Monday, October 20, 2014


There is no doubt now where Pope Francis' ideologies reside. When a Cardinal, still but not for long a member of the pope's curia, says publicly and perhaps as a surrogate for other cardinals too timid to be so bold because the personal stakes are just too high for them, that the pope is not fulfilling his role as teacher, you know that things are at a crisis level. Was Cardinal Burke a surrogate voice for Pope, so-called emeritus, Benedict?

Many had opined that Cardinal Ratzinger was a polarizing force in the Church, but Papa Bergoglio has proven he can raise polarization to radicalization of polarized opposites! This is far from being a Pontiff, another word for Bridgebuilder.

The Holy Father seems to suggest that the possibility of changing doctrine, moral doctrine which can never really be dogmatized in every situation, would be a suprise from the God of suprises. We should not fear change because our God is a God of these sorts of things. Certainly this is merely opinon and easily ignored by Catholics.

At any rate Rorate Caeli provides the opinion of a non conservative  Antonio Socci about the week that was, an important page in the colorful history of the Church:


[T]he "uprising" of the orthodox prelates of the past Thursday (the anniversary of Wojtyla's election) was an epic and almost miraculous event.

The Church faithful to Tradition prevailed on that day. It was thus established that, just as it had happened in the [February 2014] Consistory [after the presentation of the Kasper proposal], Papa Bergoglio found himself in the minority, practically with a "vote of no confidence".

For this reason, in his final address he rushed to repair things, trying to detach himself from the more Progressive [Fathers], and find for himself a tardive position super partes. Between those who said that two plus two equals four (the orthodox) and those who supported that it equals six (Kasper), Bergoglio proclaimed that it equals five. Jesuitical. But wrong.

The "revolutionary" position of Kasper, who always said (which was never denied) that he spoke in Bergoglio's name, did not win. But it is not clear what the conclusions of the Synod are.

Bergoglio, quoting Benedict XVI, recalled a truth that many of his supporters during these days have forgotten: "the Church is Christ's" and "the Pope... is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant ... the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim."

Perhaps the truth is that he tried it and (for the time being) couldn't do it. In the end, there is only one sure outcome: the split of the Church, and great confusion in her Magisterium. [Source: Libero, October 19, 2014]


Anonymous said...

Yes, yes yes.

Why is it that when a conservative or traditionalist Catholic leader takes a stand that he is "divisive", but when a "progressive" or liberal Catholic leader forces their viewpoint, it is a "breakthrough"?

Anonymous said...

Awwww....poor baby...

Anonymous said...

anon at 8:16am

Why? Satan is not served by the "conservative" so his pawns and minions go on the attack. "liberals" want to progress God to a new enlightenment that will be good for God and us. If only we and God would understand and fall in step with their plans everything would be sunshine, butterflies and icecream.

Forgetting heat melts icecream.

Harsh, yep. I have been in the trenches fighting this in the Anglican Communion. Trench warfare is brutal, dirty and horrid. I pray the Roman Catholic Church does not enter the trenches. Quash the enemies of God now, through converision (the best), or walk no more with them (sadly kick them out if needed). One of the good things about the praybook is a priest is allowed to exclude from the sacraments anyone who lives a "naughty and evil life". If only we did that at the beginning.

Praying for the Church.

The Anglican Priest

Who am I to judge?! said...

I was intrigued by Mark's quote, so dug out the passage it's from. Having people notify the priest in advance of their desire to take Communion makes it more feasible to exclude wrongdoers, though the extreme language ('open and notorious evil liver') makes me wonder if it was enforced very often.

'So many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion, shall signifie their Names to the Curate at least sometime the day before.
And if any of those be an open and notorious evil liver, or have don any wrong to his Neighbours in word or Deed, so that the congregation is thereby offended: ye Curate having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lords Table, until he have openly declared himselfe to have truly repented, and amended his former naughty life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before were offended; and that he have recompensed the parties to whom he hath don wrong, or at least declare himse1fe to be in full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.
The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth Malice, and hatred to reign: not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table, until he know them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties so at variance be content to forgive from the bottom of his heart all that the other hath trespassed against him, and to make Amends for that he himselfe hath offended, and the other party wl11 not be perswaded to a godly Unity, and remain still in his frowardnes, and Malice: the Minister in that case ought to admitt the penitent person to the holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate.'

Anonymous said...

"A more polarized, radicalized Church."

Just what Christ would want his vicar on earth to accomplish. Right? {"That they all may be one, just as you, Father, and I am one."}