Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A new heresy for an old heretic…

“God cannot be God without Man”!

Embed from Getty Images

Francis’ Latest Heresy

We’re used to always hearing the same claptrap from Chaos Frank, but on June 7, 2017 he surprised the world with a new heresy — well, it was new for him anyway: In his catechesis for the General Audience, the papal pretender made the outrageous, blasphemous, and heretical claim that God has need of man, that God cannot be God without us.

Let’s have a look at Francis’ exact words, first in the original Italian:

Cari fratelli e sorelle, non siamo mai soli. Possiamo essere lontani, ostili, potremmo anche professarci “senza Dio”. Ma il Vangelo di Gesù Cristo ci rivela che Dio che non può stare senza di noi: Lui non sarà mai un Dio “senza l’uomo”; è Lui che non può stare senza di noi, e questo è un mistero grande! Dio non può essere Dio senza l’uomo: grande mistero è questo! E questa certezza è la sorgente della nostra speranza, che troviamo custodita in tutte le invocazioni del Padre nostro. Quando abbiamo bisogno di aiuto, Gesù non ci dice di rassegnarci e chiuderci in noi stessi, ma di rivolgerci al Padre e chiedere a Lui con fiducia. Tutte le nostre necessità, da quelle più evidenti e quotidiane, come il cibo, la salute, il lavoro, fino a quella di essere perdonati e sostenuti nelle tentazioni, non sono lo specchio della nostra solitudine: c’è invece un Padre che sempre ci guarda con amore, e che sicuramente non ci abbandona.

Adesso vi faccio una proposta: ognuno di noi ha tanti problemi e tante necessità. Pensiamoci un po’, in silenzio, a questi problemi e a queste necessità. Pensiamo anche al Padre, a nostro Padre, che non può stare senza di noi, e che in questo momento ci sta guardando. E tutti insieme, con fiducia e speranza, preghiamo: “Padre nostro, che sei nei Cieli…”

(Antipope Francis, Catechesis at General Audience,, June 7, 2017; underlining added.)

Here is an English translation of these words, provided by Zenit:

Dear brothers and sisters, we are never alone. We can be far, hostile; we can even say we are “without God.” But Jesus Christ’s Gospel reveals to us that God cannot be without us: He will never be a God “without man”; it is He who cannot be without us, and this is a great mystery! God cannot be God without man: this is a great mystery! And this certainty is the source of our hope, which we find kept in all the invocations of the Our Father. When we are in need of help, Jesus does not tell us to be resigned and to shut ourselves in ourselves, but to turn to the Father and to ask Him with trust. All our needs, the most evident and daily as food, health, work to that of being forgiven and sustained in temptations, are not the mirror of our solitude: instead, there is a Father who always looks at us with love, and who certainly does not abandon us.

Now I propose something to you: every one of us has so many problems, so many needs. Let us think, a bit, in silence, of these problems and these needs. We also think of the Father, of our Father, who cannot be without us, and who is looking at us at this moment. And all together, with trust and hope, we pray: “Our Father, Who art in Heaven . . .”

(Antipope Francis, Catechesis at General Audience, trans. by Virginia M. Forester, Zenit, June 7, 2017; underlining added.)

The Novus Ordo web site Rome Reports has published a brief video summary of the outrageous catechesis here:

Words simply fail in the face of such audacious blasphemy — and yet so many people willingly swallow it because their favorite Jesuit knows how to kiss babies!

Notice that Francis makes his blasphemy palatable and presentable by surrounding it with all sorts of comforting talk about how God does not abandon us, how He loves us “unconditionally” (which is false to boot), adding that His alleged need of us is a “great mystery” and the “source of our hope.”

Calling God’s alleged need of creatures a “mystery” does not make it any less of a heresy; and asserting that it is the “source of our hope”, although it may perhaps seem a consoling thought at first, turns out to be nothing of the sort, for it implies that God did not create us out of His own goodness and love but rather in order to meet some need; as in, “I didn’t want you — I needed you!” What adopted child would feel drawn to his foster parents if he found out they only adopted him in order to fulfill some need in their lives, rather than out of love?

It is clear that Francis’ latest error is a blasphemy, but is it also a heresy, that is, a denial of Catholic dogma?

Yes, it is. To say that God has need of us, implies that God isn’t infinitely perfect in and of Himself, and it also denies that God created all things freely and out of His goodness and love.

Sacred Scripture of course testifies to God’s freedom from necessity in the act of creation (e.g., see Ps 115:3; 135:6; cf. Wis 11:26; 2 Mach 8:18), but we will restrict ourselves to reviewing the main magisterial pronouncements of the Church on this issue.

In 1442, the Council of Florence declared “that the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal” (Bull Cantate Domino; Denz. 706; underlining added).

Pope Pius IX in 1857 condemned the errors of Anton Günther, “which are plainly opposed to the Catholic doctrine about the supreme liberty of God, who is free from any necessity whatsoever in creating things” (Apostolic Letter Eximiam Tuam; Denz. 1655).

The First Vatican Council, which convened from 1869-1870, defined dogmatically:

This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Fourth Lateran Council].

If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.

(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius; Denz. 1783, 1805; underlining added.)

In 1887, the Holy Office under Pope Leo XIII condemned a host of errors of Fr. Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, including this one: “The love, by which God loves Himself even in creatures, and which is the reason why He determines Himself to create, constitutes a moral necessity, which in the most perfect being always induces the effect…” — CONDEMNED (Denz. 1908).

Finally, in his landmark encyclical against the Modernism re-emerging in his day, Pope Pius XII stressed that it is “in contradiction to the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council” to hold “that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love” (Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 25).

If it is evident, then, that Francis does not get his doctrine from the Catholic Church, the next question that naturally presents itself is: Just where does he get his beliefs?

In a recent post, we identified a core tenet of Francis’ belief system — namely, his obsession with the notions of “dialogue”, “encounter”, and “tenderness” — as being rooted in the existentialism of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1878-1965). Considering how much time Francis has spent and continues to spend with Talmudic rabbis, this is not surprising. But whence is his “God needs us” thesis?

Lo and behold, this too is an idea found in the thought of Buber:

You know always in your heart that you need God more than everything; but do you not know too that God needs you — in the fulness of His eternity needs you? How would man be, how would you be, if God did not need him, did not need you? You need God, in order to be — and God needs you, for the very meaning of your life.

(Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. by Ronald Gregor Smith [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957], p. 82)

And there we have it: The notion that God needs man comes from the Jewish existentialist Martin Buber. Whether Francis has adopted it in Buber’s precise original sense or has modified it somewhat, is of secondary importance. For Buber, all reality is relational. To use his way of speaking, this means that an “I” cannot exist without a “Thou”, and so the Creator cannot exist without a creature.

Francis does not preach Catholicism; he preaches existentialism. In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII calls existentialism “erroneous” because “it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences” (Humani Generis, n. 6). Hence we always see Francis talking about “concreteness” while spurning ideas and laws.

It will not do to say that Francis is just using the language of existentialism to express Catholic truths, for not only is this manifestly not the case, it is also not permissible:

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, nn. 14-16)

Thus, it turns out that Francis, the man who never tires of denouncing “ideology”, has quite an ideology himself, and it’s not a Catholic one.

We’ve covered a lot of ground. The bottom line is that while many good-willed people who are trapped in the Novus Ordo Sect are trying to hold on to the Catholic Faith for dear life, Francis is busy blaspheming and denying it, and he shows no signs of slowing down.

Alas, blasphemy is neither new nor rare for Francis. He is a professional blasphemer. We need but recall some of his other public acts of blasphemy against God or the Saints, such as his joke about the Most Holy Trinity as “quarreling behind closed doors” while outwardly giving the mere appearance of unity; his frightful claim that “Christ became the devil for us” on the Cross; his happy reception of a Marxist hammer-and-sickle “crucifix” and his dedication of the same to the Blessed Virgin Mary; his suggestion that Jesus Christ sinned and probably had to “apologize” to his parents for staying behind in Jerusalem; his outrageous contention that the Blessed Mother may have entertained blasphemous thoughts about God deceiving her; his repeated lie that St. John the Baptist had doubt as to whether Christ was the true Messiah; and on and on.

“And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven” (Apoc 13:6).

How many more blasphemies and heresies will Francis have to commit before people finally figure out whose vicar this man truly is?