This is information that EVERY devout Roman Catholic within the United States must soon learn: The recent nomination by President Obama to the office of Ambassador to the Holy See is a major heretic. He is "well-educated", but never-the-less, he ascribes to not one, not two, but many heresies which as a result, EXCOMMUNICATES himself from the Body of Christ ipso facto.
The office of the US Ambassador to the Holy See is important to the lives of American Catholics because it helps to ensure promote and ensure our rights within the nation. Certainly we shouldn't have MORE rights as Catholics, but we should neither have less. Also, it is an error to believe that the government should not make among its priorities those same societal values that are held by Catholics. If you believe that our religion is no greater than any other religion, then you are already misled. The fundamentals of human rights are revealed and fostered by those expressed in the traditional teachings of the doctrines in the first, and one true, holy Christian Church. While there have been many who have gone astray within the Church, they have fallen only by the very fact that they have allowed themselves to be led away from Her teachings.
Let's first go through some of the beliefs and teachings of Dr. Miguel Diaz, and compare them to what the Catholic Church teaches:
Liberation Theology - Believe-it-or-not, Diaz has written in support of Hispanic and Black Liberation Theology. This "theology" is based not on the teachings of Christ, but focuses rather on sociological ideas supported by Karl Marx. The choices of Christ during his life become and obstacle to these so-called theologians, who will say that we are not, as Christians, called to walk in his footsteps, but to develop our OWN IDEAS of what Christ would/might teach if he were "alive today". The trouble with that is obvious and fundamental: It says first off, that Christ's teachings were only relavent to his time, which consequentially distorts the importance of all Christian teaching. The idea of "I accept Christ as my Lord and Savior, but I do not have to follow his teachings to be saved, and I deny his teachings as fully relevant to today." The next step from there is to reprioritize Christian principals, and even discard ones that do not have within their first glance the promotion of material distribution to the minorities. (Do you see why the Communists love this?) Any person or persons then holding on to the traditional teachings of the Church (holding them as precisely "catholic" --- true always, for every people and every place) are then seen as traitor to the goals of the new society, intolerant of the needs of the oppressed, and to be taken out of society, either through repression of one's ability to practice their faith, or through other means which help to enforce the new order.
Does Miguel Diaz not know that our current Pontiff and last Pope advidly CONDEMNED Liberation Theology? Yes, they did and for good reason! It starts off on an evil footing by idolizing society over God's laws and leads to other errors (i.e., communism). This "theology" can only be support by those who already believe in relativism, whether or not they admit it. They disavow the unchangeability of dogma and doctrines of the Church, yet they believe in an absolute when it comes to the society so much that they will turn their backs on the Kingship of Christ in order to benefit who they want, and in the process gradually turn government into a type of tyrannical leadership in order to achieve their end.
Karl Rahner's big ideas on the Trinity - HERETICAL
Karl Rahner didn't ascribe to the traditional interpretation of the Holy Trinity because he felt it didn't explain enough. Basically, it didn't fit his agenda to become a basis in which he would demonstrate that our Lord's words and actions were largely only relative to that time in history.
Before I go any further with this, I want to first mention that not only is Miguel Diaz a past member of the steering committee of the Karl Rahner Society, but his writings consistently espouse the heresies of Karl Rahner.
Rahner's argument was that the distinction between each Person of the Holy Trinity was not, in traditional teachings, distinctive enough, that he says it creates a type of monotheism. He goes so far to say that "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." It is a type of trinitarian agnosticism, and NOT at all by accident. Rahner advocated "a theoloqy of knowledqe" instead of the traditional theology that recognizes its limitation and much mystery still unknown to the Church.
This "theology" is the means which leads to another heresy that Rahner professed, which is that heresy of immantism, which brings God to man's level as if God is another member of the world, and that man can be at the level of God. (Think: "We are Church" mentality.) This is why he supported "evolutionistic Christology" --- just as all his followers (i.e., Diaz). There are no, therefore, absolutes in Christ's teachings (at least in the confused minds of these heretics).
There are a lot of worm-holes, as you could imagine, in this deadly fruit. One of them is that this leads to the heresy of misunderstanding the meaning of transubstaniation. This is why people, not including the Church but who profess to be in the Church, like Diaz have another word for it *(I can't remember what word he uses but when I remember again I'll add it here.)
Employees the phrase "Systemic Theology" in order to undermine the teachings of the Church, that are in the modernists' minds, not a good fit for today's society - HERETICAL
This one is very popular today. In a nutshell, this tremendously popular 'theology' is taught in many of our (non)Catholic universities. "Systemic Theology" is a term that began with the Protestants to break down the dogmas and doctrines of the one, true, holy and Apostolic Faith. They arrogantly put down the teachings of the Church Fathers and especially the Church Doctors by saying that they did not have as illuminated understanding of the Bible, and therefore relied on a method of understanding which the Protestants who are honest enough to admit their Protestants and the catholics who are truly protestants. The modernist understanding of the what the Church SHOULD be teachings is by a new understanding of the Bible -- a type of sola scriptura methodology, which winks at tradition only when it suits it's social agenda. (If you want to hear a modernist in action describing this in further detail I recommend you listen to the 2nd and 3rd tapes of the 3-tape set of a talk given by Scott Hahn in 1993, "The Bodily Resurrection of Christ". In it Hahn compares "Traditionalist" Catholics (those who cling to the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Church in the same way that the Church Father, Doctors and the rest of the saints did) to Protestants, inferring that they are in schism, and starts showing his cards by showing his anger towards tradition, especially towards the Doctors of the Church.
False Ecumenism - HERETICAL
Diaz's mentality is that the Church's teachings are relative to today's society, and of course, his false presentation of ecumenism is only a means to promoting liberation theology.
Denies the Kingship of Christ - BLASPHEMOUS HERESY! *(I will write more this weekend)
Anyone who supports liberation theology, by the very essence of this heresy, profess that the society is greater than the Kingship of Christ. Don't be fooled by the word-smything; the Kingship of Christ is never defended by those that believe that what Christ did and said in the time of the Apostles is not all fully relevant throughout the ends of the earth and until the end of time, and for all peoples. (See definition of "Catholic".)
Here is just a small list of some of Diaz's heretical writings:
* "On Being Human: U.S. Hispanic and Rahnerian Perspectives"
* Co-Editor of "From the Heart of Our People: Explorations in Catholic Systematic Theology"
* author of numerous articles and book chapters inspired in the Latino and Black liberation theology, such as the forthcoming “The Life-Giving Reality of God from Black, Latin-American, and "U.S. Hispanic Theological Perspectives,” “Otherness in Black Catholic and Latino/a Catholic Theologies and the Otherness of God,” and “Outside the Survival of Community there is no Salvation,” in Building Bridges, Doing Justice: Constructing a Latino/a Ecumenical Theology
*Diaz is currently working on two future books: "Cuban-American Catholics" (Paulist Press) and “Migrating Across Theological Borders: The Essentials of Theology from U.S. Hispanic Theological Perspectives"
Here are some additional links on Dr. Miguel Diaz:
St. Benedict/St. John Universities' Article
Angelqueen article (which I highly recommend)
Catholic News (they are usually pretty liberal, so don't be too shocked by their tone)
The office of the US Ambassador to the Holy See is important to the lives of American Catholics because it helps to ensure promote and ensure our rights within the nation. Certainly we shouldn't have MORE rights as Catholics, but we should neither have less. Also, it is an error to believe that the government should not make among its priorities those same societal values that are held by Catholics. If you believe that our religion is no greater than any other religion, then you are already misled. The fundamentals of human rights are revealed and fostered by those expressed in the traditional teachings of the doctrines in the first, and one true, holy Christian Church. While there have been many who have gone astray within the Church, they have fallen only by the very fact that they have allowed themselves to be led away from Her teachings.
Let's first go through some of the beliefs and teachings of Dr. Miguel Diaz, and compare them to what the Catholic Church teaches:
Liberation Theology - Believe-it-or-not, Diaz has written in support of Hispanic and Black Liberation Theology. This "theology" is based not on the teachings of Christ, but focuses rather on sociological ideas supported by Karl Marx. The choices of Christ during his life become and obstacle to these so-called theologians, who will say that we are not, as Christians, called to walk in his footsteps, but to develop our OWN IDEAS of what Christ would/might teach if he were "alive today". The trouble with that is obvious and fundamental: It says first off, that Christ's teachings were only relavent to his time, which consequentially distorts the importance of all Christian teaching. The idea of "I accept Christ as my Lord and Savior, but I do not have to follow his teachings to be saved, and I deny his teachings as fully relevant to today." The next step from there is to reprioritize Christian principals, and even discard ones that do not have within their first glance the promotion of material distribution to the minorities. (Do you see why the Communists love this?) Any person or persons then holding on to the traditional teachings of the Church (holding them as precisely "catholic" --- true always, for every people and every place) are then seen as traitor to the goals of the new society, intolerant of the needs of the oppressed, and to be taken out of society, either through repression of one's ability to practice their faith, or through other means which help to enforce the new order.
Does Miguel Diaz not know that our current Pontiff and last Pope advidly CONDEMNED Liberation Theology? Yes, they did and for good reason! It starts off on an evil footing by idolizing society over God's laws and leads to other errors (i.e., communism). This "theology" can only be support by those who already believe in relativism, whether or not they admit it. They disavow the unchangeability of dogma and doctrines of the Church, yet they believe in an absolute when it comes to the society so much that they will turn their backs on the Kingship of Christ in order to benefit who they want, and in the process gradually turn government into a type of tyrannical leadership in order to achieve their end.
Karl Rahner's big ideas on the Trinity - HERETICAL
Karl Rahner didn't ascribe to the traditional interpretation of the Holy Trinity because he felt it didn't explain enough. Basically, it didn't fit his agenda to become a basis in which he would demonstrate that our Lord's words and actions were largely only relative to that time in history.
Before I go any further with this, I want to first mention that not only is Miguel Diaz a past member of the steering committee of the Karl Rahner Society, but his writings consistently espouse the heresies of Karl Rahner.
Rahner's argument was that the distinction between each Person of the Holy Trinity was not, in traditional teachings, distinctive enough, that he says it creates a type of monotheism. He goes so far to say that "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." It is a type of trinitarian agnosticism, and NOT at all by accident. Rahner advocated "a theoloqy of knowledqe" instead of the traditional theology that recognizes its limitation and much mystery still unknown to the Church.
This "theology" is the means which leads to another heresy that Rahner professed, which is that heresy of immantism, which brings God to man's level as if God is another member of the world, and that man can be at the level of God. (Think: "We are Church" mentality.) This is why he supported "evolutionistic Christology" --- just as all his followers (i.e., Diaz). There are no, therefore, absolutes in Christ's teachings (at least in the confused minds of these heretics).
There are a lot of worm-holes, as you could imagine, in this deadly fruit. One of them is that this leads to the heresy of misunderstanding the meaning of transubstaniation. This is why people, not including the Church but who profess to be in the Church, like Diaz have another word for it *(I can't remember what word he uses but when I remember again I'll add it here.)
Employees the phrase "Systemic Theology" in order to undermine the teachings of the Church, that are in the modernists' minds, not a good fit for today's society - HERETICAL
This one is very popular today. In a nutshell, this tremendously popular 'theology' is taught in many of our (non)Catholic universities. "Systemic Theology" is a term that began with the Protestants to break down the dogmas and doctrines of the one, true, holy and Apostolic Faith. They arrogantly put down the teachings of the Church Fathers and especially the Church Doctors by saying that they did not have as illuminated understanding of the Bible, and therefore relied on a method of understanding which the Protestants who are honest enough to admit their Protestants and the catholics who are truly protestants. The modernist understanding of the what the Church SHOULD be teachings is by a new understanding of the Bible -- a type of sola scriptura methodology, which winks at tradition only when it suits it's social agenda. (If you want to hear a modernist in action describing this in further detail I recommend you listen to the 2nd and 3rd tapes of the 3-tape set of a talk given by Scott Hahn in 1993, "The Bodily Resurrection of Christ". In it Hahn compares "Traditionalist" Catholics (those who cling to the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Church in the same way that the Church Father, Doctors and the rest of the saints did) to Protestants, inferring that they are in schism, and starts showing his cards by showing his anger towards tradition, especially towards the Doctors of the Church.
False Ecumenism - HERETICAL
Diaz's mentality is that the Church's teachings are relative to today's society, and of course, his false presentation of ecumenism is only a means to promoting liberation theology.
Denies the Kingship of Christ - BLASPHEMOUS HERESY! *(I will write more this weekend)
Anyone who supports liberation theology, by the very essence of this heresy, profess that the society is greater than the Kingship of Christ. Don't be fooled by the word-smything; the Kingship of Christ is never defended by those that believe that what Christ did and said in the time of the Apostles is not all fully relevant throughout the ends of the earth and until the end of time, and for all peoples. (See definition of "Catholic".)
Here is just a small list of some of Diaz's heretical writings:
* "On Being Human: U.S. Hispanic and Rahnerian Perspectives"
* Co-Editor of "From the Heart of Our People: Explorations in Catholic Systematic Theology"
* author of numerous articles and book chapters inspired in the Latino and Black liberation theology, such as the forthcoming “The Life-Giving Reality of God from Black, Latin-American, and "U.S. Hispanic Theological Perspectives,” “Otherness in Black Catholic and Latino/a Catholic Theologies and the Otherness of God,” and “Outside the Survival of Community there is no Salvation,” in Building Bridges, Doing Justice: Constructing a Latino/a Ecumenical Theology
*Diaz is currently working on two future books: "Cuban-American Catholics" (Paulist Press) and “Migrating Across Theological Borders: The Essentials of Theology from U.S. Hispanic Theological Perspectives"
Here are some additional links on Dr. Miguel Diaz:
St. Benedict/St. John Universities' Article
Angelqueen article (which I highly recommend)
Catholic News (they are usually pretty liberal, so don't be too shocked by their tone)
