God's Permissive Will … Again …

Fr H. looks at Francis's latest statement of apostasy from the Faith, from which the Vatican speedily backpedalled in an effort to minimise damage.

From Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment

PF recently signed a pluralist declaration; then, apparently, the Vatican significantly changed that doctrinal statement which he had just signed.

The First Text affirmed: 

Pluralism, in religion, colour, gender, race, language, culture, "are expressions of the wisdom of God in creation".

This is unambiguously heretical. It is the error often called Indifferentism.

I wonder if Cardinal Ladaria pointed this out to PF. Or, perhaps, the hierarchy of Kazakhstan?

The Second, altered, text: removed religion from the list of things which are "expressions of the wisdom of God"; instead, the statement now simply asserted that Religious diversity is permitted by God.

This is less unambiguous in its heresy. It is, instead, a typical piece of intentional Bergoglian ambiguous doublespeak. I wonder if the ecumenical delegates who had assented to the first version were consulted before the changes were made, or whether, in a characteristic piece of arrogant Bergoglian superueberhyperpapalism, the agreed ecumenical text was simply changed papally and unilaterally. Are there no  limits to the almighty, cosmic, powers claimed by this man and his cronies?

But the Second text, even though now intentionally ambiguous, still won't do. 

Not in a thousand millennia.

It mirrors an explanation once offered by PF to Bishop Schneider, in which the concept of the permissive will of God got dragged in. The idea was: God may not positively will something evil, but he doesn't positively intervene in History to prevent it. He, er, permits it.

What is wrong ... hideously wrong ... with this is that there are thousands of things that happen in this world which God does not intervene to prevent; for example murder, war, torture, paedophilia, genocide, oppressions of women, paedophilia, oppressions of so many kinds. When God fails to prevent all these from happening, does this mean that they are therefore actually pleasing to God? That he has stamped his Nihil obstat on them?

Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes 27) and S John Paul II (Veritatis splendor 80) taught otherwise. And both did so without ambiguity.

Now ... could somebody remind me of the wording of those conciliar and papal condemnations of Pope Honorius I which somehow involved the word ANATHEMA?