"Madmen and sycophants in the Vatican": A FOOTNOTE

I wrote yesterday in criticism of the hypersuperueberpapalist nutters who, in their respective generations, have seemed to wish to assimilate the Roman Pontiff to one of the Persons of the Glorious and Undivided Trinity. Today, I wish very briefly to point out that this tendency, as well as being arguably blasphemous and idolatrous or at least heretical, is contrary to the Tradition of the Universal Church, and to that of the great and glorious Roman Church herself.

At Chalcedon, the Fathers greeted the Tome of S Leo, not with cries of "Christ himself has spoken" or "This is the utterance of the Holy Spirit", but (after carefully examining its text) Peter has spoken through Leo. This is profoundly in accordance with an Irenaean ecclesiology, whereby orthodoxy is witnessed by the identity of the teaching handed down from generation to generation in the particular churches, more especially in those of Apostolic foundation, and most normatively in the Roman Church. And this, of course, is why S Peter ... and very commonly S Paul ... are central to any account we give of the Ministry of the Roman Church within the Oikoumene. They are fontal to that Church's Tradition.

But Olivier Clement of the Institute of S Sergius in Paris has pointed out that Martyrdom adds a further element: "As martyrs - seized, that is to say, by the Resurrection - they are for ever present in Rome". Rome is the place "where the apostles (Peter and Paul) preside daily and where their blood renders constant testimony to the glory of God". And so the tropaia ton Apostolon, the presence of the enshrined bodies of Ss Peter and Paul, guarantee for Theodoret of Cyrrhus that "Rome is the metropolis of Religion".

When, in more recent times, Roman Pontiffs have defined dogma ex cathedra, they have prayed for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before doing so; but they have not boldly claimed to be mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit or to speak upon His inspiration. Even today, when a Pope canonises, he does so auctoritate Domini nostri Iesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra; when at Easter the Indulgence is proclaimed, it is the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul that is mentioned.

Does this matter? After all, a Pope could proclaim nonsense and try to cloak it with talk about being Peter's Successor. Wouldn't that be as bad as all Bergoglio's talk about the Holy Spirit?

I think it does matter, and does make a great deal of difference. Faithfulness to the Didache Petrou, to the freedom guaranteed by the Petrine Ministry, keeps Peter's Successor, and us, safe in the historical and objective realities of Scripture and Tradition, and (let's dare to be down to earth about this) the unavoidable Textuality of each. On the other hand, claims to the inspiration of "the Holy Spirit", unverifiable by objective constraints and controls, can lure us into the servitude of a religion manufactured by man, a cult of Let's Make It Up For Ourselves. This cult is ultimately fashioned upon the model of the old religion of the Gnostics, who created their own fake alternatives to the Tradition received from the Apostles because they felt they knew with such certainty that the Church's Tradition was wrong.

To employ the terminology currently being encouraged by the Enemy himself, it is better to be 'Rigid' in the Faith once for all delivered, than to be led up the infinitely flexible garden path.

Believe me, we do not need some new and horrible dogma that the voice of Bergoglio is the voice of the Holy Spirit. For two millennia, Roman Pontiffs, in harmony with Churches of the East and of the West, have been content with the notion that Ss Peter and Paul are sub Christo the basis of their authority. And the First Vatican Council put this beyond denial when it infallibly defined that the Holy Spirit does not inspire the Pope to teach new doctrine; the claim made by the church's authentic Magisterium is that He helps the Successors of S Peter to guard the Apostolic Tradition, the Depositum Fidei.

What Roman Pontiffs, in communion with the whole Body of Christ, have through so many centuries taught, I know or I can ascertain. Who, or what, Bergoglio's "God of surprises", the "Spirit" his sycophants so enthusiastically endorse, is, I fearfully confess that I do not know.

The error of the Charismatics is to conflate a personal relationship with the Savior with the Word of God. Thus Bergoglio can say, “The Lord is in me as the head of his church, hence my every word is the full expression of His Will. That is apostasy. The Lord speaks through Holy Scripture to his servants. Scripture is not only the proof text it is the source.

Scripture and Tradition - a pope simply has no right to appoint himself some kind of latter day prophet and diverge from Scripture and Tradition. And, furthermore, the “Spirit” (Francis never says Holy) would not be telling him to do so anyway, since the Third Person of the Trinity is certainly not going to overthrow Revelation.

Very interesting that the followers of Bergoglio do not even pretend anymore that he’s simply sticking with the inherited wisdom and doctrine, but perhaps just not expressing it well; they are openly admitting now that he has a different program in mind, and that they are choosing to “follow” this new “prophet.”

I saw a sickening article in Crux where some nutty leftist woman said that she was clinging to Francis and that he was essentially the Holy Spirit himself, so Fr. Hunwicke has a point: both Francis and his followers seem to believe that he is an incarnation of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity and that his words supersede anything that went before. Also, they regard him somewhat the way Mormons regard their leader: when there’s a difficult problem that the think it might be prudent to change (such as the fact that Mormons did not let blacks into their “priesthood”), the head bishop goes to sleep and has a dream that he then comes forward and proclaims and which is then accepted by everybody. That seems to be her belief about the Pope.

And sadly, many poor, blind sheep will likewise follow him and his fellow wolves, due to the deliberately destructive post-Vatican II catechesis which has left them in utter ignorance of the papal role vis-a-vis the Deposit of Faith.

What an important statement from Father and helpful to hear true catechesis.

Where are the rest of the Shepherds hiding? Particularly in the West. Is the West entirely gone by now?

There are no solutions coming forth, no one saying it’s time to skip out of the Novus Ordo and flee to the hills to the banished TLM, which in many cases means prohibitive drive time (8 hours roundtrip). This means once a month attendance?

Don't know. It's a terrible dilemma. My Dad always impressed upon us that to miss Mass is a sin. Currently drive 200 miles round trip on Sundays to an "approved" Tridentine Mass (an impossibility during the week). So on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, took my family to a Novus Ordo, and the priest actually made lewd double entendres regarding the Mother of God. Have walked out of this church multiple times due to similar disgusting behavior by the priests and riotous response of the congregation. Last week, the priest's remark was so revolting that even this particular numbed-down congregation groaned. Due to the paucity of Masses in my area, the choice during the week is to either miss holy days or endure constant sacrilege. If the Mass we currently attend on Sundays is rendered obsolete by the powers that be, SSPX will be our next destination.

Thank you for sharing that. I get scolded by devout Catholics, and one priest, when I hint at the thought of receding locally. But, my condition of dismay, frustration and sometimes silent rage, to the point of tearing up, makes me so improperly disposed I can not receive our Lord, as it is.

I would be okay for Holy Days, locally, I think, as a sacrifice to the Lord.

I do not suffer the vulgar, as you my friend, but laxity, disinterest and agenda driven homilies fit for 2nd grade level. Piety is neither taught nor practiced. Hauling them in by Easter confirmation rules the course work, ready or not.

There is no real hope for the TDL here, in my future. Finally, we are preparing our case with a Canon lawyer to start the dreary process moving, and the prospects just as dreary when it lands in Rome.

But, my condition of dismay, frustration and sometimes silent rage, to the point of tearing up, makes me so improperly disposed I can not receive our Lord, as it is.

Does righteous anger in response to religious indifferentism render one "improperly disposed"? "And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." If the Mass is valid, the puerility of the sermon, music, etc. doesn't impede the outpouring of graces.

"One single Mass gives more honor to God than all the penances of the Saints, the labors of the Apostles, the sufferings of the martyrs, and even the burning love of the Blessed Mother of God." (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

To put this situation in perspective, those of us who struggle to find reverent (or even valid) Masses in this difficult era are at least able to access the Sacraments to some degree. Imagine how painful it must have been for those Christians who lived under the interdict of Pope Innocent III.

"...Pope Innocent responded by placing England under Interdict (1208). The interdict suspended Christian services and the administration of sacraments (except baptism, confession, and last rites); the dead were denied Christian burial..."

https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%20114%20John%20in%20crisis.htm

I appreciate the sharp lesson of history, here, that you shared. I did not know it. I do understand the outpouring of the great graces of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Where I stumble is most often between that understanding juxtaposed against my disposition of indignant rage at the time. A total failure to overcome the “self” I say to myself, and trust in God that while it may be righteous anger and I am full of it, it is a suffering I should accept as a good, for my salvation as well as others.

I am thinking in my case that my agonized “preferences” for much greater piety, devotion and holiness is a small price to pay, during this era of severe buffeting, one that I should be able to pay simply by overcoming my “self”, for one hour, and focus outside of myself and my offense. Especially in light of others who suffer greater indignities, even “unto death”. I do think about them.

If I impose no standard against myself, I fear a laxity might be “catching” and I might grow careless toward striving for any valid proper disposition just as I abhor now, in these failed Novus Ordo celebrations.

There is no counsel of worth and certainly no spiritual advising going on. So, here I sit, longing for a Cardinal Burke in my life.

I never miss Mass. I am just sorrowful at the waste of Spirit.

How is it a matter of "preference" when one experiences a pained reaction to the insults and the laxity toward God taking place before their eyes at Mass? What "offense" would you objectively be guilty of for being justifiably disturbed by these things? And it's difficult to imagine how such "laxity might be catching" when the sights and sounds of such goings-on pain you so intensely. Perhaps Catholics suffering in such situations are being called to offer prayers of reparation in response. There is a little book called "Prayers and Heavenly Promises", by Joan Carroll Cruz which contains a collection of prayers of reparation, and many others as well. IIRC, didn't Cardinal Burke particularly ask us to offer the Holy Face prayers in support of the Church's mission? PRAYERS OF REPARATION TO THE HOLY FACE OF JESUS

There is no counsel of worth and certainly no spiritual advising going on.

Thank God pre-Vatican II spiritual writings have become more widely available electronically. Spread them around wherever possible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.