I know from my own time in a progressive seminary and having very good friends who are progressives that they give very little stock to the "smoke of Satan" and talk of the devil. In fact most progressives don't even believe in angels, fallen or otherwise.
So it must be disconcerting to them to hear our new Bishop of Rome, Francis, speaking about the devil and his temptations and even the smoke of Satan. I think he really believes in a diabolic presence that can tempt the human soul to betray God and His sanctifying grace. I'm glad to hear this Biblical truth which is a part of the patrimony of our capital "T"radition being taught and frequently by our Holy Father Francis.
Another thing that I observe that normally those who are traditionalists would love and progressives find odious is the monarchical style of leadership of our Holy Father, which I would prefer to call hierarchical.
Some of the progressives in the Church completely in their post election euphoria of gleefulness for all the lace in the dumpster not to mention fine brocade chasubles, copes, dalmatics and the like as well as other papal accoutrements such as the mozzetta and papal palace going the way of the Edsel (look it up you are too young to know about the Ford Edsel) must be wondering if this is going to be a collegial pope or not or a man who takes command and makes sure his wishes are carried out.
At a more conservative, traditionalist's blog it says this about Pope Bergoglio:
"One thing seems to be agreed by all sources, including Argentinian newspapers, Italian reports, those interviewed by other media in the past few weeks: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a man of steely convictions and determination, possibly the strongest Bishop of Rome since at least Pius XI, possibly the pope with the most hands-on approach since Saint Pius X, and who will not change one bit the man he has always been. Which is why his past and the way he acted in the past greatly matter. He is also, as we have said before, a highly liturgical pope, and he will make all efforts to make his liturgical vision stick."
One of the things that many traditionalists couldn't understand about Pope Benedict is that he never mandated anything he was modeling liturgically and otherwise. He led by proposals not by mandate more or less.
What the traditionalists have been praying for has come to pass in the pope, but just a different one.
Will he spread his authority and rely upon decentralization of Roman curia's control or will he streamline it (the curia) and make it a mean, lean, grilling machine to quote George Foreman and his griddles, thus making the Roman Curia the monarchical aid that Pope Francis needs in his hierarchical magisterium?
We know how well subsidiarity worked with bishops, each bishop everywhere, having their own authority over how they would deal with priests who abused minors. That worked real well didn't it?
It is interesting that the first major monarchical act of Pope Francis was to make sure that there is no subsidiarity as it concerns the abusive priests and procedures to deal with them and he has made sure of that through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Other hierarchical or monarchical acts have certainly revolved around papal attire, liturgy, lace and living. I wonder who he consulted in a collegial way to make all these things happen?
Traditionalists must be besides themselves with their answer to prayer in terms of a really strong pope making strong decisions. God is Good!
11 comments:
The article you quote about Bergolio being the type of Pope us Tradtionalists should like also says:
"If Cardinal Bergoglio is considered a "conservative" in Argentina, one can only guess what an Argentinian "progressive" is like."
I do not doubt he will rule with a trong hand, it is the direction that is at issue.
Fr, Progressives do not even believe in God except as some philosophical principle or some BS cosmic awareness. They should not even remain in the Church, but no one has the guts to throw them out. Somebody make it ok to turn Templar and me loose on 'em...except we'd probably hurt each other trying to get to 'em first! LOL!
Like Gene, I must question the use of the term "progressive." What are these "Progressives" progressing towards, if not heaven? Does that mean that other Catholics--FSSP for example--aren't progressing towards heaven? Conversely, if the only thing "progressives" are progressing towards is heaven, then doesn't that make _all_ orthodox Catholics (such as FSSP) "progressive?"
It isn't my intention to put words in your mouth, but by this term don't you mean (I'm just guessing from context and such) self-identifying Catholics who either downplay or outright reject doctrine (as well as practices) that they find old-fashioned, or out of step with the modern world, or insufficiently ecumenical, or theologically "vertical?" If so, what they're progressing towards isn't anything good, and thus the term "progressive," with its positive connotations, is misleading. The better term, because it's been developed into a term of art, is "modernist."
In short, the term "progressive" in a Catholic context would seem to mean either 1) including practices or beliefs that are at best unnecessary(such as using music like "Gather us In" and "Kumbaya") and at worst are damaging and impovershing of the spirit(like the wreckovation of splendid old Catholic architecture and the construction of the horror that is the L. A. cathedral), or 2) renunciation of essential doctrines, i.e. material heresy or worse. The word "progressive" is a misnomer in either case. Let's call it what it is.
Pius XII's liturgical tastes were austere. He avoided the panoply of a papal Mass, preferring to celebrate a Low Mass at the papal altar in St Peter's, even on great occasions, vested as an ordinary priest.
'Humble' Pope John XXIII would have none of this minimalism. Although public papal Masses were much rarer than they are today, he celebrated them with full ceremonial.
What Anon 5 said...
"Will he spread his authority and rely upon decentralization of Roman curia's control or will he streamline it (the curia) and make it a mean, lean, grilling machine to quote George Foreman and his griddles, thus making the Roman Curia the monarchical aid that Pope Francis needs in his hierarchical magisterium?"
I pray not. There is a very rare instance in which decentralization really works. I understand scoring back some. I don't have a problem with that, but decentralization leads to one of two things anarchy or revolution. All we need do is look at either 18th century France or the Communist Manifesto.
There is talk of him dissolving the Vatican Bank. Bad idea. The Vatican should control it's own money, then it is not beholding to the world. Clean it up, sure. But dissolve it? Mistake.
I think that there are many issues surrounding this Pope which are not come to light. I think that this whole "humility schtick" is impressive to the MSM, but reality is that it will come to bite most Catholics in the a$$, because it undermines what we really are. We understand humility in a totally different way than the world, SINCE the Englightenment. Our understanding didn't change, the world's did. Humility is based not upon how much one gives up, but rather on how much one applies his love to God the Father. That is contrary to the current worldview.
Tied to that is simplicity. Noble simplicity to be exact. Sadly, I think that Papa Francisci has missed the mark (I know, I know, my view means jack squat), but seriously....If a parish in Argentina celebrates the Mass with all the glory it can muster, then it is acting in a nobly simplistic way. Why isn't the same said for St. Peter's? Why must St. Peter's dumb down their liturgical action? That isn't nobly simplistic. THAT is patronizing....but then again, that is exactly what the MSM media wants in a covert way...and Pope Francis has bought that bill of goods hook, line and sinker.
We must reclaim true Christian humility, we must reclaim true Christian noble simplicity. The Church must worship God the Father with all it can muster. To wear the same vestment until it is rags and falls off isn't doing that...but placing Christ's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity into a gold chalice and on a gold paten is. Pope Francis needs to stop running into one tree and start looking at the whole forest....I'm sure at that point, his head will stop hurting.
Sheesh.
1) I'd have no problem being turned loose on "Progressives" in, or out of, the Church. I prefer a straight up fight to endless dialog. God will see to it that the right side wins.
2) I think I will get s shirt made up that says "I stand with Andy". Why is it always the laity that have such clarity on this issues? Where are the clergy that speak forth rightly? Are they all muzzled by "obedience"?
3) Progessive is another weasel word. Like pro-Choice. When subversives, and that's what they really are, use words to describe themselves or anything they support, you can rest assured that it is 180 degrees out from what they really mean. They say "we're Progressive", what they really mean is "we want to destroy your history, tradition and identity". I refuse to use the words of the enemy to describe them because it perpetuates the lie. Let's go back to item #1....when do we launch the next Crusade? Deus vult!
Templar;
"Why is it always the laity that have such clarity on this issues? Where are the clergy that speak forthrightly? Are they all muzzled by "obedience"?"
That's what they call it, "obedience," but that isn't really the reason. The real reason is fear. Most priests today are afraid they will lose their standing in the diocese and they are also afraid their peers will abandon them.
I'll fill you in on a more emerging secret. One which isn't talked about much...hopefully Father won't snuff this out.
If a seminarian or young priest speaks against the status quo (ie...the post-Vatican Council II mentality), he will be shown the door, quite unceremoniously. To forward an agenda, those who forward it must buy in. If a priest or a seminarian doesn't buy in, he's dismissed. For a seminarian, he can get a job in the real world...for a priest, it is fatal.
So, to answer your questions, those of us who are "loud-mouthed laity," we're simply not afraid to engage 1983 years of Catholic truths, not simply limit ourselves to the last 48.
Harsh, yes. The truth, also yes.
Yeah, Milam is disgustingly right on target, thank God. Templar, I think you must be my long lost twin...LOL!
Andy's point is an interesting one. In 2005 while spending Holy Week at Pluscarden Abbey I was talking to an Australian priest who testified to the power of peer pressure in preventing priests from taking a more traditional line. After Summorum Pontificum Archbishop Kelly of Liverpool proposed setting up a parish which would use the EF exclusively. A suitable church was earmarked but the project was abandoned at the last minute because most of the diocesan clergy vehemently opposed it. (At least, that was the explanation we were given).
Well for shame on them Andy. It is no different in the corporate world, where speaking truth to power gets us labeled, pushed out, supressed, etc. I know, I have spent 30+ years at one company doing all manner of career limiting things becasue it is simply the "right", as God gives the ability to see the right, thing to do. Service above self applies to all careers, all lives, all choices.
This is precisely why I hold the SSPX in such high esteem, their obedience is to the Truth and not some fallible heirarchy, and if the directions from Rome contradict 1948 years of previous Truth, they will not yield. An apple today, can not be an orange tomorrow.
Post a Comment