulated assumption that words are actually intended to mean things. People who think Reason is important and useful will always start with this assumption. This is why other people who want to dupe and fool and use such people will always play with words without defining them.

To wit: in all this time, no one has been able to nail down what Francis Bergoglio means by his favourite insults, including, “Promethean neo-Pelagian” and “Gnostic”. People who like dictionaries and the Catholic religion know what those words mean, but it has been quite clear that this pope means something quite different by them, a definition he has been extremely careful not to explicate. In fact, what has become clear is that Bergoglio doesn’t mean anything by them, in the usual sense of words meaning things. For him, these terms are merely the stones one fits into one’s sling.

The thing about Placuit Deo is, however, that it rather fails to hit the target. (Quite apart from being a lot of effort over something comparatively trivial. With entire national conferences of bishops declaring themselves functionally apostate one might have thought the first offering from Ladaria’s CDF would have been more… pertinent). It contains some clarification on what the words mean in the theological manuals, which is fine, I guess. But anyone could look up the terms on Google.

What’s relevant is what the pope means by them. And Francis has already offered his definition in the text of his manifesto. “Self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism” means “those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.” And this leads to “a supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline” and “a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others…”

But of course, Ladaria’s little letter is irrelevant for another reason.

In all the shouting in the time since the advent of Amoris Laetitia and the New Bergoglian Paradigm, what has rarely been understood is that it is the shouting, the disorder and confusion, that is the point. The fact that everyone is being distracted by the arguing and squabbling is a great deal more important than the substance of the arguments. It’s well documented that Bergoglio is a divide-and-conquer governor, creating rivalries and enmity, factions and divisions, very often through his use of his own private language. He likes to use bizarre and laboured and carefully undefined insults that certainly soundlike they mean something, but of course, he’s not telling. So blatant has this political tactic been that it has become the source of ironic jokes among a certain class of Catholic blogger.

This is a pope who has clearly taken the advice of Mao who laughed at the insistence of western politicians that words must have meaning. Bergoglio’s methodology is clearly Maoist in that sense: “We will conquer the world because you fools think that words are labels that are properly or improperly pasted onto things. We know that words are little dynamite sticks in people’s minds and we hold the fuse.”

This is what all demagogues understand that their dupes and shills rarely do. This is why it’s pointless to try to insist on this or that definition of his many creative insults. Who are they pointed at? Anyone who gets in his way. It doesn’t matter if you really are a gnostic or a pelagian. It doesn’t matter if these ancient heresies really are resurgent in the lands we used to call Christendom. What matters is that it is now a term that can be used to label an enemy. Words are tools.

I had heard from sources who studied with him at the Gregorian that Ladaria was a Catholic, not a Bergoglian. My friend helpfully created a bullet-point list:

– He’s very happy to criticise the excesses of modern theology (von Balthasar’s bizarre thought that the Father abandons the Son on the Cross)
– He’s devout and pious,
– He’s apparently fairly open to the SSPX,
– He’s not a careerist,
– He is personally upright and ascetic,
– He has a love for the Fathers of the Church and a genuine appreciation of St Thomas,
– He speaks fluent Latin (and German and English and French and Italian); he’s prepared to have theological disputes in the language of the Church.
– If made a Cardinal (which is likely) I’d say that he’d naturally side with ‘Ratzingerians,’


– He’s Bergoglio’s choice (see below).
– He’s a Jesuit (and we all know not to trust Jesuits)
– He may be unwilling to say or do anything unless given express permission
– He seems (from reading other writings of his that I was exposed to when I studied under him in Rome) to favour the empty-hell theory (or at least a theory approaching this).
– He is not strongly opposed to the ‘theology’ of Rahner (which necessarily rather vitiates his appreciation of St Thomas)
– He turned 73 two months ago and will have to submit his resignation when he is 75 – could be that he’s simply a placeholder.

As a competent academic theologian, albeit one obviously of the soft, “Ratzingerian” neo-modernist school, Bergoglio’s methods are something that a man like Ladaria will probably never understand. Which is why he was an interesting choice for CDF, and why his intervention in the wars is equally interesting – because he’s tackling Bergoglio’s latest-favourite insult, “Promethean Neo-Pelagian” as though it was intended to be an honest and authentic expression of Catholic magisterium.

With this innocuous little object, we can glean a few things about him, but mainly that he is not going to be much help.


[1] Don’t get too excited. Spoilers! He’s still silent on these things, at least in this document.

[2] Astoundingly, Muller still doesn’t seem to understand that he’s been sacked.

[3] It’s worth remembering that the Dubia of the four cardinals was addressed to Gerhard Muller as prefect of CDF, as well as to Pope Francis. Ladaria has so far not deigned to answer either.

Get AQ Email Updates

5 comments on “Ladaria the Silent Speaks, Defines “Promethean Neo-Pelagian” and other Papal Insults

  1. Diane Montagna Diane Montagna Follow Diane
    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Comment on this Article
    Share via Email
    Print this Page
    NEWSCATHOLIC CHURCH, FAITHThu Mar 1, 2018 – 3:17 pm EST

    Is new Vatican doc on neo-Pelagianism at odds with Pope’s preferred pejorative?
    Catholic , Faith , Gnosticism , Pope Francis , Salvation

    ROME, March 1, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis refers to the “self-absorbed promethean neo-Pelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.”

    He added that “a supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”

    Such people, he said in the apostolic exhortation, are not really “concerned about Jesus Christ or others.”

    Many have taken the Pope’s comments on neo-Pelagianism to refer to those whom he has said “rigidly” adhere to doctrine and tradition, particularly in light of other similar comments he has made in the course of his pontificate.

    In an address on Christian Humanism delivered in Florence’s famous cathedral, Pope Francis said that Pelagianism “prompts the Church not to be humble, selfless and blessed. And it does so with the appearance of being a good.”

    “In facing ills or the problems of the Church,” the Pope added, “it is useless to look for solutions in conservatism and fundamentalism, in the restoration of practices and outdated forms that even culturally aren’t able to be meaningful.”

    But is this what neo-Pelagianism really means, according to the Vatican?

    In a letter released today, targeting neo-Pelagianism and neo-Gnosticism as two contemporary errors that can be obstacles to salvation, the Vatican’s doctrinal office made no connection between these erroneous “tendencies” and Catholics who adhere to the Church’s tradition.

    It also doesn’t mention rigidity or anything about neo-Pelagianism meaning those who “observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.”

    Entitled “Placuit Deo” (In His Goodness), the Letter was signed by Archbishop Luis Ladaria, S.J., prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and approved by Pope Francis. Its aim is to “demonstrate certain aspects of Christian salvation that can be difficult to understand” in today’s culture.

    The document focuses on Neo-Pelagianism and Neo-Gnosticism, which it says are two modern schools of thought that “resemble certain aspects of [the] two ancient heresies” of Pelagianism and Gnosticism. It notes that Pope Francis has often referred to these two “tendencies” in his addresses and homilies.

    The letter refers to Neo-Pelagians as individuals who believe themselves to be “radically autonomous,” who presume to be able to save themselves and depend on their own strength. They are unable to recognize that they derive “from God and from others.” Such ways of thinking are “incapable of welcoming the newness of the Spirit of God,” it says.

    Classical Pelagianism was the heresy of Pelagius, a British priest of the fifth century, who stated that humans are on their own, without need of grace, and could initiate their own salvation. St. Augustine of Hippo was one of the main opponents of Pelagianism, arguing that God’s unmerited grace is necessary for us to perform any good work that will help us get to heaven.

    By contrast, Neo-Gnostics accept a model of salvation that is “merely interior, closed off in its own subjectivism.” The document adds that it consists in “improving oneself,” of being “intellectually capable of rising above the flesh of Jesus towards the mysteries of the unknown divinity.”

    The Neo-Gnostic way of thinking “presumes to liberate the human person from the body and from the material universe,” and fails to see traces of God’s provident hand in creation. Neo-Gnostics experience a reality “deprived of meaning,” and foreign to the fundamental identity of the human person as a unity of body and soul. This idea of reality is therefore “easily manipulated by the interests of man.”

    Classical Gnosticism is ancient pantheistic belief in “secret teachings” of Christ, namely, that he came in order to free us from the evils of matter so that we might live as purely spiritual beings.

    Placuit Deo notes that while there is “a great difference” between modern, secularized society and “the social context of early Christianity, in which these two heresies were born,” there are “similarities” between the ancient histories and the modern tendencies to which Pope Francis refers, insofar as they represent “perennial dangers for misunderstanding Biblical faith.”

    It adds that as both modern-day versions of these heresies prevent Christ from mediating salvation, it is important to “reaffirm that salvation consists in our union with Christ.”

    Placuit Deo observes the natural human desire for salvation, but adds that it is often “secret and hidden”: it can coincide with “hope for physical health,” take the form of worrying about “economic well-being,” or manifest itself as a need for “interior peace” and peace with one’s neighbor. It can also manifest itself in “endurance” and “overcoming pain,” as well as the need to ward off “ignorance and error, fragility and weakness, sickness and death.”

    By contrast, faith in Christ teaches that no created thing “can totally satisfy us because God has destined us for communion with Him.” The letter therefore explains that salvation does not consist in filling our hearts with “things that the human person can obtain by himself” such as wealth, knowledge or self-satisfaction. The ultimate vocation of man is divine. “Our hearts will be restless until they rest in Him.”

    The Letter also stresses that “the origin of evil” is not found in the material world, and its “most damaging” form comes from man’s heart. Salvation, the Letter therefore reasserts, “begins with welcoming Jesus” who heals and redeems mankind from sin. Quoting Benedict XVI, the document states that being a Christian is about “the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.”

    Christian salvation, it adds, “shows how baseless the individualist perspective is,” reminding that from an encounter with God, Christ “opens for us the door to freedom.” Salvation, it says, consists in “incorporating ourselves” into Christ’s life, “receiving his Spirit.”

    The document explains understanding how the salvation “brought by Jesus” comes to us through His Church helps to overcome “reductionist tendencies.” The salvation that God offers man is not achieved with our own individual efforts alone, nor is it limited to the neo-Gnostic view of “merely interior salvation.” Such ways of thinking “contradict the sacramental economy through which God wants to save the human person” and bring him into communion with the Holy Trinity.

    The Letter teaches that true salvation is not about “liberation from the body” but rather “includes its sanctification.” The sacraments allow Christians to have a “type of relationality” that calls “for the care of all suffering humanity through the spiritual and corporal works of mercy.”

    The Vatican document says that the fullness of life in Christ means Christians must establish a “sincere and constructive dialogue with believers of other religions, confident that God can lead ‘all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.’” But it also retains the call to evangelize as it is in Christ’s hope “that we are saved.’”

    “Total salvation of the body and of the soul is the final destiny to which God calls all of humanity,” the document concludes. “Founded in faith, sustained by hope, and working in charity, with the example of Mary, Mother of the Savior and first among the saved, we are certain that ‘our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.’”

    Vatican Presser on “Placuit Deo”
    Explaining the genesis of the document at a Vatican press conference this morning, Archbishop Ladaria said that following the promulgation of Dominus Iesus in 2000, “various theologians” asked the CDF to study several aspects covered in the document, and suggested “a new document on Christian salvation.”

    The CDF Prefect said the initiative “was not the Pope’s” but came “from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and various theologians” who in one way or another asked us about the matter.

    He said there was “no special reason” why the letter was published now, but that the Pope approved the letter after reviewing it at their Plenary session last month, and asked that it be published “as soon as possible”

    Asked by the French news agency La Croix to provide concrete examples of neo-Pelagianism and neo-Gnosticism, the CDF prefect pointed to references to the two tendencies made by Pope Francis, said he would not “point fingers” and limited himself to pointing out the tendencies to “self-reliance and to isolation.”

    Asked which is the more important, he said it is “easier” to point to examples of neo-Pelagianism, but you could “fill books” with ancient Gnosticism which is a “very complicated phenomenon.”

    In light of the Pope’s repeated use of the term neo-Pelagianism to describe those who “rigidly” adhere to doctrine or Tradition, the National Catholic Register asked why the word or sentiment does not appear in the Letter. Archbishop Ladaria said he was not aware the word was not included, and added there was “no particular reason” why it was not.

    Finally, a journalist from the Associated Press said she “marveled” that the document only used the word ‘Catholic’ once (in the title) and asked whether Placuit Deo marked a departure from the Church’s teaching regarding the “fullness of salvation” being only found in the Catholic Church.

    The CDF Prefect said the Church has often repeated what Vatican II taught that “Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church.” He also referred to the Council document Lumen Gentium which teaches that “many elements of salvation are found in Christian religious confessions” and that these elements “tend towards Catholic unity.”

    Archbishop Ladaria said that denominations have “elements of sanctification” and “we recognize these gladly.” And he stressed that “the fact that we don’t enter directly into this [in Placuit Deo] doesn’t mean that the teaching has changed. It seems to me to have deepened.”

  2. On second thought, allowing Francis to condemn Tradition and its advocates as not only hip enough but actually quite irrelevant to His Humbleness’ Tangofest on the Tiber obviates this whatever-it-is. A mere repackaging of V2 heresies. Pfft!

  3. [Mundabor’s comment – 3/2/18]
    Placuit Deo = FrancisRubbish
    Thankfully, the announced document from the Vatican is not an encyclical letter but “merely” a CDF one. Make no mistake, it is rubbish all the same.
    The document has a fake aim, which is the correction of misconceptions about Salvation; and a real one, which is to insult faithful Catholics the world over whilst spreading more heresy.
    Ironically, the most heretical Pope in History accuses us of being heretic, because we refuse to accept ( and I quote) ” the newness of the Spirit of God”. What a blasphemy to think that the Holy Ghost may become “new” and thus different from the Old One! Still, if you refuse to accept this in-built, permanent and ever-changing heresy it is you, my dear reader, who are the heretic!
    Only an idiot can think that a Catholic in good faith can accept such rubbish. Francis has not missed this occasion to let us know what an idiot it is.
    There is more rubbish still: apparently, “desire for physical health” and such like pretty automatic, everyday desires even Stalin had are now a form of desire for salvation.
    Really, this is dumb beyond belief. It is not only the attempt to create a new religion. It is the attempt to create a religion of immense stupidity, a system of non-belief a third grader would easily unmask as extremely superficial, stupid to the level of grave retardation, and deprived of every permanence and logic.
    The fact that, apparently, some fake conservative outlets have tried to smuggle this rubbish as sound Catholic fare is a very depressing indication of the horrible quality of today’s Catholic discourse.
    Francis hates you, and he wanted to react to the continuous accusations of heresy against him by calling you a heretic. In doing so, he has once again revealed his dumbness, utter ignorance and unspeakable arrogance.
    Poor deluded ass, who keeps shooting himself in the foot every time he thinks he has done something smart.

  4. [S. Armaticus (The Deus Ex Machina Blog)’s comment – 3/2/18]
    Placuit Deo – The Catholic Response…
    The first comprehensive commentary of the CDF Letter “Placuit Deo” has appeared, written by the folks at the Veri Catholici website. This website is a trusted source for Catholic Magisterial teaching (see here).
    I would also like to point your attention to The Remnant website and a great post written by a favorite of this blog, Hilary White. In that post, she does a textual criticism of the Placuit Deo Letter, highlighting the post-Modernist ERROR which disregards the objective meaning of words and their common usage. (see here)
    One example of this above described PHENOMENON is the constant reference to “rigid” and this term being tied into “neo-Pelagian Prometheanism” by Francis. Yet Card. (h/t HWhite – I jumped the gun) Archbishop Lavada, when asked by Ed Pentin why “rigid” does not appear in the Letter, replied that he didn’t know that it was not in the Letter.
    Given that the Letter’s stated intent is to:
    “demonstrate certain aspects of Christian salvation that can be difficult to understand”, i.e. neo-Palagionsim and neo-Gnosticism,one would think,
    and that:
    “Pope Francis, in his ordinary magisterium, often has made reference to the two tendencies described above, that resemble certain aspects of two ancient heresies, Pelagianism and Gnosticism,…”
    one would assume that the concept of liturgical/theological “rigidity” would be play an important, if not central role in the definition of neo-Pelagianism.
    But it don’t…
    So what does that mean?
    Simply, that we are dealing with post-Modernists.
    Ockham’s razor posits: numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [plurality is never to be posited without necessity].
    Moving on…
    Below is the reproduction of the Veri Catholici Twitter string on the subject and the full commentary on the Placuit Deo Letter of the CDF:
    The CDF letter, “Placuit Deo” contains several grave errrors and heresies: In this Thread these will be explained. The document is at
    The first grave error, which is implicitly heretical, is the phrase “Christian Salvation”, which implies there is salvation apart from Christ and makes the only Salvation, which is Christ, merely a species of salvation in general.
    Second, the English translation follows the usage of godless Atheists in denying the honorific capitalization to the Divine Nature, the Mediator etc., which Catholics are accustomed to
    Third, the letter falls into the error of Gnosticism/Heraclitus’ metaphysics when it says, “The teaching on salvation in Christ must always be deepened.” As if there is something insufficient or ineffective in the plain preaching of the Gospel contained in Scripture and Tradition
    Fourth, the Letter falls into gender confusion when it says, “Holding fast to the gaze of the Lord Jesus, the Church turns toward all persons with a maternal love” Because the Church is feminine and Christ is masculine and that colors their vision.
    Fifth, the Letter establishes a new deposit of the faith (“the greater tradition of the faith and with particular reference to the teachings of Pope Francis”) which is both objectively and ontologically different from that of Scripture and Sacred Tradition
    These 5 points show that the Letter is formally Gnostic, while claiming to denounce “Gnosticism”. This is a very deceptive and dangerous document. We warn all the Faithful to reject it!
    Sixth, the Letter advances the errors of Personalism, which infect the Pontifical Institutes at Rome, and which redefines salvation as salvation of the human person, rather than of the soul, and the body only in virtue of the Resurrection in the world to come.
    Seventh, the Letter in II, 2, presents an ontological soteriology divorced from all moral causes and effects, as if sin and repentance from it are not essential or key themes in true soteriology. This is pure Gnosticism of the classical kind.
    Eight, despite its attempts to avoid neo-Pelagianism, the letter in II, 4, falls into classical Pelagianism when it writes, “so that we are able to unite ourselves to the Father as sons in the
    Ninth, the Letter reiterates a key error of Personalism when it writes in III, 5 “Man perceives himself, directly or indirectly, as a mystery”, this confounds the Mysteries of revelation and true religion, with existentialist conceptions of individuality and existence.
    Tenth, the Letter falls into the errors of Americanism by claiming that all men seek happiness and are in pursuit of it. Catholic teaching is that all men, wounded by original sin, no longer seek blessedness but idolatrous images of it, unless they are saved by grace of Christ.
    Eleventh, the Letter incompetently attempts to expound a Christian anthropology without confessing that there is a Creator of man, that man’s principal part is his soul, and that salvation consists both in an ontological and a moral conversion!
    Twelfth, the Letter in III, 7 falls into the implicitly heretical position of saying that evil comes from man’s heart, when the Catholic Faith holds from the beginning that evil is from the pride of Lucifer who seduced Angels and who can have power over material things.
    Thirteenth, in III, n. 8 the Letter has a non sequitur, “Therefore, Divine salvation takes on the creaturely order shared by all humanity and accompanies their concrete journey in history.” whereby it introduces a soteriology for irrational things to support Ecologic marxism.
    Fourteenth, in III n. 8, it repeats the sloppy notion of B16 that Being a Christian is an encounter, when in fact Trent teaches that it begins with justification and sanctification which is the result of Divine Action, not merely an encounter.
    Fifteenth, in IV, n.9 we find 1 Catholic paragraph, which contains a correct explanation, but is ideologically isolated from the rest of the Letter, whose errors it does not sufficiently refute.
    Sixteenth, in V, n. 12, the Letter fails to correctly identify the Catholic Church and scrupulously omits the word “Catholic” and thus gives support to the error that there is good hope for salvation outside the Catholic Church.
    Seventeenth, in V. 12, the Letter reiterates Bergoglian pantheism when it states: “In her we touch the flesh of Jesus, especially in our poorest and most suffering brothers and sisters.” Confounding sarx with somata to promote the elevation of eros to the level of caritas.
    Eighteenth, in V. 14, the Letter falls into the error of asserting human relationships as necessary for salvation, even though many a Saintly hermit spoke and communed with no one for decades and the rest of their lives!
    Nineteenth, in VI, 15, the Letter repeats the nonsensical and absurd doctrine of Salvation by Dialogue, and omits direct reference to preaching the Gospel necessity of accepting Christ or being damned, as Christ Himself said, not dialogued: Repent and Believe!
    Finally, if a student in a theology course at a Pontifical University had written this document, VC would give them a 3 out of 10 for its poor attempt to reiterate Catholic Doctrine on the key errors of our day.
    Please share this critique because so many “scholars” have been fooled by this document, very cleverly written to introduce heresy into the mind of unsuspecting and un-alert Catholics.

  5. “Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.”

Leave a Reply