Posted on 07/08/2021 9:24:28 AM PDT by ebb tide
While the Pope is recovering in the hospital (best wishes for Jorge Mario Bergoglio that he gets well), it is only natural to reflect, by analogy, on the state of health of the Catholic Church.
Multiple analyses now, both from the “right” as well as the “left,” say that the diagnosis is frightening: a comatose state. The number of people who go to church is decreasing, vocations are falling dramatically, the number of those who believe in eternal life and the resurrection continues to decrease. The “ABCs” of the faith are crumbling day by day – and this is the most serious crisis, far more serious than the crisis caused by either sexual or financial scandals perpetrated by men of the Church. Certain phenomena, such as the German “Synodal Way,” are not evidence of any residual vitality but rather are simply the thrashing of a body that is in agony.
Some time ago I wrote a pamphlet (partly an essay and partly a dystopian story) entitled Come la Chiesa finì [How The Church Ended]. Well, I would say now that we can leave out the adjective “dystopian.” All you have to do is look around: the Church is ending. The shell exists, but there is no longer any substance. I also wrote an article called Roma senza papa [Rome Is Without A Pope], in which I argued that, beyond the canonical questions of who is actually the Pontiff, Rome is de facto without a Pope, because the Pope has long since ceased doing his job (confirming his brothers in the faith) and has become a sort of chaplain to the United Nations and politically correct humanitarianism. Those who love to put labels on ideas accused me of sedevacantism. In reality, what I see here as vacant is reason, even before faith.
I came to understand that the Church has ended one Sunday a few months ago, when I heard a parish priest, terrified of Covid, say during his homily: “Thank goodness we have sanitizing gel and distancing. However, the less in number we are, the better we are.” I would say that this is a certification. If a priest, a parish pastor, one who, we may assume, attended seminary for a number of years and perhaps even a pontifical theological school, expresses such a thought, it means that the Church is over. Period. You will object: “But you are talking about one single case, you can’t generalize.” True. But in my opinion this parish priest was, to put it simply, too brutally blunt and sincere. Others try to sweeten the pill, but the essence of what they think is this: they believe more in sanitizing gel than in holy water (which in fact has been eliminated), more in social distancing than in the miraculous power of the Holy Eucharist, and more in the directives of the technical-scientific Committee than in the Word of God. What is there to add? End of story.
Of course, the Church, which belongs to Christ, cannot end, and she is already being reborn: smaller, more hidden, more persecuted, freer, and truer. But the Church as we have understood her and lived her up to now is over. The Church that is being reborn has nothing to do with the hierarchy and bishops’ conferences and congregations of the Roman Curia. That boat has been shipwrecked and has sunk. The Church which is being reborn, sustained by the Spirit, is a miracle of faith: spes contra spem, a sign of total contradiction in relationship to the world. A Church that is – I apologize for using this term – a bit guerilla, because she is not organized and often is not visible. She is there, but there is little to see, or even nothing at all to see, and she doesn’t even want to be seen. She keeps the flame burning in ways that are both ancient and new. She combines Tradition with the inventiveness that comes from love. She looks with dejection at the official documents, at the policies and pastoral plans. Indeed, she ignores all this because she knows that the only thing that can come from there now is an attack on the faith. Since she thirsts for the Truth, she goes directly to the source of the water that gives life, and she gathers around the very few remaining shepherds, who are themselves hidden and persecuted.
The conversion that is required of us today – beyond the daily one of saying no to sin and choosing God – concerns the very way in which we think of the Church: leaving behind all that we have known and entering into a new dimension, under the banner of smallness, hiddenness, and persecution.
The phenomenon of Covid caused an acceleration, but the process was already underway. As far as I am concerned (I say this only to explain how my thinking has developed, certainly not because I think that my case is paradigmatic), the turning point occurred with Amoris Laetitia. I have said it and written it now many times: when I realized that apostasy had woven its way into that document, the veil fell. I stopped being a “regular” Catholic and I became a “guerilla” Catholic.
We do not know what things will be like post-Bergoglio. Of course, we know that papal authority, already undermined, has received a mortal blow with this pontificate. Once upon a time we said: “Roma locuta, causa finita” – “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” – when Rome, or rather the Pope, had authority that was both recognizable and recognized. Now we could say: “Roma locuta, qui curat?” – “Rome has spoken, who cares?” The answer is: nobody cares. The voice of the Pope is one among many, and it is not even one of the most authoritative. I am not laying the blame on Bergoglio, who is only the last link in a long chain. Indeed, paradoxically, Bergoglio has had the “merit” of bringing the matter out into the open. I read that someone called Francis a “happy hour pope” [papa da aperitivo]. It might seem like a nice definition, but it’s actually terrible. If the pope’s voice may be compared to what we can gather from people who are sitting at the bar, it means that papal authority is dead and buried. And who will be able to restore it? And how?
And so, these are the little thoughts I wanted to share, dear friends of Duc in altum, while the Pope is in the hospital (and again, with best wishes for Jorge Mario Bergoglio that he gets well).
First published at Duc in altum, 7 July 2021
Ping
“...the number of those who believe in eternal life and the resurrection continues to decrease...”
Well is it any wonder why? Considering the leader of the Catholic Church himself does not believe, why should his parishioners.
I think someone has decided to get rid of the Pope.
However, I also know of two patients that had bowel obstruction and necrosis after receiving 2 Pfizer vaccine injections.
the turning point occurred with Amoris Laetitia. I have said it and written it now many times: when I realized that apostasy had woven its way into that document”
I’d be grateful if someone could explain particulars. I’m certain the author is correct, but I’d like to understand more precisely. Thank you.
Or, maybe we do?
In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop]. Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge[a] will judge his people. The End.[17]
A couple of links you might find useful. They zero in on the main problems with Amoris Laetitia:
https://catholicstrength.com/2017/11/02/why-amoris-laetitia-is-much-worse-than-originally-thought/
Is Dr Jill Biden running the Vatican too while il Papa is in hospital?
In a nutshell, the historic Catholic teaching has always been that you need to be in a “state of grace” to receive Holy Communion. The notion was that you’re not currently sinning and you’ve repented from past sins. This was typically achieved through the sacrament of confession. The “revolution” of Amoris Laetitia was that someone who’s objectively not in a state of grace (for example, someone who left their valid Catholic marriage and is now having sex with another partner, civilly remarried or otherwise, with notintention of stopping) might be admit to Holy Communion after all through some vague process of discussing the situation with their local priest. The gay lobby went gaga over all this because they realized that if they hetero divorced and remarried could be sufficiently in a “state of grace” despite having sex with someone who wasn’t their legitimate spouse under Catholic teaching, then the gays would be entitled to the get the same “free pass.”
hard to argue with that.
Interesting when you put it in context of rome's reactions during a particular "squabble amongst few monks" of the early 16th century. I guess this is what happens when there is a scarcity of a stake, firewood and a pack of matches.
Bingo!
And I think if Bergoglio would have a frank conversation with you, he would be proud to be chaplain to the U.N.
They found 3 hot wheels cars stuck up his boo boo
thank you. that’s an excellent explanation.
I have another question, and forgive me if it is an amateurish one...:)
But what is the status of Amoris Laetitia? Is it ex cathedra? And who makes that decision, anyway?
What I keep hearing apologists for this pope saying goes something like this: “yes, he’s said some stupid things, but none of these are official, because they are off the cuff remarks....he is not speaking ex cathedra, and is not speaking for the church....therefore, it’s not heresy”.
Would love your explanation/answer to that.
Thank you again.
wow, thank you for those links. the one on paragraph 301 is especially helpful.
even as an outsider looking in, I have always had the highest regard for Veritatis Splendor. And it’s incredible author :)
There is no rational conclusion except to note that Amoris Laeitis dramatically departs from Veritatis Splendor.
That is a truth.
It’s an Apostolic Exhortation, not an Encyclical.
and that is of lesser status, presumably?
So - don’t know if this is something I need to take to Confession, but I have been very unhappy with this Pope, right from the git-go.
When I pray for him, it’s something like this: “Lord, you took Arius (was it? pardon my bad history details) out at the Council of Trent/ split his intestines wide open before he was able to speak to the assembly. Now I am not suggesting you do this with PF, but I am just urging you to please get him out of the Vatican.”
I did a double-take when I read he was in the hospital for intestinal surgery.
The “ex cathedra” thing is very narrow. The pope has to make it clear that he’s declaring something to be definitively part of the Catholic faith. I believe that the last one was the statement by Pius XII in 1950 that the Assumption of Mary was definitively part of the Catholic faith.
Bergoglio works around the edges. His game is to hint at something but stop short of saying. It’s a wink-and-a-nod approach that employs vagueness and ambiguity. He doesn’t want to be on record as overtly contradicting the catechism, but he makes clear that he’s ignoring it too. When critics question his approach, he slams them as rigid “doctors of law” comparable to the Pharisees who tried to trip up Jesus.
comparable to the Pharisees who tried to trip up Jesus.”
or, recently, like Paul (Saul) before his conversion....
the problem with his apologists, then, is that he can never really be called out for an error....if he never speaks ex cathedra, then it’s like he never says anything....in their mind...therefore everything is hunky dory
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.