When I entered major seminary in Baltimore in August of 1976, I did not know that I was going to a very progressive seminary. In fact, I really didn’t understand the major two factions in the Church at that time, the conservative, who wanted to conserve the Catholic Faith and Morals of the Church and the progressives who didn’t want to conserve anything from the pre-Vatican II Church and were “reimagining” the Catholic Church to make it post-Catholic.
I was brought up in a parish and home that respected the pope, bishops, priests and religious of the Church. I was shocked, just shocked, I tell you, when I got to Baltimore and the radical left in my seminary, mostly priests theologians despised poor old Pope Paul VI because he had issued Humanae Vitae only a eight years earlier in 1968. And I remember the uproar in the seminary from faculty and seminarians when Pope Paul VI insisted that only men could be ordained as Jesus only chose men as his apostles. The vitriolic words and names from these radical liberals was diabolical, but acceptable to the Archbishop of Baltimore at that time, a radical liberal himself as well as the others liberal bishops who sent men there.
The theologians at my seminary thought of theologians as a separate magisterium and a kind of magisterium in loyal opposition to the Pope Paul VI and later, in an even more vitriolic way, in opposition to Pope John Paul II. The things they would say about those two popes make me blush even today! Diabolical leftists remain with us to this day!
The difference back then was there was no social media for the diabolical left to spew their hatred of the pope(s) as there is now. But today the radical liberals are as disorganized and all over the place as they have ever been and can’t really find common ground to be a more powerful influence in the social media.
Not true for rad trads who have borrowed from the rad liberals of the 70’s a vitriolic approach to Pope Francis and put it on social media. They are organized and more interesting than the radical liberals who are really, really silly and boring.
But social media has made the radical trads more diabolical than the radical liberals who are like reeds swaying in the wind.
What is really sad about the radical left today, is that they are straining to make Pope Leo XIV as a clone of Pope Francis and they grasp at every straw that might indicated that Pope Leo is really Pope Francis II.
But the poor rad trads did the same thing when Pope Francis was elected. I did too and I am not radical. We thought Pope Francis was going to be in continuity with Pope Benedict but that he shed the trappings of the papacy, was more like the crazy uncle you could invite to your home for lunch in order to rally the radical left to become more centered.
Eventually the rad trads stopped trying to make Pope Francis into Pope Benedict XVII.
When will the diabolical leftists in the Church give up the ghost about Pope Leo being Pope Francis II?
Here’s a time capsule article from June 2013 about the continuity between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. It’s funny to read now, but we really tried hard to find that continuity at the beginning of Pope Francis papacy.
20 comments:
"But social media has made the radical trads more diabolical than the radical liberals who are like reeds swaying in the wind."
So, then, this has been debunked.
"When will the diabolical leftists in the Church give up the ghost about Pope Leo being Pope Francis II?"
When he's on his way to his grave which I hope won't be for a very long time.
"Diabolical leftists" won't give up until they obliterate themselves becoming hopelessly fractured in their own self-centered, self-serving ideological factions. A true cancer that will hopefully mutate itself into history.
Father McDonald,
Here is a must read article on how Vatican II triggered the Church's decline:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/07/conclusion-of-major-new-economic.html#more
It seems like the last few popes are basically avatars onto which folks cast their personal preferences...
I'm always curious how the so-called normal Catholic views this stuff? The person who is just going to church and not really paying attention to all the online noise. Do you get any sense of that in your pastoral work, Father?
Very good question Marc. I was ordained in 1980 when St. Pope John Paul II was pope and he remained the pope until 2005, my first year as pastor of St. Joseph in Macon. In that whole time, I sensed the laity (and clergy for the most part) were very happy with JPII’s papacy. I never heard negative comments about him from the laity. Women Religious, on the other hand, despise him. But the progressive women religious are a dying breed with little or no influence today compared to their heyday when they were solidly women religious.
Pope Benedict became pope when I was at St. Joseph in 2005. At Saint Joseph Church, I think the majority of our parishioners admired Pope Benedict, did not like how the secular media treated him and loved his papal style and desire for beauty in the papacy, liturgy and Church. I never heard anyone and I mean no one in Confession ever confess that they felt guilty about any negative feelings they had about JP II or Benedict XVI. NO ONE! Pope Francis became pope in 2013. Almost immediately I heard confessions where negative feelings about the new pope were causing otherwise faithful Catholics consternation. That continued when I became pastor of St. Anne Church in Richmond Hill, a much younger demographic there compared to St. Joseph Church, although a lot of young families there too. And in retirement negative feelings or attitudes about Pope Francis continue to be confessed in the Low Country of the Diocese of Charleston composed of many, many aging Catholics. I sense a great deal of relief about Pope Leo XIV and a restored sense of calm the laity about about him compared to Pope Francis. Thanks be to God!
I too was not immune from this phenomenon. When JPII was pope, I never thought of the papacy, or him negatively. When Benedict XVI was elected, I was equally at peace, his grandfatherly way, his way of speaking and writing, the beauty he brought back was comforting - the absolute best thing that could have happened after a lengthy preceding papacy.
Francis. Brought out feeling and thoughts within me that I had never felt or thought regarding a pope or the Office itself. It still hasn't left me despite having prayed for Francis' soul and mostly putting him out of my mind. I think like many, it will take a while to shake off all that occurred and just have faith that the occupant will stay the course. Personally, and thankfully, I feel that Leo has been a stabilizing persona....if he'd only put the crucifix back in the center where it belongs!
One wonders about the basis for these "negative feelings" about Pope Francis. Would there have been such about JPII or B16 if the blogosphere maniacs, like those at Rorate Caeli, had been as active or as numerous during those pontificates? Also, might these "negative feelings" - remember, feelings are nothing more than feelings - have arisen from the challenges that Pope Francis presented to the comfortable? (I am thinking here of the saying originally applied to journalism but also applied to faith - "comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.) Again, as we know too well, there are those who, with little understanding of Catholic theology, accuse others of being heterodox, including popes and priests.
I was actually thinking along similar lines... Setting aside people's aesthetic preferences, what did Francis concretely do that caused folks such consternation? And is it possible that the way he was portrayed--in people's self-selected sources of information--contributed more to their difficulties than his actions?
I get why the Trads were mad at him for limiting their preferred liturgical practices; although, I think their basis for those feelings are mostly misguided and sentimental (and certainly contrary to their duty to respect their supreme bishop). But I have to agree there's something to the idea that those folks passions were irrationally inflamed by the coverage from Trad, Inc. news sites and influencers, who are certainly only Catholic in name only since they are effectively denying a core tenet of their supposed religion by failing to adhere to the pope.
FRMJK, that certainly has to be factored in. Early on in Pope Francis papacy, I don’t think it was as much a factor as later, like four or five years later. Almost immediately, though, there was discomfort in many faithful Catholics about Pope Francis. Those feelings escalated or had fuel poured on it by social media much later into Francis’ papacy. But also, instanteous news from the Vatican contributed to negative feelings about Pope Francis, without any commentary by others. People didn’t like what they were hearing and seeing from Pope Francis. They began to sense he was too aligned with the politicos and political disorders of South America. And when Pope Francis received a “hammer and sickle crucifix” from a South American dictator when Francis was there, that, without social media commentary, caused a lot of consternation.
Fr. AJM,
You raise a good point. I, too, was uncomfortable from the moment he stepped onto the Loggia and I couldn't explain why. Then, and unlike the majority of JPII's papacy, social media made coverage of all, including pachamama/hammer and sickle relentless. Then the barbs, insults and what I perceived to be an overly stark approach to liturgy. A malaise, depression and negativity set in that I cannot explain while being puzzled (but not really) by the media worship. I stopped posting on this blog to avoid an accumulation of sin regarding this now departed soul. I followed Fr. Z's advice from early in Francis' papacy, just ignore him. I figured that was the safest way to avoid production line type sin. Since his passing, I've felt guilty about feeling so relieved that it's over while remaining wary of what could happen. Did anything really, really bad happen in the last 12 years. Really now, but, why was going through that much churn necessary and it certainly didn't feel healthy. I realize feelings aren't paramount in spiritual matters, but I cannot hide from them either. Many times, I wished I was like the average pew sitter, mostly indifferent to the churn and the endless news cycles it created.
People here will get a kick out of this, but when Pope Francis was elected, I was watching the live coverage of it in my rectory in Macon and no one other than FRMJK was there too along with the CBS local affiliate TV news! As soon as Francis walked out on the loggia, I had a feeling of doom, not because he wasn’t wearing the Mozzetta and papal stole, I didn’t even notice that, although FRMJK did notice it, I felt doom and gloom when I looked into his eyes and sensed a certain glee from those eyes about what he wanted to do. I can’t really explain my feeling in a coherent, rational way—it was clairvoyant. I agree with Marc, that the ugliness of the rad trad right, especially on social media was and is anti-Catholic an unhelpful. I think early on, even on this blog, I was telling traditionalists to cool it because they were acting like the ugly left acted towards Benedict and JP II. We expected it from the heterodox left but not the so-called orthodox right. We were better than them only to see that they were no better and in some cases worse! They did not help convince Pope Francis that there was nothing to fear from traditionalists but confirmed his disdain for them and they really did bring down SP when Pope Francis, in the most ugly and unpastoral way didn’t just adjust SP but wiped it out and in doing so wiped out Pope Benedict’s papal magisterium which focused on the Liturgy and the Law of Prayer and the Law of belief.
Secondary to my initial negative reaction, which I can’t really explain very well, is how Msgr. Guido Marini looked on the loggia standing next to Pope Francis, he had this look of “O my God” on his face and he looked very stressed out. And then when, for the “Urbi et Orbi” blessing, that was the only point when he put on the papal stole, and Pope Francis removed it immediately after he blessed the city and world as though he really didn’t like priestly vestments that much and only wore them minimally and for the moment.
Agree. Francis had the strangest "deer in the headlights" look coupled with a glare that went right through me like a chill. Msgr. Guido looked positively ill, appeared to be putting on a brave face, but his demeanor said clearly something was wrong. Then the vestment as leprosy at the very end. If I was in the crowd, not watching camera close-ups, I likely would have been oblivious to all that I just said.
Conversely, Leo was clearly appreciating the moment while becoming emotional. Instant love was felt going in both directions.
Father, I think that something has happened in the Trad "movement" that might be more to blame than anything Francis actually did. Looking at it from the outside now (thank God), I can see its flaws are many. While it might have started as an "orthodox right" (which is a good phrase), I am not sure it is like that anymore. Much could be said about it. But, I've been removed from it for a few years now, so maybe I'm wrong.
I was fortunate to have belonged to two different parishes which offered both the Novus Ordo and the TLM. All parties got along and felt comfortable with going back and forth between the two forms of the Mass. I never saw any Rad Trads people keep talking about, but I have seen plenty of leftwing loon Catholics who should have been marginalized!
In the early SP years, and because TLM's were still marginalized to odd mass times and places, I found the attitudes ran the gamut between disenfranchisement to superiority. I also found some of the attendees to be really awkward people socially and I never joined in the breakfast they typically had at a nearby diner/restaurant. By the time TC came about, my sense is some of that was fading away and the TLM was becoming more mainstreamed where I live. By no means was the mainstreaming what some might consider to be an ideal, nonetheless, it was sufficiently accessible given resources (priests mostly) and it was peaceful. The true Rad Trads no longer had anything to complain about and the average pew sitter was able to have their needs met.
I spent some time at an SSPX chapel and at an Institute of Christ the King parish. The folks at the SSPX were fairly normal since they'd pretty much been doing their thing for decades, so nothing really phased them. The ICK folks probably meant well, but they really seem to want to recreate what they imagine the 1950's were like. Not really my scene.
The main problem that I see in Trad Catholicism is that it doesn't make much sense. On the SSPX side, they're obviously schismatic regardless how much they protest against the label: not being in communion with your bishop is the first clue. With the other groups, they tend to bury their heads in the sand and wait for what they imagine a "Catholic pope" to be to come onto the scene... It's all imaginary.
They basically belong to a religious group who doesn't hold their religious beliefs, and then they criticize their leaders for not believing the religion the way they want them to believe it.
I have to agree on the 1950's, Marc. Cars, dynaflows, styles, maybe, social norms that were just unfair to many, no.
The Church changing created their disconnected never-never land and having lived through enough of it, I'm sympathetic. The Church created this almost overnight and the Church needs to fix it. The Church seemed, or continues to seem, content to allow generational turnover to solve the problem. That clearly has not and is not happening.
As Fr. AJM has said, and I wholly agree, if everyone loved the NO so much, all the tinkering that's occurred during the intervening years since its creation would not have happened with tinkering/innovation continuing to this day.
Marc, there have always been fringe groups in the Catholic Church, prior to the East’s schism and afterward too. And the East isn’t immune from it either, prior to their schism and afterward too. I make the point of those going into schism by leaving the full Communion of the Catholic Church which the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, the Patriarch of the West, the Successor of Saint Peter, is the Supreme visual head. Christ is the Head, the pope merely His representative. You know more about the underbelly of the SSPX as well as of Eastern Orthodoxy. But, both are born of the same sentiment. Both disagree with the current pope, whoever that pope might be, and both make determinations about which Ecumenical Councils they will follow and which they won’t. And both claim superior knowledge not given to the reigning pope and the Western branch, post schism. There a kind of pseudo Gnosticism at work, the schismatics know better than the Church in full communion with the Vicar of Christ. And often, a lot of these schismatics are adult converts seeking meaning a purpose in their lives. Many are from Protestantism and have a very Protestant individulistic approach to their Faith constantly going from Church to Church trying to find perfection. Settling for an individualistic and Protestant type of congregationalism either in the SSPX or other Catholic “renewal” groups or the Eastern type of congregationalism is a way to insulate themselves from in a form of pseudo Jansenism from the world, the flesh and the devil. To each his own, I guess. I am an unapologetic papist even when we have bad popes.
The situation with the SSPX and Orthodoxy aren't really analogous, but I can see why you might think that from your perspective. We've discussed Orthodoxy a lot over the past few days, so I won't rehash that part here. Suffice it to say that Orthodoxy never accepted the basic presupposition of papal supremacy since that idea lacked any basis in Church history or the Fathers.
Unlike the Orthodox, though, the SSPX profess to accept the papal claims to supremacy and infallibility. Yet, their actions are contrary to their professed beliefs. Ultimately, their mentality is similar to Protestantism except that, instead of parsing the Scriptures, they parse the papal documents, picking and choosing which ones to accept using their own judgment. This puts them at odds with both the pope and the diocesan bishop -- meaning they have invented their own ecclesiology that happens to support their perceived mission.
Catholicism as a whole lends itself to this sort of thing, though, especially now that everyone has access to the panoply of historical papal documents. Catholics now have the ability to sift through those documents, which prompts some to engage in this Protestant-style approach.
This has been an interesting and informative discussion. And I think it highlights the value of the sort of approach and attitude exemplified by Mark Thomas. Even though some might perceive Mark as a little naïve, I don’t believe he is but instead, despite vilification by some posting here, he provides a helpful and necessary corrective to cynical, unCatholic attacks on the pope. Personally, I have appreciated the very different pontificates, and personalities, of Pope St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis. And I am greatly looking forward to what the pontificate of Pope Leo XIV will bring.
Mark J.
Post a Comment