If you are a typical observant Catholic who has struggled with this papacy, dealt with distress caused by his words and actions, and generally struggled with dislike for the pontifex, it’s OK. Well, all right, it’s not: honestly, it is both strange and painful for a Catholic to be at odds with the Successor of Peter.
It is, however, completely understandable.
Why? Because, in this case, he gives every indication of not liking you first.
In fact, I think it’s safe to say that we are dealing with the fascinating–and unique–spectacle. Namely, a Bishop of Rome who truly dislikes the Church.
Except as cautionary tales, he has no apparent use for Catholics who risk all to be faithful to unpopular teachings, who find value in allegedly outdated forms and supposedly archaic and incomprehensible language, who propose solutions grounded in past experience or the fundamentals of the Church, who practice traditional devotions, who defend the words (as opposed to the “spirit”) of Catholic doctrine…the list could be multiplied. Consider the first major writing of the pontificate which was purely his, with its exhortation to boldly rethink the goals of evangelization, amongst other modest suggestions. Though that same document does wisely point us to the need of focusing more on the Word of God and not the Pope (see paragraph 38).
Word doesn’t seem to have gotten out on that one yet.
Then again, when he associates himself with and supports people asking him to overrule the Word of God, perhaps we have something of a mixed message here.
Really, he’s not into gatekeeping with respect to the sacraments. You want the Eucharist because you’re married to a Catholic? Eh. Talk to the Lord and approach the altar–it’s not for him to say.
Moving on.
Lest we forget, there’s also his notorious penchant for scoldery, directed at anyone with the temerity to not fully embrace the joy mandated by the New Paradigm.
If there is one word that sums up his leadership mindset, it is quite simply the word “change.” Take a look at the links above to the speech before the Italian bishops and his apostolic exhortation.
The thread that appears over and over is the need to change the methods and structure of the Church, constant change, unrelenting change, semper reformanda, because the times require it and the Church must discern the signs of the times and adjust accordingly. However, asking whether the times themselves might be desperately out of whack is not part of this process of discernment. Newness is the watchword.
From climate to sacristy, change, change, change—forward, always forward! If you seek certitudes and stability, you are the picture of the bad disciple, a Pelagian, a neurotic or possibly even a coprophagic bat. Someone so focused on change and moving forward has no use for the Church as She is.
I mean, if I professed my love for my wife and then proceeded to offer a seemingly endless list of criticisms and things she needed to change, she’d have reasonable cause to doubt that love. Not to mention cause to heave blunt and heavy household objects at me.
With that in mind, let’s focus on four recent statements.
Perhaps in keeping with his own injunction to boldly rethink evangelical goals, the pontiff has sternly warned against evangelism in Catholic schools.
Ponder that for a moment: the head of the Catholic Church doesn’t want to see any conversions in Catholic schools. [1]
As this recent barely-satire posting from Eye of the Tiber points out, there’s usually no danger whatsoever of that occurring–at least, not in terms of converting to Catholicism.
And how many times have you heard ex-Catholics talk about their (laughable) Catholic schooling as some kind of certification of expertise?
I rest my case.
But still, to explicitly rule it out? Well, then.
Why? Who knows? If there’s one thing we’ve learned since March 2013, it’s that our hip-shooting shepherd has two rules for his eye-openers:
- Never explain.
- Never apologize.
From what I can tell, conversions would bogart the culture of encounter or the joys of dialogue, or something similar. Don’t stomp the buzz of otherness.
Alas, such an edict happens to be entirely congruent with his past words and practices. For example, consider the fact that he successfully counseled his close friend, the late Anglican cleric Tony Palmer, against converting to Catholicism despite the latter’s interest in doing so. Then there are the reports from other Christians where the Pope takes great pains to say that he has no interest in converting anyone to Catholicism.
Converts: Making Dialogue Difficult Since 33 A.D.
The pattern is there for anyone who doesn’t belt out “Everything Is Awesome” a half-dozen times a day. However, you are free to ignore the evidence.
It is, after all, a catchy tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCKONHUigVk
- Attack of the Rigid Neurotic Fundamentalists.
Permit me to hearken back to this otherwise weird moment:
As it turns out, the above video offers some helpful context for another recent bit of flamethrowing, a faux-humorous warning against “rigid fundamentalist priests who bite.”
“I will tell you sincerely, I’m scared of rigid priests,” the 78-year-old pope jokingly said. “I keep away from them. They bite!”
Pope Francis used humour [sic] to convey his message concerning a serious matter. A lot of unstable individuals seek out a clerical career, he explained, and unless they are weeded out properly by the church, the faithful will suffer.
This is why the pope strongly suggests that seminaries should always assess not just the spiritual state of candidates but also their physical and psychological condition. “There are often young men who are psychologically unstable without knowing it and who look for strong structures to support them. For some it is the police or the army but for others it is the clergy,” the pope said.
He warned that these disorders only manifest at a later date, so it will not be easy to spot it from the get-go.
However, the pope said he personally finds it worrisome when a priest takes pride in being extremely devout.
“When a youngster is too rigid, too fundamentalist, I don’t feel confident (about him). Behind it there is something he himself does not understand. Keep your eyes open!”
“If you are sick, if you are neurotic, go and see a doctor, spiritual or physical,” Pope Francis then suggested to those who might be unfit to join the church. “The doctor will give you pills. But, please, don’t let the faithful pay for neurotic priests.”
Apparently, in the video above, the Pope was just trying to screen out a little disturbed structure-seeking piety before it was too late. Whew–dodged the bullet with that helpful intervention! As another observer has pointed out, the Pope’s terminology and focus are precisely those used–verbatim–by the vocation-destroying programs described in Goodbye, Good Men. Welcome to your new springtime, tradition-hating gatekeepers–now you have papal writ to back you up!
(Oh, and hi, Catholic soldiers and police officers–always nice to hear the old canard that your honorable institutions are teeming with the unbalanced, eh? Especially from the Pope! But rest assured, he truly respects your sacrifices: if you are an Argentine soldier engaged in aggressive war against a defenseless neighbor.)
Of course, the warning is a touch ironic coming from a man who admitted to a stretch as an authoritarian with a spiritual crisis himself… Perhaps he points to that? But no, there’s no cautionary lesson from personal experience. It’s simply another of his crude caricatures of a spirituality he has no use for. A veritable Pollock with the broadbrush, our Pope.
Note also that that’s the only thing he’s warning seminaries against–strongly-expressed piety and focus on the fundamentals of the Faith. And from young men, too: apparently, that hagan lio recommendation to the young people has its limits. He’ll have none of that mess. Right, FFIs?
I recently read a piece (since deleted) castigating the “disloyal sons of Francis.” However, it’s hard to embrace as a father one who fails to model a healthy, positive fatherhood. I dunno about you, but if I talked down my family all the time, should I be surprised if my children react accordingly? I certainly would not have any cause to play the victim over it.
Speaking during Mass at the Casa Santa Maria, he said: “We are close to Christmas. There will be lights, there will be parties, bright trees, even Nativity scenes – all decked out – while the world continues to wage war.
“It’s all a charade. The world has not understood the way of peace. The whole world is at war.
“A war can be justified, so to speak, with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is today, at war, piecemeal though that war may be – a little here, a little there – there is no justification.”
Sweet fancy Moses.
If you’re picturing your crabby aunt telling you to clean your plate because there are people starving somewhere overseas, you have the gist of it. No nativity scene for you! Never mind that the people who are celebrating Christmas probably aren’t the arms dealers he natters on about, or just might be in those war zones and hoping for a sign of Christ’s peace and joy.
Nope—those who celebrate the Feast of the Nativity are part of the problem. No doubt, some spiritual self-flagellants took this to heart and are nodding at the perceived depth of the observations. If you are one of them, remember: you’re just fooling yourself. We have it on good authority that that kind of piety is neurotic.
- And Finally, The Papal Bull Against Fundamentalists (Again).
Just in time for Advent, another tarmac interview. The subjects? The scourge of Catholic fundamentalism—which is flat-out idolatrous now:
Whoever is a priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, this is his vocation, but they make a “live politics” by preaching values. True values. And one of the greatest values is the fraternity among us. We are all children of God. We have the same father. In this sense, we have to make politics of unity, reconciliation. A word that I don’t like, but I have to use it is “tolerance.” But, not only tolerance, co-existence, friendship. That’s how it is.
Fundamentalism is a sickness that exists in all religions. We Catholics have some, not just some, so many, who believe they have the absolute truth and they move forward with calumnies, with defamation and they hurt (people), they hurt. And, I say this because it’s my Church, also us, all of us. It must be combatted. Religious fundamentalism isn’t religious. Why? Because God is lacking. It’s idolatrous, as money is idolatrous. Making politics in the sense of convincing these people who have this tendency is a politics that we religious leaders must make, but fundamentalism that ends up always in tragedy or in crime, in a bad thing comes about in all religions a little bit.
There are so many Catholic fundamentalists, people who believe they have the absolute truth, idolatrous calumniators who defame and hurt others. And they are just like the idolatrous fundamentalists in all religions.
The problem is not where to begin, but where to end.
I am going to sound like a nitnoid fundamentalist, but Jesus Christ has a prior claim to ownership of His Church.
Let’s move to the fallacy of false equivalence—here, all fundamentalists are morally equivalent.
I might be wrong, but I think it’s at least possible a Yazidi sex slave would be a touch happier around a defamatory Chaldean than her ISIS captor.
But leaving aside a logical error one can drive a freighter through, it offers a sobering insight into the Pontiff’s thinking. Namely, he thinks there’s a problem with believing in absolute truth, in that it makes people hurtful, and he also thinks there are “so many” such godless idolaters in the Church. Or perhaps he just means those who believe in absolute truth and act with calumny despite it?
Well, here’s the thing: he doesn’t say. And he’s not going to say. He’s just going to leave it hanging, because hagan lio. Never explain, never apologize.
Will it naturally bear the meaning I assign? Yep. Does it fit as part of a pattern, perhaps relating back to the hurtful fundamentalists who defend Christ’s words on marriage that he’s criticized so strongly? It most certainly fits.
(There’s also a bit further down in the most recent presser where he may—or may not—be suggesting that we don’t worry about condoms so long as people are hungry or trafficking in arms, but it’s so hard to puzzle out that I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt on that one.)
So, to sum up:
First, no conversions. A Catholic school is no place to encounter the saving love of Christ in His Church. Well, at least not enough to welcome those interested in leaping on over.
However, if you are non-Catholic attending Mass, you can talk to God and decide on your own whether to go up to the Catholic altar without having to believe the rest of that papist rigamarole like going to confession or even believing in transubstantiation. He won’t judge.
In addition, no outward shows of piety. You have no idea what is lurking inside of you, creep.
No defense of anything more than the “spirit” of doctrine. Only those who try to find ways around doctrine truly love it.
Dedicating yourself to the letter of doctrine, scripture, etc., is for fundamentalists and other bad-faith pseudo-Christians who likely are getting their nativity scenes from the attic as you read this.
Do NOT express appreciation for structure. (This is train-wreck fascinating, coming from a Jesuit who undergoes a long, carefully-structured process leading to ordination, but no matter.) So much for poverty, chastity, obedience–in fact, so much for pretty much the entire monastic world. Hope none of you ostentatious Benedictine or Dominican oddballs ever want to preach in a parish.
Plus, we have to change, change, change! There are no solutions to be found in so-called conservatism or the fundamentals. Good-bye, archaic forms and language—hello, novelty! OK, recycled novelty, circa AD 1968, but we’ll pretend otherwise.
For the Love of Lennon, what kind of monster lights up a Christmas tree when there’s a war going on?
And, finally: the Church is aswarm with idolatrous fundamentalists, and thus the Church has a problem like that of Islamic fundamentalism.
If you’re not left with the distinct impression of a person whose idiosyncracies leave him fundamentally disliking wide swaths of Catholic spirituality and practice, I’ll simply redirect you back to the first video included in this essay. Note that it runs for an hour, so–enjoy! And go back to sit at the kiddie table. The adults are talking here.
The pattern is self-evident, alas: Catholic identity is pitted against his modern interpretation of the Gospel, and the former loses every. single. time. In increasingly vituperative language, to boot.
Note also that the tilt is always in favor of lowering the standards imposed by Catholicism, not raising them. He thinks re-reading the Gospel according to the all-determinative signs of the times requires it. The trajectory is toward dispensing with any serious demands upon the faithful apart from a sort of hovering non-judgmentalism and striving to address material–and only material–problems. Perhaps his close advisor Walter Cardinal Kasper put it best when he said that “heroism is not for the average Christian.“ Indeed, that seems to be the heart of it: an effort to reduce Catholic praxis and discipleship to the absolute daily minimum required by the demands of modernity. Solidarity with the poor is paramount–the rest of it can be finessed. And will be.
No doubt the combox will soon sprout huffing defenders appalled by the argument that the Pope dislikes Catholicism. When he starts professing love for Mother Church and the faithful he routinely condemns, we can talk. Until then, the facts speak for themselves.
FOOTNOTE:
1. I know the text says “proselytizing.” And? Consider that he has used that term interchangeably with the term “conversion” in his chat-ups with go-to journalist Eugenio Scalfari. One can, of course, choose to ignore this evidence. I readily concede that such might be comforting.
More to the point, I choose not to exhaust myself trying to spin a man who speaks in sweeping generalities, routinely erects and torches strawmen, traffics in false dichotomies, sweeping condemnations and the like. The fact is, he can be honestly interpreted in the way I suggest in this essay, and he knows that his speaking style opens him up to criticism. Nevertheless, he continues to do so. Thus, I will continue to interpret him in ways congruent with his overall words and actions, and not the demands of indignant papalist spin doctors.
If it were merely his confusing words, or merely his confounding actions, one could perhaps continue to defend him. But it is both his words and actions–showing his true self–that absolutely prove his dislike for the Faith and the Faithful.
So many profound and well stated observations in this piece it’s hard not to highlight and paste the entire article 😉 but this one sums it up well: No defense of anything more than the “spirit” of doctrine. Only those who try to find ways around doctrine truly love it.
Thank you. I learn so much what it is to be Catholic here at OP5.
A horrible–but, alas, completely accurate–article. Facing a hostile world, it would be nice if you had reason to believe that the Pope was on your side.
Well, this too shall pass…
Spot on. We are in for a very rough ride. I take solace in an article I read a while back titled “How to Survive a Calamitous Pope and Remain Catholic. This man hates the Church I love and means to change it. He clearly intends to break the backs of the followers of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI once and for all. Lord, save us.
You are sinning BIG TIME>He is the vicar of Christ. Lord have mercy on your blighted soul.
Joking, right?
Has to be parody.
I’m SO glad that “troll” is a part of your name. Don’t ever change!
Trust me it’s KIldare Irish by birth and it’s Trall-in-ger by marriage . It sounds nothing like TROLL but I damn well will stand against evil people who are attacking the vicar of Christ. Your immortal souls are in danger. Your a bunch of Pharisees.
Define “Pharisee”, with reference to the first-century Jewish movement, and enumerate its similarities to One Peter Five.
Today the word Pharisee is like the word hate. Those words mean that I disagree with you and you are a big poopy head.
“Pharisee” : person who believes in divorce and remarriage contrary to the will of God (cf Matt 5). Modern variants of this phenomenon known to inhabit region of Casa Santa Marta, Rome.
My dear Christine,
Your passion is admirable, but misdirected. Be loyal to Christ first. Even the pope he hand-picked denied him.
Peter’s denial was out of fear. That was prior to Pentecost.
The motive isn’t what matters. What matters is that it’s possible for a man who would be pope to have such deep flaws. I expect that his choice was no accident in that regard.
If you prefer a post-Pentecostal error, Galatians 2:11 suffices.
His fear of being tortured or killed was an understandable human weakness in the circumstances, and he wept bitterly when he realised his lack of fidelity. Of course, a pope can be very holy and prepared spiritually to undergo human suffering as a result; on the other hand, a pope may not be morally good at all.
It’s ‘you’re’ not ‘your’. Now please, let me get back to work. I’m preparing to expose my HARDBACK copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a busy market place, the fundamentalist that I am! And after I’m done with that, I will hurl my Douay Rheims Bible at anyone daring to live in an adulterous union! Then I can sit back in judgement as the police arrive to deal with the mess!
Look in the mirror.
Things are worse in Kildare than when I last checked evidently.
The Pharisees were the ones pushing for divorce against Christ’s condemnation of it.
What Christ was condemning about the Pharisees was not their rigid adherence to the law, but their hypocrisy in not really following it.
Immortal souls are in danger when they deny Christ, Christine.
I’m sure you meant to say, “Lord have mercy on his blighted soul.’ It’s alright, we all make mistakes sometimes. Even the vicar of Christ. 😉
I wear his disdain as a badge of honor. Call me what you will, Dearest Papa. I know the truth and so does God. He is the most important concern I have, not you. I know that in your “humility”, you will appreciate this. I pray for your conversion every day. Oops!
I ask in sincerity, Christine, for you to name the sin. Is it Calumny? Detraction? Gossip? Scandal? Lies? Imprudence? Presumption?
I want to know, not for the sake of my blighted soul (yes, it’s in pretty shabby shape) but because I think that there are some lessons in this exchange: about the nature of the priesthood, about what constitutes clericalism, about when one may criticise a public figure, and the lengths to which we are obliged to go to protect the Church.
The last topic is important because She has a variety of enemies, including the devil and his cohorts, the pagans, the heretics, and the misguided fools within who prod her to do the wrong thing. May we criticise all but the last? Is good will an adequate defense for fending off criticism?
Please let’s hash this out without name-calling, because it’s an essential discussion.
This is a joke, right? If you’re an adult, you can’t really believe the bunk you wrote in this exiguous post.
Yes, unfortunately, he is the Vicar of Christ who is spouting anti Catholicism almost on a daily basis. And so, yes, you pray DAILY for him out of obligation, and NO you do not call him names or defame his person, but YES, you call him out on the twisted theology that comes out of his mouth that resembles not the Church of Christ in the least bit.
Would you care to explain how this makes me a big time sinner?
That’s a genuine request–though I’d appreciate efforts to refrain from the Pharisee card and the like. I’m much less likely to respond to another round of insults.
From the very instant of this papacy we have been introduced to bizarre and confusing things. Remember he was to have said before he went out on the balcony that the carnival is over? Then he starts his talk by saying good evening as if he were at a concert.
I defended all that and and assumed people were misreading him. Then all the really absurd stuff began and the professional spinners, cleric and lay, claimed it was the media’s fault or a translation error or it was because he was from South America. The stupid defenses went on and on.
With all the evidence we have now that to continue to defend such opposition to clarity and to truth is intellectually dishonest and anti-Christian. We have an obligation, before Jesus, to stop pretending.
True as the North Star and funny as hell.
Kudos.
Mandador suggest all bloggers demand he resign and that seems an excellent idea for then he could return to the Argentine slums dressed down and distribute the sacraments to adulterers, maybe women who have divorced their husbands and are shacking-up with men who have repudiated their wows.
He is worse than a scandal, he is a joke and John Vennari was right in observing he would not let Franciscus teach catechism to his kids.
There is no indication he accepts the Faith once delivered and so his papacy is a tedious mockery (HE PAID HIS OWN BILL. HE KISSED A CRIPPLE. HE WEARS OLD BROWN SHOES!!!!) that even the secular world is becoming tired of because he can not do what his words made the secular world so hopeful he would do – change doctrine.
O, and doesn’t he just love hanging-out with members of false religions and telling then how much he admires them as he encourages them to keep on keeping on in their false religion but he would not be caught dead offering a Real Mass or giving encouragement to those who do love it.
Taking shoes off in a Mosque and facing Mecca? Check.
Donning beautiful vestments and offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the 1939 Pre-Pius XII Typical Missal? Please
Even the old saw – keep your friends close, your enemies closer – no longer applies for he does keep his friends close – Messias Deniers, Mahometans, Protestants – but he keeps his enemies at bay, even though he delivers a steady stream of nasty shout-outs to them.
Papa, we get it, you hate Trads. Take a break.
We ain’t going nowhere. You are.
Retire now. JUST DO IT
You hate the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church so just leave.
You forgot, he lives in a humble b&b. Not the extremely luxurious papal apartments if his predecessors. (Two floors of a 5 star hotel are not a humble b&b). Sick of it. Totally sick of it.
And none of it is actual humility. In fact, just the opposite. A man who can so blithely toss out the venerable signs and symbols of a 2,000 year old office – SIMPLY TO SUIT HIS OWN PREFERENCES – is anything but humble.
It’s called being singular. And those who choose to make themselves singularly ‘humble’ are not humble. Thanks for your post!
Since when is the Sancta Marie a 5 star hotel. From what I’ve seen it is more like a 2 or 3 star. Can you supply evidence for your statement?
The truly humble hide what they do so as not to appear singular. That’s why a Pope who would toss away that which is proper to the office of Pope is not truly humble, but rather one who it could be said is making a public spectacle of humility. In truth, it is rather authoritarian and presumptuous to execute such sweeping changes when taking over any office. The humble man usually opts to accept the office/duty first, observe and seek to understand and respect those traditions around him and then make changes – if necessary – to benefit the whole. Not his own preference.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Let’s just compromise and say it was a 3 1/4 star hotel. Reports have it that the Papal apartments have about the same level of modest comfort, and are in some ways a little shabbier.
It was rebuilt/refurbished for use as his residence when he refused to live in the Apostolic Palace as previous Popes have done. As to what the cost was, it hasn’t been published, has it?
No biggie for the majority of Catholics who would, however, be apoplectic were obama to have refused to live in the White House.
O, and we can be sure that in choosing to live in Sancta Marthae there is absolutely no connection twixt that place as a residence and the reality that S.M., was the central meeting place for the Vatican Two Revolutionaries for that is where they met to privately plot the revolution within the form of Catholicsm .
Returning to the source of the revolution to reconstitute and actualise a new phase of the revolution?
Come on, that is so far fetched….
I believe the cost of the “refurbishment” of the two floors of Casa Santa Marta was i.r.o. 10 Million euros.
Thanks, D. A.
Talk about pedantic.
Bill,
Here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-high-cost-of-frugal-living.html
Wow, anything to hang your hat on with this papacy, huh?
Sad thing is that its not just Trads that he hates. Its also the little old ladies who just want to sit quietly in front of a statue praying a Rosary for the ones they miss so much. Its the very people who wanted to give him a spiritual bouquet at the beginning of his pontificate. To some extent its anybody who has love for truth, goodness and beauty.
This is an important observation, and one I’ve been considering writing about. I don’t think he has a particular hatred for traditionalists. He has a hatred for Tradition, doctrinal certitude, rules, process, devotion, etc.
For him, faith is about doing. And what one does matters. Praying? Meh. He’s much more of an immanentist and materialist than that.
It’s enough to make you wonder if he believes in an actual God, or in God as metaphor for a life philosophy.
He believes in a “God of surprises” – whoever that is. 😉
No, as frustrated as I am, he does seem to have a filial piety for Mary. He may not like rosaries but he does visit her shrine before and after each trip. It’s the only sign of real devotion I see in him. Curious.
He also insults her when he accuses her of doubt and anger toward God:
“The Gospel tells us nothing: if she said a word or not … She was quiet, but in her heart – how much she said to the Lord! ‘You told me then – that’s what we have read – that He will be great. You told me that You would give him the throne of his father David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And now I see Him there!’ The Blessed Mother was human! And perhaps she would have wanted to say, ‘lies! I have been cheated!’. John Paul II said this when he spoke of the Mother of God at one point. But she was overshadowed with the silence of the mystery that she did not understand, and with this silence, she has accepted that this mystery can grow and flourish in the hope “.
He makes fun of those who offer spiritual bouquets:
“I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council… One feels in 1940… An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, ‘we pray for you, we ask…’, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today..”
I seem to recall there was another example, but I can’t remember it clearly enough to find it.
Loathsome.
Spitting in the face of those who would truly love him the most and defend him with everything they have to their dying breaths.
Wretched.
Again, “insults her,” “loathsome,” is this a cat fight at the sorority?
No, it is a retirement home where Ruth Buzzi has just jammed a knitting needle into the eye of Bea Arthur.
Again……I am wondering when in the world some Cardinal or group of Cardinals is going to actually call him out on his theology of heresy? Not formal heresy mind you…..that will never happen, but the damage being done by his informality is quite enough of a wrecking ball to put a nice big crater into the Church of Christ.
That is central. We should pray for that.
Well, he has to do something to keep his field hospital filled with the wounded for sure as hell he is not interested in either wounding the enemy or converting them and so our General is intentionally engaged in friendly fire.
Those 3,525 rosaries are going to be prayed by thousands of humble people, one person at a time who have dedicated that time before Christ in Adoration Chapels, before and after Masses, in homes of the sick and the suffering, of the invisible poor that he so espouses.
When I first read the negative comments about rigid priests who are neurotic, I ( wanting to think the best of him even though I had so many doubts ) thought he was calling out those with homosexual tendencies to not enter the priesthood, which would have been appropriate but no it is about priests who we already know are marginalized due to their faithfulness to the church. I am coming to understand that what is going on is nothing other than a mystical sharing in Christ’s Passion. Christ was rejected by the High Priest and so many of the Jewish leaders. And now we have an assault by our Pope on those priests who, already marginalized and sent off into the boonies to small parishes due to their love of Christ and his church, will further suffer from their dioceses, who will use Francis’ words to plunge the instruments of torture into their mortified flesh. There are no harsh words for sodomite and gay friendly bishops, only promotions. This is the state of things.
Funny thing i, some Jesuits who served in his province when he was provincial general claim he insisted they familiarize themselves with the traditional devotions of the common people, which, presumably, would have included the offering of spiritual bouquets. To take them at their word, it would seem that Francis himself can’t keep track of what he likes and doesn’t like. Or maybe he discovers a fondness for whatever happens to go against the grain with the group he’s dealing with at the moment.
If it’s as simple as that, God help us. Contrarianism is an acceptable posture for a columnist. For a Supreme Pontiff? No, thanks.
His remarks about Our Lady make me the angriest. Not that there’s a hierarchy of insults or anything…
I think he was talking about the precise counting of rosaries, not the offering of spiritual bouquets or rosaries as such. So I think its overstating it to say that his faith is only about “doing” because there are plenty of examples of him praying or asking others to pray for him. He just doesn’t think it’s necessary to keep count. Not saying he is right, but it is a distinction worth noting.
His distinction is insulting and misplaced.
Perhaps this one, to a group of gravely-ill children, this past May:
Yikes. That reproach indicates despair and bitterness, which I cannot associate with her — and which is perhaps unacceptably sinful for the Immaculata.
Remember the Jewish widowed mother in 2 Maccabees 7, who was forced to watch as all seven of her sons were murdered before her eyes. She never lost her equanimity or her courage, and in fact, boldly spoke truth to the killers, and encouraged each of her sons to accept death rather than to capitulate to the forces of evil and renounce the God of Israel. If even a woman living 150 years before Christ could be so faithful, surely the Mother of Christ could be faithful!!
That’s the other one I was thinking of. Thanks. It’s a version on the same theme.
It’s telling that he keeps coming back to this point. I believe the first instance you mention was in late 2013, while the one I cited was only a few months ago. This is clearly more than a passing notion for him.
And let’s be clear about this: it is (at least) materially heretical to claim that Our Blessed Mother was anything other than perfectly united to the will of the Father. Numerous popes and councils, exercising their magisterial authority to teach on matters of faith and morals, have stated that Mary perfectly conformed herself to God’s salvific will, and even rejoiced in the Son’s redemptive offering.
To me, this is up there in the top two along with a little bread and wine do no harm.
These same types of questions, not of our Lady of course , were asked by Charles Templeton (Billy Graham’s one time partner in evangelizing)…and then he totally and completely lost his faith. Absolutely could not believe anymore…..
Oh, no doubt it’s a tough question. Who could look on the suffering of a child with equanimity? It must be one of the hardest things to bear in this life.
But for the Vicar of Christ to entertain his freeform speculations in front of a group of gravely ill children and their parents, facing the terror of an early death? To say (falsely) that the Catechism offers no answers, to admit to his own perplexity in the face of suffering, to portray Our Lady as giving in to bitterness and spite, to offer only the prospect of imploring a distant God for answers? It’s diabolical.
John Paul II, to a group of disabled children in 1979:
There. Beautiful, and wholly Catholic.
THAT is beautiful. Thank you.
My precious husband, during the months of suffering that preceded his death from cancer, was comforted when I shared with him the Catholic interpretation of Colossians 1:24. My husband was a Protestant, and had not heard of the concept that we cradle Catholics grew up with — the concept of “offering it up” whenever we are in pain or sorrow. It was a great comfort to him to realize that his suffering could be offered up for the salvation of others, that he could unite his suffering with that of Jesus. He came to know that his suffering was not all just wasted and meaningless, but rather, thanks to his faith in Jesus, that it was plugged into something bigger than himself.
Why didn’t Francis comfort those suffering children in the same way? I’m sure he was trying to offer them his sympathy, and I think his reminder to them of their Father in heaven and the Father’s loving gaze on them was very beautiful — but couldn’t he also have offered them a way to “redeem” or transcend their suffering by “offering it up”? It’s not that they’re too young to understand this, since I remember the nuns in my Catholic grade school teaching us about this at an early age.
That’s it exactly. This goes much deeper and broader than trads.
^and on a side note, THANK YOU for updating “Facade” for us !! What a wonderful assessment of the post-conciliar demolition. I have all of your books, Sir. Keep up the great work !
(And when I say “wonderful”, I mean depressingly accurate)
Agreed. Just finished the second edition — masterful.
I doubt he has a “hatred” for much, actually. How about a “low opinion of…” The use of words like hate, despise, etc, constantly discourages me. It vilifies people who are wrong but may just be wrong, not evil.
The book of insults is directed against men, not the disembodied actions of long dead Catholic faithful..
He praises those ensnared in false, superstitious, religions – Mahometans and Messsias Deniers – while denigrating trads.
One supposes he could tweet “I hate trads” but that seems unnecessary.
Try looking at this another way. Try to imagine an Iman at El Hazar University repeatedly praising Catholics while denigrating Salafists.
Many Mahometnas would think the Iman had slipped on his prayer rug and suffered a brain injury.
Steve. You’re prolly right in that observation but those items you listed that he repudiates are embodied by trads.
And……………trads to this Pope are ‘scary!’ Priests that profess and believe the full truth of the Church of Christ BITE! NO to proselytizing in Catholic Schools by teaching the true faith! Who wants a bunch of neurotics that actually believe the truth running around in the Church? Again…..SCARY! …………..hmm…..about that brain tumor………
He hates the Faith, therefore, he hates God.
In his view, it’s that of course, but not only that, it’s the ‘works’ part of the one true faith that is paramount, the ‘prayer’ part and the ‘following of true doctrine’……not so much.
Guard your children from this man. He is an extreme danger to souls.
Absolutely! Just GO Bishop of Rome before everyone else leaves. I don’t know how much more of this I can take. And not just from him, but the pagans & atheists I run into who just LOVE him! RETIRE NOW!
“When a youngster is too rigid, too fundamentalist, I don’t feel confident (about him). Behind it there is something he himself does not understand. Keep your eyes open!”
I do quite seriously wonder if Seminary Rector Jorge Bergoglio would sign off on the vocation of the Curé of Ars. It’s not an idle question.
P.S. Hope to see more of your work here in the future, Dale.
Just looking again at that quote from PF, I think it is awful. Truly awful. This saying gives one a chilling insight into the man. That and the humiliation of the little altar boy. And it was a humiliation. A priest apparently said that if that little boy perhaps had a vocation, it was crushed that day by this humiliation. Who knows?
May he grow up to fight heretics and restore holiness to the Church.
AMEN!!
This may be neither here nor there – we know little of the details – but according to John Allen, priestly vocations declined by two thirds in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires during the fifteen years of Cardinal Bergoglio’s tenure as ordinary there.
The men were too rigid. Now, if they wore rainbows…
Mission Accomplished..
I wonder how Pope Francis views the father and the sons in the book of Maccabees…..
Totally
Working on something that’s entirely different, but yes, that’s the plan.
At least with the Year of Mercy upon this there is a reduced change the Pope will fire 500 people and refuse to meet with them like he did last year.
http://tinyurl.com/phebgsm
It would be best for all souls were he to repent and convert, or abandon the visible Church.
“But leaving aside a logical error one can drive a freighter through, it offers a sobering insight into the Pontiff’s thinking.” I think your charity here is exemplary. I mean, of course, calling it “thinking.”
We saw, right in front of our incredulous eyes, the “stacking of the deck” with progressives both before and during the 2 synods. Thank God for Pope Benedict for stacking the deck of the college of cardinals with good, solid men, the likes of which barely squeaked us through this latest fiasco. Benedict knew what was coming. What became alarmingly apparent, this last go around, is the egregious lack of theological and philosophical formation of so many of the participants. Who, of the up-and-coming, will be bailing us out in the foreseeable future? God help us!
Am I the only one here starting to think Pope Francis is really Antipope Francis?
No
A great preponderance of evidence points to formal heresy. But he does not lose the visible Office until he is declared to be so, as a matter of fact, by a council of bishops, after certain fair procedures have been followed. It is a shame that this has not yet happened.
Waiting…….waiting…………..still waiting.
Well, he is an antiChrist. Not THE antiChrist but an antiChrist nonetheless and that can be seen most clearly in his machinations to secure Holy Communion dispensed to adulterers; that is, He is setting Jesus Christ against Himself by emphasising His Mercy while excluding his Justice.
As Fr Hunwicke long ago publicly noted, Jesus is both Torah and Love and he can not be separated.
“We Catholics have some, not just some, so many, who believe they have the absolute truth and they move forward with calumnies, with defamation and they hurt (people), they hurt.”
He sounded quite absolutist in his accusations – does that make him a fundamentalist too? Next week’s edition in this saga will be when he says: “Veritas? Quid est veritas?”
The most weirdest thing about accusations like the one that Pope raises, is that those who raise them (usually, it used to be non-Catholics) seem completely blind to the self-refuting nature of their claim.
Exactomundo!
He has been open warfare with God and His Holy Faith for decades. His evil is beyond words.
Very similar thoughts to those I have wrote on my blog –
aguardian.blogspot.com
The more people say it, the more we can get beyond whether Pope Francis is or isn’t something and move toward what, as the faithful, to do about it. The faithful have rights and the Church is obligated to offer — like a truly reverent Mass.
How many of us have to suffer irreverent Masses said by disbelieving priests with full support of disbelieving bishops?
Exactly right. I’m starting to become impatient with the non action of the ‘Church Militant’.
Great article, I am glad I am not alone in my thoughts about this pope…no caps on pope intentionally.
“No doubt the combox will soon sprout huffing defenders appalled by the argument that the Pope dislikes Catholicism.”
Really? You think so? At this point you are remarking the obvious and the undeniable, but with great panache. Even those who will not admit the truth publicly have fallen silent in their defense of this clownish Pontiff. He seems to DEMAND that we be as contemptuous of him as he is of us, jamming his thumb in our collective eye day after day after day, evidently at least in part for the pleasure of seeing how it goes down with the neo-Pelagians.
Thank God for OP5 & men like Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt, etal. I don’t think I could survive this papacy without them!
I’m so sad for you who don’t get it. Jesus was misunderstood by his own, too.
Well Bergoglio does think he’s Christ, so maybe you’re on to something there.
Sophist.
Jesus did not attack, demean, denigrate, and insult the faithful amongst His hisciples but if you think He did please quote the passage for us.
There is no honor in defending the indefensible whereas your Confirmation imposed upon you a duty to defend the Faith (you are part of the church militant, right?) in extra and ad extra.
Please enumerate the misunderstandings in this article.
Apparently she has a magic decoder ring.
The Pope after Francis will be another Francis. What then?
More chastisement.
And that’s the moment the world will be purified with the fire, which falls from the Heaven.
May God forgive me, but I pray that we may be blessed with a CATHOLIC as Pope!
Great article. Lots more that can be said about the worst Pope in modern times. Bottom line is this Pope Sucks. I’ll be on sabbatical from the Catholic Church until this D-bag is gone. Can’t take it anymore. Will be talking to Jesus later this evening. God Bless and Merry Christmas.
Lots more that can be said about the worst Pope in modern times.
Let’s keep in mind that Paul VI makes for a very high mark to aim at.
At this point, the two of them are running a pretty tight race.
You do realize that God is still in charge of the universe, i.e., Francis is the pope by at least the permissive will of your Creator. Going on a “sabbatical” from the Church isn’t a viable plan unless you think God is waiting for you to do that so Francis can retire.
Whatever our issues with what the Pope says outside of his universal teaching authority — and even when he’s exercising his ordinary authority to propose things that go against the faith — it doesn’t relieve us of the obligation, by virtue of the Fourth Commandment, to honor the father that God has willed to be the voice of Peter.
Humility during this difficult pontificate is an act of obedience toward the Father in Heaven, and a gift to the Blessed Virgin. That doesn’t mean we have to clam up when things are going off the rails, but it does mean we’re not entitled to just up and leave the ark without grave repercussions for our souls.
Peace
“to honor the father that God has willed to be the voice of Peter.” The Holy Spirit does not choose the pope, although he certainly allowed these dolts to choose Bergoglio through his permissive will.
Pulling no punches. Good article.
It is rumored that in the Third Secret of Fatima, it speaks of a Pope under the influence of Satan. I’m just saying.
Very well stated Mr. Price on the on-going disaster that is Pope Francis. Can anyone even imagine such a thing could happen? I couldn’t. But here it is, the devil himself seated on the Chair of Peter with nearly the entire Catholic Church in his thrall. Let us pray for him and ask God to relieve him of his duties post haste.
“People who believe in the absolute truth” are quite different from “people who believe they have the absolute truth.” The former are good faithful people. The latter, not necessarily.
In fact, Pope Francis thinks the latter are bad people [for being too sure of themselves to be possessing the absolute truth?] They’re what he calls “fundamentalists.”
The Pope did not say those who believe in the absolute truth do harm. What he said was, those who believe they have the absolute truth are the ones who do harm [maybe because there’s a good chance what they believe in is false?]
Pope Francis did not define fundamentalism before he attacked it. On the other hand, Pope Benedict XVI has defined it as “a falsification of religion”, i.e., using religion as a political tool that involves violence. Thus, Pope Benedict himself condemned fundamentalism.
Click here to see what Pope Benedict said about fundamentalism:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-fundamentalism-a-falsification-of-religion/
Here’s the correct quote from Pope Francis’s mid-flight press conference:
“We Catholics have some, not some, many, who believe they have the absolute truth and go around soiling the others with calumnies, defamation, and they do harm, they do harm. And I say this because it is my Church, we too, all of us! And it must be combated. Religious fundamentalism isn’t religious…”
And here’s the Zenit link to the complete transcript:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/zenit-news-in-text-format–25
Okay then, so who are these “many” Catholic fundamentalists that believe they have the absolute truth and go around soiling others??
Straw men, of course.
Good question. Pope Francis never seems to identify those he scolds. And that’s infuriating.
That’s because he’s a coward.
“People who believe in the absolute truth” are quite different from “people who believe they have the absolute truth.” The former are good faithful people. The latter, not necessarily.
This seems confused. Most everyone believes in the absolute truth. Even those who otherwise deny it with their mouths are quick to appeal to binding moral truths when they are wronged. As CS Lewis writes in Mere Christianity:
So those who “believe in absolute truth” comprise nearly all people, not just those of the “good faithful” variety.
More to the point, to “believe in the absolute truth” is to believe that one possesses that truth, in some degree. I believe that it is absolutely wrong to murder children, and that is because I possess the truth that it is wrong to deliberately harm innocent human beings. That truth doesn’t belong to me in the sense that I have dominion over it, but I possess it by participation.
And who has a better claim to possess the absolute truth than a member of the Body of Christ, He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life? If we are to live in Truth (that is, conform ourselves to reality), we must possess that Truth to the degree we are able. Through the Deposit of Faith, Holy Mother Church provides us with the fullness of the truth that we would otherwise know only dimly, by light of human reasoning.
Yours is a distinction without a difference.
Amen.
You’re right, I could be wrong – but only because it’s difficult to think this Pope could anything but be subtle. But there really is a difference:
People who believe in absolute truth believe in the truth.
People who believe they have the absolute truth believe in themselves. Those are what he calls fundamentalists. [See the correct quote from the transcript by Zenit.]
Also see what Pope Benedict has said about “fundamentalism.” Pope Benedict said it’s the use of religion as a political tool and often involves violence. He, too, condemns it.
Surely Benedict didn’t mean fundamentalists to be the little old ladies who go to daily Mass and pray the rosary together. Maybe – just maybe – Pope Francis defines fundamentalism the same way.
People who believe they have the absolute truth believe in themselves.
You keep making this assertion, but have failed to provide any support for it.
Those are what he calls fundamentalists.
Then his is an entirely novel definition. Please provide a citation for “fundamentalism” that includes “believing in oneself” as a component. From what I have seen, actual fundamentalists believe the exact opposite of this.
Also see what Pope Benedict has said about “fundamentalism.” Pope Benedict said it’s the use of religion as a political tool and often involves violence. He, too, condemns it.
I don’t see how this follows from your previous sentence. Surely it’s possible to use religion as a political tool while still believing in something other than oneself.
Surely Benedict didn’t mean fundamentalists to be the little old ladies who go to daily Mass and pray the rosary together. Maybe – just maybe – Pope Francis defines fundamentalism the same way.
Then the onus is on you to identify those “many” Catholics who believe in themselves rather than God and who use their religion in political or violent ways.
“You keep making this
assertion, but have failed to provide any support for it.”
From the words of Pope Francis himself: “It’s this way. Fundamentalism is a
sickness that is in all religions. We Catholics have some, not some,
many, who believe they have the
absolute truth and go around soiling the others with calumnies, defamation,
and they do harm, they do harm.”
“I don’t see how this follows from your previous sentence.
Surely it’s possible to use religion as a political tool while still believing
in something other than oneself.”
I have
placed the distinction between those who believe in absolute truth [Catholic
doctrine] and those who believe themselves [people] to have possession of
absolute truth. Those who believe in
doctrine are good people. Those who
believe in themselves to have doctrine may – or may not be – good. Unfortunately, Pope Francis seems to believe
they are not good.
“Then the onus is on you to identify those “many”
Catholics who believe in themselves rather than God and who use
their religion in political or violent ways.”
Okay, let me take a crack at that [Not my own
words, but somebody else’s whose thoughts jive with mine. I’m Filipino; English is only my second
language and the following words I would like to have been as my own, if only I
were more adept as expressing myself in English.]:
“Catholic fundamentalism is when the Catholic
Church is often seen as a ‘false church’ of heresy, and the only ‘true
Catholics’ are those who adhere to, for example, their sedevacantist groups and
mentality. It is an attitude of
superiority, wherein one thinks one is ‘more Catholic,’ or even worse, ‘more
legitimately Catholic’ simply because one clings to the older traditions of the
Church. However, it runs deeper than that. There is a doctrinal
division too, wherein Catholic fundamentalists become a magisterium unto
themselves, believing they are the only ‘authentic’ interpreters of Catholic
teaching and tradition, often to the exclusion of the real magisterium of the
Church.”
My claim to identifying with the above words
is based on my own personal experience of violence. I have just fought and won a war against some
“Old Catholic” elements that have infiltrated our diocesan-approved Traditional
Latin Mass – and won! It turned out that
our celebrant priest and his sacristan [by the latter’s own admission] had once
jumped shipped; the priest having been “reordained” in the schismatic sect
called “Society of the Virgin Mary” [associated with Old Catholic] and his
sacristan “ordained” in Old Catholic without ever been inside a seminary. The priest came back into the fold [thus
became our celebrant priest] but with the fake OC priest in tow as his
sacristan. Soon the fake priest, too,
was hearing confessions.
I reported these abuses of the sacraments
[Holy Orders, Penance, and Holy Communion] to our pastor, to the bishop, and
eventually, to Ecclesia Dei commission of CDF.
In retaliation, the celebrant priest excoriated me from the pulpit,
accused me of “disrespect for the priesthood, hardness of heart, hatred,” etc.
and in the presence of the entire congregation, refused to give me Holy
Communion. I would have been so
humiliated, but I trusted by then that my report had reached the Church
authorities.
In the end, both priest and sacristan/fake
priest were excommunicated and our Latin Mass, sadly, was discontinued.
Because the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei
commission, and the dioceses of Sacramento and Santa Rosa ruled in my favor, I
am not afraid to identify these fundamentalist Catholics: The celebrant priest is Fr. Peter Talcott and
his sacristan/fake priest’s name is Joseph Cotrell. Our TLM that had been cancelled was at the
St. Louis Bertrand Mission chapel of St. Vincent Ferrer’s parish in Vallejo,
California. My name is Marie Pruden.
Well, look. I appreciate your struggle against the Old Catholics, and I’m glad you prevailed, but that doesn’t really do anything to help your argument. And I’m not quite sure how violence was involved.
For the sake of argument, let’s agree that your preferred translation of the Holy Father is correct:
Not some, many. Many.
He can hardly be referring to the Old Catholics, for two reasons: 1) They are not in communion with Peter, so not Catholic, and 2) They are very few indeed, 115,000 compared to a Catholic population of about 1.25 billion (less than 0.01%, roughly 9 Old Catholics for every 10,000 Catholics). On top of this, they don’t seem to have a significant presence in South America, so he may be only dimly aware of them, if that.
Much the same can be said of sedevacantists. Wikipedia tells us that there may be as many as 200,000 worldwide, but once again this is a fraction of of a tenth of one percent. Pope Francis, to my knowledge, has never breathed a word against either group.
In sum, your whole argument boils down to “Assume a can opener.” It’s a very common tactic of those who attempt to salvage an orthodox interpretation of the Holy Father’s words: Let’s assume that this one word here [in this case, “have”] is the hermeneutic key that unlocks the true meaning of this superficially disturbing statement. Armed with this knowledge, we can show that the Holy Father’s meaning is completely different to the obvious reading.
But as I’ve shown above, the word have doesn’t really change anything at all. The Holy Father is clearly targeting orthodox Catholics, of both the traditional and “conservative” variety, as he has in countless homilies, speeches, audiences, interviews, apostolic exhortations and off-the-cuff remarks to date. We simply can’t divorce these latest remarks from all context, as you attempt to do, and pretend that he is suddenly referring to tiny groups that aren’t even in communion with the Church.
“And I’m not quite sure how violence was involved.”
Murray, if you think no violence was involved, I’m sorry I didn’t describe it so as to touch you.
Have you ever been targeted in a homily – I mean, with the priest angrily pointing at you, daring you to come up to to pulpit and argue with him in public, humiliating and vilifying you for alleged “disrespect of the priesthood, hatred, and hardness of heart?” Trusting that my pastor already knew of the issue, all I could say was, “I’m sorry Father, but women are not allowed to speak from the pulpit at any time at all, and especially during Mass.”
My fight involved countless hours of fighting with the fake priest on the phone while he
spewed hateful words against Vatican I and II, his claim to “valid ordination”, nasty messages castigating me until my phone message system broke down. Seven months of investigation and back-and-forth correspondence between my pastor, the diocese, and the Vatican. My loss of friendship among the congregants. And months of anxious waiting for the ruling to come down. If I hadn’t firmly believed in Holy Mother Church,
such violence would have reduced me to walking back what I was doing.
“Not some, many. Many.”
Not the many, but the “believe they have.”
“He can hardly be referring to the Old Catholics, for two reasons: 1) They are not in communion with Peter, so not Catholic…”
The celebrant priest is Catholic. He may
have jumped ship before, but had come back to the Church. And that’s why we had him as celebrant of our TLM.
“2) They are very few indeed”
My preferred definition was from the someone I quoted, which includes sedevacantists and
others in the real Church who think they are more Catholic or are more legitimately Catholic. They are not few.
“Pope Francis, to my knowledge, has never breathed a word against either group. The Holy Father is clearly targeting orthodox Catholics, of both the traditional and ‘conservative’ variety, as he has in countless homilies,
speeches, audiences, interviews, apostolic exhortations and off-the-cuff remarks to date.”
You may be right. I used to think so, too, and even now I think I do. But often, as a
tradition-loving Catholic, I refuse to think myself as one whom Pope Francis refers to, for example, here:
“…The self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagians 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.” [Pope Francis, 2/12/14]
Who ultimately trust only in their own powers.
I hope Pope Francis would rethink this matter of giving press conferences aboard a plane. For one thing, the mid-flight interview that started with a question about African ecumenism was hardly the
venue to discuss religious fundamentalism [especially in “my Church”]. Secondly, you can’t really expect journalists to suddenly remember what Pope Benedict has previously said about fundamentalism and how it may coincide with Pope Francis’s view of it.
Dear lady, we are talking past each other, and I don’t see any reason to continue going round like this. You are determined to sacrifice reason, language, and common sense in order to derive a completely implausible and decontextualized interpretation of the Holy Father’s words. I admire your loyalty, but cannot follow you down that path. God bless.
Dear Gentleman, I don’t go for straw men myself. We know what Pope Francis meant by fundamentalism and it’s not too far away from Benedict’s. You asked for examples, I gave. Then you accuse me of “sacrifice of reason, language, and common sense.” I’m sorry but I have no liking for strawman arguments. You can’t argue, so attack me instead.
Just this, for the record, and see all the previous pronouncements of the Pope against traditionalists may not be against traditionalists at all, but against fundamentalists. [It does not mean I agree with this, but] :
“…The self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagians 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.” [Pope Francis, 2/12/14]
“Who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior..”.
Goodbye and God bless.
I think my reply got lost. If you don’t mind, let me post it again:
“And I’m not quite sure how violence was involved.”
Murray, if you think no violence there was involved, I’m sorry I didn’t describe it as
much as to touch you. Have you ever been
targeted by a homily – I mean, with the priest angrily pointing at you and daring you to come up to to pulpit and argue with him in public, humiliating and vilifying you for alleged “disrespect of the priesthood, hatred, and
hardness of heart?” Trusting that my
pastor already knew of the issue, all I could say was, “I’m sorry Father, but women are not allowed to speak from the pulpit at any time at all, and especially during Mass.”
My fight involved countless hours of fighting with the fake priest on the phone while he
spewed hateful words against Vatican I and II, nasty messages castigating me until my phone message system broke down. Seven months of back-and-forth correspondence between my pastor, the diocese, the Vatican and me. Loss of friendship among the congregants.
Months of anxious waiting for the ruling to come down. Most painful of all, our TLM was cancelled although I refuse to take the blame for it. If I hadn’t believed in Holy Mother Church’s fairness, such violence would have
reduced me to walking back what I was doing.
“Not some, many. Many.”
Not the “many”, but the “believe they have.”
“He can hardly be referring to the Old Catholics, for two reasons: 1) They are not in communion with Peter, so not Catholic…”
The celebrant priest is Catholic. He may
have jumped ship before, but had come back to the Church. And that’s why we had him as celebrant in our TLM.
“2) They are very few indeed”
My preferred definition is from the someone I quoted, which includes sedevacantists and
others in the mainline Church who think they are more Catholic or are more legitimately Catholic. They are not few.
“Pope Francis, to my knowledge, has never breathed a word against either group. The Holy Father is clearly targeting orthodox Catholics, of both the traditional and ‘conservative’ variety, as he has in countless homilies,
speeches, audiences, interviews, apostolic exhortations and off-the-cuff remarks to date.”
You may be right. I used to think so, too, and sometimes I still do. But often, as a
tradition-loving Catholic, I refuse to think myself as one among those Pope Francis refers to, for example, here:
“…The self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagians 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.” [Pope Francis, 2/12/14]
Who ultimately trust only in their own powers
I hope Pope Francis would rethink this matter of giving press conferences aboard a plane. For one thing, the mid-flight interview that started with a question about African ecumenism was hardly the venue to discuss religious fundamentalism [including those in “my Church”].
Secondly, you can’t really expect journalists
to suddenly remember what Pope Benedict has said about fundamentalism and how
it may have coincide with Pope Francis’s
view of it.
Also see theologian Christopher Malloy’s comment: JPII – A Fundamentalist Catholic!
You are going in circles. The Pope is unclear and your defense of him is just as unclear.
“Also see what Pope Benedict has said about “fundamentalism.” Pope Benedict said it’s the use of religion as a political tool and often involves violence. He, too, condemns it. Maybe – just maybe – Pope Francis defines fundamentalism the same way” If what you say here is true, Francis could only have been talking about Mohammedanism, the source of 99.99% of religious violence these days. If so, why didn’t he just say “Mohammedan fundamentalism”? Be serious, really.
“If what you say here is true, Francis could only have been talking about Mohammedanism, the source of 99.99% of religious violence these days. If so, why didn’t he just say “Mohammedan fundamentalism”?
Unfortunately, no. Francis [and to a lesser degree, Benedict, too] was clear in condemning “fundamentalism” in all religions. Where they differ is that Benedict seemed to
have zeroed in on Islam and excluded [or overlooked] Catholicism in the mix,
whereas Francis placed Christians the front-and-center target. [“It is my
Church, we too..”] Another difference is
that Benedict’s condemnation of fundamentalism was in the context of pleading
for religious freedom for Christians in Iran, whereas Francis’s was for
ecumenism in Africa.
At any rate, both popes’ comments in
condemning fundamentalism earned them vitriol all over – in the Muslim world,
of course, but also among Protestants in America. For example:
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pope-francis-turkey-calls-end-forms-religious-fundamentalism/
“The
term “fundamentalism” is a very broad brush and could be talking about many
different things. Christian fundamentalists are those who believe in the bible
and bible doctrine, and attempt to do their best to reach a lost and dying
world for Jesus Christ. Christian fundamentalists, like Baptists, are also
those who historically have sought to expose the Catholic church as the Harlot
found in Revelation 17 and 18. It’s kind of hard to have a One World Religion
if there are those pesky bible believers that are constantly outing the Pope
and the harlot Vatican system.
“Make no mistake about it, the overarching goal of Pope Francis
is to erase the lines of distinction between all Christian denominations and
absorb them in to the Roman Catholic system. He will use any means at his
disposal – abortion, world hunger, poverty, terrorism – as a pretext to ‘lay down
our differences and unite.’ The Pope isn’t selling, he’s buying.” – Geoffrey
Grider, Protestant author of “Now the End Begins’
““The term “fundamentalism” is a very broad brush and could be talking about many different things.” We could profitably start, it occurs to me, by defining it at least for a while as the desire and determination to lop off the heads of those with whom we disagree. Defined thusly, it refers to only one religion on earth. To equate even Protestant fundamentalism with this bloodletting is absurd. But, of course, with this papacy we are faced with much that is absurd.
I agree. God bless you, Johnny.
Precisely. Perhaps the whole question turns on the exact significance of the phrase ‘having the absolute truth’. For Catholics to believe that Christ is the absolute Truth in the way that Muhammad or Buddha or Krishna cannot be is a sine qua non. In that sense ‘having’ Christ in a living relationship of faith and love is having absolute truth, however unworthy one remains in relation to it. This has nothing to do with believing in oneself. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Christ as absolute Truth possesses us, if we consent. But there is nothing wrong in believing that in some way lovers possess each other.
You put it better than I did. Thanks.
Thank you for your comments that inspire my reflections, as the invariably do.
But Pope Benedict wasn’t lumping Catholicsvand other Christians in with Islamo suicide bombers.
Welcome, Dale! I hope you write more articles here!
That’s the plan.
There are many fair points in this article and I share the angst of many who cringe at so many of the Pope’s comments, yet in fairness it needs to be said that bringing Christ to a world that neither knowns let alone worships Him, nor recognizes the existence of such a thing as sin, is a complex task that may well require a highly unconventional approach. Perhaps establishing a relationship on common ground is but a first step in what will be an ongoing process by which the invitation to deeper faith comes later; much like St. Paul feeding milk to spiritual children who are not yet ready for solid food.
I defend nothing regarding the particulars of the Pope’s comments on Catholic “fundamentalists”; who he doesn’t bother to identify, nor his comments on communion for the Lutheran woman, or any of the other matters raised by this article. I simply allow for the possibility that extending an invitation to the world to consider Christ and the one holy apostolic Catholic faith, might be messy. As such, his actions and words, in an odd way, might make sense.
Confusion is never good.
Correct, ‘confusion is a prime tool of Satan’.
Worse than the confusion from Rome are the defenders of confusion within the faith. They spread error.
Then know Christ through the sacraments and the teaching of the Church. We needn’t be confused, just because others are.
He is confusing the world. That is the concern.
Ah yes, the law of ‘gradualism’. Problem number one: what’s coming out of his mouth doesn’t resemble Catholicism in the least, problem number two: ‘gradualism’ doesn’t work. If you think his goal might be to draw people to Christ in His Church, it may be helpful for him to actually proclaim truth, as the truth of the Church attracts, but he is proclaiming the opposite. “Proselytism is solemn nonsense” according to Francis, and I’ve got news for him, so is the preaching of his anti Catholic heretical ‘nu Church’ theology. It will attract no one but those of a ‘pagan world view’.
Speaking in Brazil in 2007 His Holiness Benedict 16th said “[the Church] does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by ‘attraction’,” “just as Christ draws all to himself by the power of his love.” Whether you like these words or not, they are not unique to Pope Francis.
I don’t read Pope Francis as you do. Before one can come to the fullness of the Catholic faith, they have to first recognize Christ among us and face their need for Him. Generations have grown up with no sense of sin, truth, redemption, or any such reality. In the Pope’s view, they need to see the Christian as the living embodiment of Christ Himself before they will ever conceive of coming to Him in the fullness of the Faith.
Again, none of which is to endorse all that he has said, much of which is quite problematic. However I don’t assume that nothing good can or will come of it.
Fair enough. There will inevitably be fruit, but will it offset the confusion? Oremus.
Human nature has not changed. What has changed is that too many embrace relativism including those high within the Church.
I don’t disagree with your point.
It is indeed “a complex task’ as you say. Why, then, make it even more complex and confusing than it already is? Sorry, but your theory does not pass even the flimsiest test of common sense.
It is certainly confusing at times to me, however how is it seen by those without faith at even the most elementary level? It is our Lord’s will that we profess one faith, but the seriously unchurched and/or those who know little if anything of the true faith. They may need, as the spiritual infants St. Paul wrote about, milk for a time rather than solid food. I suspect that that notion motivates much of what he says and does.
Demeaning “fundamentalists” and painting with such a broad brush does not seem useful. He often “steps in it” when speaking extemporaneously and that is a serious problem. But I don’t dismiss him as one out to destroy or undermine the Catholic faith.
Read again your last paragraph. What exactly DO you think he is up to since none of his many, many gaffes help non-believers to come to the Church and the truth, not even a little?
Regrettably I’m not in a position to ask him directly much as I’d like to. And while many have expressed a newfound respect of sorts for the Church (Al Gore, Elton John) I don’t see any sign thus far that conversions as yet are proceeding apace from those unschooled in Christianity.
If I was forced to guess, I think he’s trying to speak in a language and in a manner that he thinks “the world” can relate to. There is a huge part of the world’s population that is in total ignorance of the gospel, at even the most basic level. In his own way, I think he’s trying to reach them.
I’d certainly want to ask him if he is fully aware of the perception, not unreasonable, that he is disparaging many who are faithful professing believers and doing so for reasons that are not at all clear; while having little to say in direct response to so many, including leaders in the Church and prominent public figures, who advocate clearly heretical ideas.
Your answer says it all. The policies of this pope are doomed not merely to complete failure, but to pushing back the cause of evangelism across the board. The fact that he seems unaware of this evident truth says more about him than even his own words.
The question to ask is: have the pastoral policies adopted by Bergoglio, presumably the same he used as bishop in his Argentine diocese, worked over there? Judging by the droves of Catholics migrating to hard line Evangelical churches or simply lapsing into nominal catholicism or hedonistic secularism, they have been a miserable failure. Can you mention a single case of any agnostic or atheist high profile interlocutor preferred by Bergoglio that has actually converted? Did the Anglican relaxation of traditional moral norms and its accommodations to modernity strengthen or devastate the Anglican Church? That is the question, as Hamlet would put it, for or against suicide.
No I cannot cite any such case though I’d hardly be in a position to know for certain. I don’t have any reason to doubt that an accommodation of the relativism of secular beliefs and culture will do nothing to facilitate conversions, or so-called reversions.
We now have the Pope we deserve, instead of the Pope we need. Lord have mercy on us!
If l understand correctly, all hardship has the purpose of drawing closer to God.
I’m curious as to whether or not the Holy Father punches himself in the face. He did, after all, state that when someone insults another’s mother, that they are asking for it.
So what to do when one insults his own mother?
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant article.
Thank you for clearly stating with incisiveness the case against Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
The diagnostics, the pejoratives, do not exist to describe the descent into hell we have faced with this man, his cartel within the hierarchy, his fan club amongst the unevangelized, the emotionally fragile and the morally licentious – clergy, religious and laity.
The presence of liberalism and heresy is a far greater problem than the extreme minority of rigid fundamentalism.
Unless he is talking about liberal fundamentalists who do not yeild to the truth, rigid in clining to heresies. But alas, that is not usually the context for such wording.
Not usually? Not ever, I believe.
Debunk the fundamentalist this with logic: Fundamentalists who believe in absolute truth must surely be among those who go to Mass on Sundays. Few people go to mass on Sundays. Therefore they cannot be “many”. Furthermore I have yet to find one. Or maybe I am the only one and don’t realize it.
*-*-*-*
There was at least one time there was an apology: after rabbit-gate.
An apology was relayed through an Italian archbishop for “causing such disorientation.”
But, yes, that is the closest he’s gotten to apologizing, however indirectly.
Despite objections to the use of “hate” to describe what it is Francis feel about us, A Cathoiic Dictionary defines hate and the definition fits with the aversion Franciscus experiences when it comes to Catholic traditionalists and Catholic Tradition.
http://tinyurl.com/h7o6mpw
“papist rigmarole”? ” rally papist now”?
The pope’s comments on fundamentalists might become quite dangerous when the secular states we live in start to criminalize “fundamentalism.”
My first thought on skimming through it is synonymous with the scene at 1:28:13, but I’ll take a closer look later. Right now, I have to obey my formator and go to bed. https://youtu.be/VOdHZiuKq68?t=1h26m32s
https://www.facebook.com/MomOf13/photos/a.160371480657119.37762.147579788602955/1165227436838180/?type=3&theater
Like a cool cup of water.
I wish I could post a meme of Cardinal Burke saying “bite me” to you know who, but that would be very disrespectful. Thank you to all of you Catholic bloggers who keep me going. Steve, The Remnant, Louie Verrechio, Rorate… you all deserve financial support and I will do what I can. God Bless your work, true voices in the wilderness. I am sure you will be attacked. Don’t be discouraged. Keep fighting.
My second though I had to get up out of bed because it was gnawing at me was “this man and these people are hurt, very hurt, and I understand that, I have a good friend who has expressed many of the exact same things to me” And I’m glad it’s out in the open insofar as it can be aired and healed, but if it only fosters more and more like-minded complaining, if it only circularly feeds on itself, it will only breed greater dissension within the Church, who is His, not ours. We belong to Him who came and first loved us, this is the gospel. Everything else is ordered to that and flows from that, which is Christ Incarnate, and whatever else the pope has said or done, he’s been busy about making that central and clear and most importantly, real for those outside the Church and encouraging those inside to do the same.
As a truly last thing for tonight, both my Extraordinary Form loving friend and I found a good bit of help and consolation in this article. http://www.catholicvote.org/3-rules-to-avoid-feeling-devastated-by-what-pope-francis-says/
I appreciate the offer of the article, but it’s not particularly apposite here. The problem is not that the Pope is speaking to non-Catholics–rather it is that he consistently derides other Catholics when he does so. There’s an aura of “I’m not like those guys” that gives a decidedly rancid twist to them as well. It’s poisonous, and it’s clear that he will not change.
This piece is mild in comparison to the conclusion reached by another Catholic lawyer.
http://tinyurl.com/n9ja2sa
One can’t believe what one does not know. PF has proven it. Pray for his conversion or replacement. In the meantime we are called to refute and resist.
Well, if you want to know how the neoCatholic, ultramontane world is responding to the pope’s fundamentalist remark, EXHIBIT A:
http://notthemagisterium.com/pope-speaks-on-plane-church-crashes-into-tiber/
He has the reading comprehension, logical skills and rhetorical ability one expects of a tween boy with Transformers stickers on his iPad.
Or one who has a Fatthead poster of Mark Shea in his bedroom.
Shea fell in love with him when he wrote an article attacking traditional Catholics called “Latin Mass Onlyist” or something. They both claim victimhood status from the meanies on the left and right, and conclude its because they are such wonderful Catholics. At least Shea allows you to respond, err…until he deletes and bans you. Many of these folks are converts with a distorted view of the papacy.
Here’s what he wrote today, he has no clue:
“I am convinced that the one of the huge problems people have with Pope Francis is that they don’t like to hear popes talk about *their* failings. They prefer popes to talk about other people’s failings, so that they can smile and say, “See, I can thank God I am not like those other men.”
-Scott Eric Alt
Countdown to an Elder Brother reference in 3, 2, 1, …
ha! ….good one.
Jeeze, and here I like hearing about the things I need to work on so I can become a better Catholic. I guess I’m bad at THIS, too.
We’re a masochistic bunch. Traditionalist sermons or excerpts from St. Alphonus Liguori can send me into a guilt-ridden funk for days, yet I keep coming back to hear more.
He’s the patron saint of the scrupulous. Which is why they shouldn’t read him. 😉
When liberals have virtually exclusive possession of any institution and they massively screw-up they rush to attack any man who notices what is going on.
It is always bizarre to see liberals claim they are victims of a right wing conspiracy (Hello, Hillary) when the opponents of liberal lunacy object but liberals are so in love with victimhood that they shroud themselves in it constantly.
Written otherwise, liberals are jejune girls who desire power and victimhood simultaneously.
Thank you, Barnabus, for the humor to be found at notthemagisterium:
“…Now, I am going to return to these words and explain the very clear meaning of them, because it appears that a lot of people are having a great deal of difficulty with very clear meanings.”
That kind of ‘logic’ makes everything really clear ;^)
So his very clear explanations of very clear meanings are even clearer! I’m glad that’s cleared up. Any more clarity and you’d see right through them.
Seeing right through them with such clarity is clearly the reason increasingly clear-headed numbers of Catholics, or clearly frustrated, are flocking to OnePeter5. On a clear day, perhaps those at notthemagisterium may come to clearly understand such motivations, but clearly not after the publication of an increased number of capitalized, clearly over-sized convolutions are expended to clarify such that is so clearly confusing ;^)
Perhaps this is as plain as day to others but it struck me, so I focus on: “…who believe they have the absolute truth” — do bad things (aka “evil.”)
Who is “the Truth?” –Christ is.
Who “has” Him? More precisely: what is it to believe one “has” Him? –That is Faith in Jesus.
He is not attacking those who “have” Jesus — those who actually “have” Him are those united to Him in Heaven. Those who believe that they have Him are us — the Faithful — the Church Militant.
I think in this there is a clear, direct attack against the Body of Christ in full parallel to attempting His profanation in willful distribution of the Eucharist to those objectively in mortal sin.
Is this a very specific pattern? Is there more?
Did the Third Message of Fatima warn of apostasy in the Church? At the very top? Bishop against bishop? Nations disappearing?
He is most likely a Mason. Note the hand inside the coat across the chest on that famous picture on the bus when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. He acts like a Mason: militantly pan-religious, of course all the post conciliar Popes have done that. Prophecy is fulfilled. Our Lady of Good Success and La Salette, ora pro nobis.
My first thought on skimming through it is synonymous with the scene at 1:28:13, but I’ll take a closer look later. Right now, I have to obey my formator and go to bed. https://youtu.be/VOdHZiuKq68?t=1h26m32s
There is one thing we Trads can do in response to the praxis of Our Pope and Our Cross; we can mix cocaine in with our wine and that tonic can help us endure what it is we are enduring.
And there is historical precedence for such an action within tradition.
It is was what great Trad Popes drank and it is the sort of support we need now more than ever….
http://tinyurl.com/hyj4j9x
I was shocked when I heard that Cardinal Kasper had said “heroism is not for the average Christian.” Isn’t that a repudiation of the 2nd Vatican Council’s universal call to holiness? Aren’t we all called to be saints by virtue of our baptism?
He has to go and then maybe the Church can get on with the job. But where are the Leaders who will challenge him now and send him on his way? This is a train wreck
and blind Freddie can see it. I do not like this man one bit. He has to go!
There’s also secular fundamentalism. What about that? “Fundamentalism” is relative to the ideology, religious or secular that it serves.
I now regret reverting to the Catholic Church, or “just another valid denomination” under Francis. Of course, he is just continuing the legacy of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Don’t do THAT. You just decided to join up during an adventure. Most of us are going to outlast him. Maybe we’ll even get to see a cool fireworks show!
As long as I have the sacraments, let them do what they will. I’ll fight them, sure, but I’ll never leave. I know I’m where I’m supposed to be. And if you think about it this way, I’m sure you’ll agree: we don’t abandon our mother when she’s beating beaten and defiled.
I should have just stayed Episcopal. I never would have guessed a Pope would behave in this manner. Hell, he’s probably fine with the fact that hundreds of millions of Catholics have abandoned the Catholic Church.
He might be fine with it. And he’ll answer for that. It’s not his Church. He’s been entrusted with it.
What happened to the guy who was entrusted with the talent and didn’t do anything with it? Didn’t go so well for him. (Mt. 25:14-30)
25:14 For even as a man going into a far country called his servants and delivered to them his goods;
25:15 And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey.
25:16 And he that had received the five talents went his way and traded with the same and gained other five.
25:17 And in like manner he that had received the two gained other two.
25:18 But he that had received the one, going his way, digged into the earth and hid his lord’s money.
25:19 But after a long time the lord of those servants came and reckoned with them.
25:20 And he that had received the five talents coming, brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents. Behold I have gained other five over and above.
25:21 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
25:22 And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me. Behold I have gained other two.
25:23 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
25:24 But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown and gatherest where thou hast not strewed.
25:25 And being afraid, I went and hid thy talent in the earth. Behold here thou hast that which is thine.
25:26 And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not and gather where I have not strewed.
25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers: and at my coming I should have received my own with usury.
25:28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him and give it him that hath ten talents.
25:29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away.
25:30 And the unprofitable servant, cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
It is really disheartening that you are absolutely spot on! How I wish that you are so totally wrong.
It seems the pope gossips and assumes about others hearts in his private conversations