Modernist drivel at its finest…
What a Modernist Sounds Like:
The “Cardinal” Kasper Interview
(click to play video)
As the saying goes: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. It is no different with heretics, especially Modernists. Pope St. Pius X wrote in his 1907 landmark encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis that Modernists can be identified as such by looking at what they do, what they believe, and how they express themselves. Let’s have a look at the opening paragraphs of this great papal document and see if this doesn’t sound eerily familiar:
One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,” “vain talkers and seducers,” “erring and driving into error.” It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.
That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.
Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, nn. 1-3; underlining added.)
Clearly, “Cardinal” Walter Kasper fits the bill. Watch the video interview above, in which Raymond Arroyo grills Kasper on his idiotic and pseudo-theological proposal to allow some public adulterers to receive the sacraments without having to give up their adultery. Kasper is caught in sundry contradictions, speaking out of both sides of his Modernist mouth, and makes outrageous assertions to justify his false theology. One of his chief deceptions is the supposed difference between dogma on the one hand, and the “application” of the dogma on the other, a clear Vatican-II-ism — as though the command “Thou shalt not commit adultery” could admit of various different “applications” or “pastoral practices.” We recall our Blessed Lord’s “pastoral practice” with the woman at the well, telling her, “he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18). Kasper’s contention that one cannot “deduce” a pastoral practice from a dogma could not be more wrong — one can and must do precisely that. What’s not permitted, on the other hand, is the inductive way, that of starting with a particular situation and then somehow “reflecting” oneself into a solution, which is exactly what Kasper does. (For more on the inductive vs. deductive approaches, see The Psychotic Synod.)
Likewise disingenuous and outrageous is Kasper’s idea that one can commit adultery without being culpable, and that the priest’s job in the confessional is to discern whether the penitent is aware that he is committing adultery, and if not, to leave him in this belief. But this is absurdity on stilts — the only time one would be inculpable of adultery is if one is not in one’s right mind, and thus one would not be responsible for any of one’s actions. Another theoretical scenario, however implausible practically, would be a case of mistaken identity, where one is being deceived by a double, by a spousal impostor. But this is obviously not what Kasper is talking about. For him, adultery is not a sin if the penitent disagrees with the Church and “feels” that the new partner is in fact a true spouse. This is what he means, and for this alone he deserves to be excommunicated and stripped of all ecclesiastical offices — not that he’s validly holding any of them to begin with, of course.
The Kasper interview demonstrates beautifully what Pope Pius VI meant when he denounced the proto-Modernists of his day who “sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation…. [Yet this] cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.” The same Pope warned also against heretics like Nestorius, who “expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed”, concluding that “[w]henever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged” (Pope Pius VI, Constitution Auctorem Fidei). This is how a true Pope speaks in the face of the threat of heresy!
Kasper has a long history as a Modernist apostate and adherent of the Nouvelle Theologie (New Theology). His book Jesus the Christ is a heretical classic undermining the Divinity, miracles, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here are some links exposing the apostasy of Walter Kasper in more detail:
- Kasper’s Address to Francis & “Cardinals” on Communion for Public Adulterers
- Cleary Not a Catholic: The Theses and Beliefs of Walter Kasper
- Evidence: “Cardinals” Kasper, Muller, Ratzinger deny the Resurrection of Christ
In 1989, “Pope” John Paul II appointed Kasper “bishop” of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, Germany. Ten years later, Kasper was called to work as the Vatican’s Chief Ecumenist, as Secretary of the “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity, a position he retained during the reign of “Pope” Benedict XVI, even past the mandatory retirement age. The same “Saint” John Paul II made him a “cardinal” in 2001 (source: Catholic Hierarchy). In 2014, “Pope” Francis gushed with public praise for Kasper, saying, “this is what we call ‘doing theology on one’s knees’” (source).
By the way, the idea that maybe adultery isn’t that big of a deal and that we could just “find ways” to allow it, was promoted by none other than Fr. Joseph Ratzinger in 1972. A quick review of the facts will provide a sobering reality check in this regard:
For those who immediately respond, “But Benedict XVI has now retracted this essay!”, we provide the following analysis and commentary on the “retraction”:
The whole Roncallian sect, the Vatican II Church, is a gigantic apostate-Modernist pseudo-Catholic institution. Though some of its leaders may lean a bit more to the right or to the left, at the end of the day they are fundamentally all the same: Modernists, not Catholics.