Yesterday I read an article at Rorate Caeli quoting something that Fr. Thomas Rosica wrote about Pope Francis.
I thought it was exaggerated or Rorate Caeli, which has an ax to grind, was misquoting him. But Rorate Caeli had a link to the actual full article which Zenit owned by the National Catholic Register had published. So I read the article and found the following:
Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is “free from disordered attachments.” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.
However, this morning, when I followed the link provided by Rorate Caeli to the Zenit article, I could not find the quote I print in blue above. It had been removed from the longer paragraph that is there, but it was there yesterday!
Thus I went to the Salt and Light version by Fr. Rosica and it was still there. So the blue quote above if actually from his article at the Salt and Light webpage which you can read in full by pressing the title:
The Ignatian Qualities of the Petrine Ministry of Pope Francis
The quote I have in blue above is the best example of what "ultramontanism" actually is as well as the ancient heresy of GNOSTICISM. It is the blind adherence to the "cult of the personality" of a particular pope and accepting as truth what the believer believes about a particular pope even his opinions and errors. I am not saying Pope Francis is a Gnostic, but if what Fr. Thomas Rosica writes about him as a commentary is true (and it is only the opinion of Rosica a close collaborator with Pope Francis) then it would make the pope a gnostic. Rosica is the one who should retract such calumny against Pope Francis and renounce his own ultramontanism.Those of us who respect the pope and the institution of the papacy have parameters and always have had parameters even when we were accused of being ultramontane. The pope doesn't know anything new about the Catholic faith independently of what is varifiable by Scripture and Tradition that the most humble and least educated lay Catholic can't discover. He can't create new beliefs. He can only clarify or declare something that has been believed by the early Church to the present as a doctrine or dogma. The pope and the papacy must be a servant to the TRUTH discovered in Scripture and Tradition. He must be a servant to it. He is not above it. To think that a pope is above Scripture and Tradition would be to declare the pope in the state of mortal sin of PRIDE. To call this HUMILITY, would be a lie and comes from the father of lies, the devil.
I would say that Fr. Thomas Rosica's quote in blue above is the most ultramontane thing I have ever heard. It would be funny if it weren't so absurd and concerning. And if true (and that's a huge IF) it. would make the pope a Gnostic or heretic. That accusation has serious ramifications.
Speaking of ultramontanism, the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) has its own take on it. Do you think it quotes Fr. Rosica's ultramontanism? NO!:
27 comments:
Yep, very sad how the shepherds themselves are doing their best to destroy the Church. They don't believe, nor care.
And seriously, given how oblivious most Catholic lay people are, I don't see much room for hope of improvement beyond divine intervention.
Speaking of Rorate Caeli, they posted the following yesterday via Twitter:
Michelle Boorstein said: "Millions of Catholics see Pope Francis as a beacon of moral credibility."
Rorate Caeli, responded:
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Hahahahahaha!
Hahaha!
Thanks, that totally made our Monday!
===================================================================
How sad.
We can count upon Rorate Caeli treating the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Francis, in arrogant, hateful fashion.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, my post is' really about Rorate Caeli and its biases. It is about what Fr. Thomas Rosica wrote in a much longer article. Please comment on that quote.
Above should have been: my post isn't really about Rorate...
As Rorate Caeli has, time and again, promoted lies about Pope Francis...
1. One must always verify Rorate Caeli's claims.
2. One must check the context of quotes that Rorate Caeli has posted.
Now, in the case at hand, we must check the context of Father Rosica's comment in question.
We must then verify Father Rosica's comment in question.
============================================================
Pope Francis said that we should pay attention to his (Pope Francis') declarations...rather than what Person "X" has claimed that Pope Francis has said.
Father Rosica, may declare "X" in regard to Pope Francis. However, that doesn't mean that declaration "X" is valid.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Thank you, Father McDoald.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."MT, my post is' really about...what Fr. Thomas Rosica wrote in a much longer article. Please comment on that quote."
Yes. Thank you.
Father, for example, the notion that Pope Francis has placed himself above Scripture and Tradition is absurd.
As you noted, Father McDonald, in regard to Father Rosica's comments in question:
"...if true (and that's a huge IF) it. would make the pope a Gnostic or heretic. That accusation has serious ramifications."
Yes, certain comments in question from Father Rosica constitute a "huge IF."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald, my initial reaction to your post today was spurred by the following from you in regard to Rorate Caeli having quoted Father Rosica:
"I thought it was exaggerated or Rorate Caeli, which has an ax to grind, was misquoting him."
It is very telling that you noted that Rorate Caeli "has an ax to grind." It is also telling that you referred to the possibility that Rorate Caeli may has misquoted Father Rosica.
But that is the state of Rorate Caeli.
That is what spurred my comments about Rorate Caeli. A huge grain of salt must be taken whenever one contemplates just about anything posted by Rorate Caeli.
At any rate, I don't find it credible that Pope Francis has, in effect, trampled Scripture and Tradition.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Houston, we have a problem!", but the problem may be Houston itself.
Fr Rosica, is not only a close collaborator with the pope but also runs a Catholic TV network in Canada spewing out New Phase Catholicism™, in which you no longer need Jesus, the Scriptures, or Tradition, but only the pope to develop the new faith of catholicism. If Francis does not fire him, or not demand a retraction, then we can assume that Fr Rosica represents the thought of Francis.
(By the way, have you ever thought of changing your blog site so people can edit their comments later like on other blogs. Recently I have posted more than usual -your topics are interesting- but being a hurry I sometimes mess them up. Also, the reCAPTCHA is still giving me problems.)
MT,
Please stop with the ridiculous non sequiturs. Faithful and serious Catholics are deeply disturbed by PF's positions and antics. We really do not care about the opinions of the ill informed in the Faith and the lazy.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Hahahahahaha!
Hahaha!
Sorry, Father Rosica, a Catholicism not based on Scripture and Tradition is simply not the Catholic religion. It is not the religion that I was baptised into and signed onto when I converted. The Church not a papal cult. Disgusting that this person should want the Church to be subject to the personal whim of the man at the head of the earthly organization rather than the Deposit of Faith handed down from Jesus and the Apostles.
The Catholic Herald (the most respectable Catholic weekly in the UK and Ireland) runs this story today, under the headline - Vatican advisor: Pope 'breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants', and the strapline - Father Thomas Rosica said the Church 'is now ruled by an individual rather than by ... its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture'.
Now, if these comments had been made on a traditionalist blog, one can imagine the reaction of the Mark Thomases of this world: 'Fake news ... filthy lies ... satanic calumny ... hatred of the Holy Father &c &c.' Indeed, to impute to Francis not only heresy but also egomania would appear to strain credulity to its limits.
But of course they were not; they were made by a leading liberal who has the ear of the Pope, and were intended to be laudatory. Just before this, Rosica writes of Francis 'not even he is sure of where the spirit will lead'. I assume that he is referring to Francis's own 'animus' and not the Holy Spirit, which would open up a further can of worms.
The Herald also refers to the timing of this article, which appeared a few days before the Vatican announced the change to the Catechism, which, the paper says 'caused much debate as to ... whether it contradicted traditional Church teaching'.
However, if it encourages Mark Thomas to actually read articles and check their provenance, rather than trawl the net for random quotations to reinforce his prejudices, then that's a good thing. He also needs to work out his reactions in the event of Rosica's analysis proving accurate.
The quote in blue is gossip and personal opinion. That is all the time I shall spend on reflection there. That aside, I agree with TJM that the positions and antics of the HF, at times, continues to leave the faithful confused and disturbed.
Shame to have to weed through so many MT comments just to find the others. I may have to rest a while as a result!
John Nolan,
Alas, that would never happen because it would require MT to discern and reason.
And of course the release of the abuse inquiry in PA is all just a plot to undermine Francis.....
*I'm just anticipating MT next comments.
Dan -
Francis doesn't need any assistance from PA in that regard. The deviant priests and the bishops who shielded them in PA have ruined many lives in addition to undermining the many good priests who labored among them.
The key to this, IMLTHO, is that the shocking comment was intended as a complement and is a sychophant at work on the scale of a C. S. Lewis character. If, indeed, this is the case then our battle is won because that attitude is applicable to this pope’s innovations, as well. So his successor can gather all of Pope Francis’ works and have them bound up at the curb ready for the EU recycling program.
Mr. Nolan, I don't have any reason to work out reactions "in the event of Rosica's analysis proving accurate."
I made it clear that Father Rosica's comment in question isn't credible. I pay attention to Pope Francis declarations and actions. I am not swayed by those who pretend to interpret Pope Francis' declarations and actions.
Example: I was not swayed by your false interpretation of CCC, #2267...which you pretended was mere Papal opinion.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan said..."However, if it encourages Mark Thomas to actually read articles and check their provenance...then that's a good thing."
Along those lines...
Mr. Nolan, you will do well to read Cardinal Ladaria's presentation of Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty.
That would be a good thing as you would learn that your claim, that CCC, #2267, constitutes mere Papal opinion, is false.
Cardinal Ladaria said that the Pope's teaching in question concerns doctrine.
Mr. Nolan, we must encourage you to actually read that which the Apostolic See transmits.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
Suggestion: You would do well to sit back and listen sometimes. You might just learn something.
Mark Thomas
I did indeed read Cardinal Ladaria's defence of the new CCC 2267. He describes it as 'an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.'
But prior teachings do not say that the death penalty 'cannot be admitted' on the grounds that a) it is contrary to the Gospel and b) that it offends against the inviolable dignity of the human person. In fact they say the opposite, and the Church's moral position on this issue has been remarkably consistent.
That is why, in the previous Catechism entry, JP II was careful to separate the Church's absolute moral teaching which does not exclude recourse to capital punishment from his own prudential judgement (opinion) that the circumstances in which it might be applied are rare if not practically non-existent.
What little explanation Ladaria gives does not settle the argument.
Mr. Nolan:
As you've claimed familiarity with Cardinal Ladaria's presentation in question, I wonder as to why you believe that you trump the Apostolic See's declaration that CCC, #2267, concerns doctrine?
That is, you claimed that #2267 represents Pope Francis' mere opinion in regard to the death penalty. In addition, you claimed that we are free to ignore #2267.
However, three times during his presentation in question — said presentation was authorized by Pope Francis — Cardinal Ladaria declared that #2267 concerns Church doctrine.
If your claims — that we're dealing with mere Papal opinion that we're free to ignore — in question in regard to #2267 are valid, then the Apostolic See's declarations in regard to #2267 — that #2267 concerns doctrine — are false.
Mr. Nolan, you have chided me for my not having read supposedly this or that article or Church document.
However, Mr. Nolan, you have claimed to have read that which the Apostolic See has declared in regard to #2267. But that hasn't prevented you from having placed yourself above the Apostolic See.
You have dismissed Pope Francis' God-given authority over you. God has authorized Pope Francis to teach, govern, and sanctify you. God has authorized Pope Francis to teach, govern, and sanctify the People of God.
But you have positioned yourself as the Holy People of God's teacher, governor, and sanctifier.
Mr. Nolan, you need to practice that which you've preached to me. That is, read, comprehend...then, at least when said reading material concerns Church teaching, obey.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, will you EVER learn?
John,
THIS is not worth your time.
ByzRC,
Agreed
Mark Thomas
Of course CCC 2267 concerns doctrine, which is why those of us who are concerned about doctrine are concerned about CCC 2267.
As for preaching, rather than making unfounded and preposterous allegations about me, perhaps your next sermon could be devoted to convincing the People of God that everything that has emanated from Rome in the past five years has been perfectly clear, unambiguous and non-contradictory. Best of luck with that.
John Nolan,
We will continue to see non sequiturs and rants from this puerile person.
Post a Comment