Translate

Sunday, September 21, 2025

IF POPE FRANCIS HAD BEEN AN AUTHORITARIAN ORTHODOX TRADITIONALIST WITH ALL THE TRAPPINGS, AND FOLLOWING POPE BENEDICT XVI, WHO WASN’T AUTHORITARIAN, WHERE WOULD WE BE TODAY????


The problem with the post-Vatican II Church is that what was believed, prior to Vatican II, that the Church could not and would not change, was blown apart by Vatican II, almost like a nuclear bomb. 

While many Catholics were shell-shocked by that in 1964 and 1965, others, especially the academic elites of the Church, were thrilled and used these changes to remodel the Church into something else altogether different, constantly in flux, like a reed swaying in the wind rather than a rock, immovable, unchangeable. 

While many were saying that all the changes were simply cosmetic and changes to discipline which could change, others were asking for doctrinal and moral changes. Those seeking that kind of change were hit over the head by St. Pope Paul VI and Humanae Vitae.

Yet, that didn’t stop them. And after the long papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, they found their hero-advocate, an authoritarian, some would call a “Peronist” from Argentina. He was schooled in and loved the Church of the 1970’s and of the confusion and stirrings for change that Vatican II’s spirit demanded, that Pope Paul embraced, but to a point, and that of liberation theology of South America and the like.

And the only way Pope Francis could return the Church to the chaos, confusion and hunger for doctrinal and moral changes was to be the authoritarian pope he was and using his form of synodality to do it, plus autocratic, authoritarian Motu Proprios, like Traditionis Custodis and the Cardinal Fernandez Fiducia Supplicans.

Of course the orthodox traditionalists were mortified. Not with an authoritarian pope, but one who was authoritarian in the progressive ilk of those of the 1970’s. 

If Pope Francis had been authoritarian with traditionalist orthodox hopes and desires, he would have been worshipped like a god by them. But alas…

Pope Leo XIV has the difficult task of uprighting the barque of Peter but without tipping it over on the other side. God bless His Holiness with the grace he needs for this superhuman task!

Prior to Vatican II, Catholic laity prayed, paid and obeyed. They had no voice in the leadership of the Church or a vote on anything that went on in the universal, diocesan and parish levels of the Church. 

Today’s form of synodality and all that has organically occurred in the Church since 1965, and now, especially with social media, everyone, everyone, everyone, has an opinion and voice in terms of what they want in the Church and this has become a giant, unmanageable political/religious lobby. 

Even Pope Leo’s penchant for using “I think”, “for now” and “later on” are of this new Catholic mentality that all opinions and hopes are equal and even the pope’s ideas on that are on par with, let’s say, Southern Orders. Fasten your seatbelts, activate the airbags and put on your helmet, none of this Orwellian chaos will change anytime soon until we get an authoritarian, orthodox traditionalist pope. Don’t hold your breath that that will happen soon, if ever. 

10 comments:

big benny said...

Saying the church can’t and won’t ever change is incompatible with the maxim that the church is ever new.

"The church is ever new" refers to the belief that while Christianity possesses ancient foundations, it is continually renewed and relevant for each new generation and time period. This concept, often phrased as "ever ancient, ever new," highlights Christianity's ability to offer timeless truths and practices, such as liturgical worship and spiritual beauty, while adapting to contemporary needs and engaging with a postmodern world. It emphasizes the enduring nature of faith through continuity and innovation, drawing from historic traditions to inspire modern believers.

I find Leo’s use of “I think” reassuring. It demonstrates that he thinks about issues and is not dogmatic about what the future might hold or fixed ideas regarding their solutions..

Augustine famously taught that a bishop’s role was to animate not dominate; none more appropriate for the bishop of Rome! Those seeking an authoritarian pope might wish to question their motivations for doing so and whether such an approach would truly be to the service of the church.

Augustine taught that a bishop should animate and guide, not dominate, by focusing on the spiritual well-being of the community and serving for their advantage, rather than their own glory or power. He cautioned against the "lust for domination" stemming from pride and self-love, which he saw as a motivation for malicious acts and injustice within the church. Instead, a bishop's leadership should be rooted in the Apostolic Rule of love, service, and holding goods in common, which fosters a community "of one mind and one heart, intent upon God".

William said...

Church progressives make a big show asking for guidance. The Holy Spirit generously responds but they reject His gifts of increased religious fervor and increased vocations because they are traditional. Smokeless thuribles!

Mark Thomas said...

https://remnant-tv.com/channel/RemnantTV/video/1481/unite-the-kingdom-pope-leo-s-interview-the-legacy-of-charlie-kirk

Michael Matt, via the above (beginning at the 20:45 mark), denounced Pope Leo XIV's interview with Crux/Elsie Ann Allen. Mister Matt insisted that Papal interviews have proved disastrous to the Church.

He blamed Pope Benedict XVI for having initiated, via journalist Peter Seewald, the "stupid" (Mr. Matt's word) Papal interview process.

Michael Matt said that Pope Leo XIV is the latest Pope who has refused to "teach, govern, and sanctify" us in clear, unmistakable fashion via the Chair of Saint Peter.

Michael Matt argued that Pope Leo XIV instead has followed Popes Benedict XVI, as well as Francis, in destructive fashion via the granting of supposed wishy-washy, what-did-the-Pope-really-say/mean interviews.

Mister Matt proposed that such is modus operandi of the collapsed Vatican II Church.

He insisted as well as that Pope Leo XIV is a man of the supposed failed, destructive Second Vatican Council.

The fallout, at least among certain folks, continues in regard to Pope Leo XIV's two interviews in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

big benny said...

Sounds like Michael Matt thinks he’s either the pope or god!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Michael Matt was to be the Bishop Baitsing of right!

big benny said...

Editor of The Remnant - so a Sede!

Nick said...

Lol, good one!

Nick

big benny said...

It’s official Leo’s approval rating among practicing US catholics in the 80’s (slightly higher among democrats) but 11% never heard of him!

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/more-than-eight-in-10-us-catholics-have-favourable-impression-of-pope-leo-xiv/

big benny said...

Amazing that 11% of practicing catholics don’t know who the pope is. They either zone out / don’t listen to the bidding prayers / eucharistic prayer or attend the TLM in Latin so no clue what’s being said!

Nick said...

Wow, 11% of practicing American Catholics attend the TLM and don't know who the pope is? Plus the ones who do know who the pope is? That's even higher than the 7% I thought... but we'd better make sure their Masses are successfully quarantined and shut down!

Nick