Posted on 05/25/2016 3:19:08 PM PDT by ebb tide
Typically, for the Bear, this is not short. You may find it entertaining, however. It wraps up several issues that have been occupying the Bear's mind lately as he grapples with the why and the how of what he is doing.
Pope Francis: Finally, a Smiling Face to the Horror
For decades we have had to sit and watch helplessly as the Church was consumed by preventable scandal and ceaseless innovation. The enemy was hard to get a fix on. He seemed to be everywhere and nowhere, and his name was Legion. But it was clear that somehow the schwerpunkt of the Church Militant had without question drifted far from the original plan.
In Pope Francis, we have seen, for the first time, the incarnation of the Church's errors and abuses. God has driven into plain view the secret corruption, the pride posing as humility, the indifferentism posing as tolerance, the disregard for the Deposit of the Faith, and the "rebranding" of Catholicism and the papacy that Fr. Rosica is so proud of. In Pope Francis we finally have someone to speak out against, and thereby indict the whole sorry lot of meddlers, swindlers, and sappers: in short, all those who loathe the Church they are supposed to lead.
In other words, we are reacting not only to what Pope Francis personally says and does, but to Pope Francis the Avatar of a different spirit -- the "spirit" of Vatican II, the spirit of the "media council," and, fundamentally, the spirit of the Prince of this world.
One might say we are seeing the beginning of the end of a plot. To simplify, it began with throwing open to the world the windows of the Church. It is ending by tearing down the walls of the Church.
Boundary Issues
But the Church needs walls. It needs to be separate from the world. Distinct from other religions. The Church should be a fortress from which Catholics sally forth into the world, but not as part of the world, not as worldlings fighting trendy secular battles. Everybody should be able to say with confidence, "here is the Church," and "there begins the world." There are Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, but here is Catholicism. Here is the truth, and there is something else, and we do no favors by pretending otherwise.
That sounds so harsh! Intolerant! Real! We would rather live in our fantasy world where if we're just nice enough, everyone will love us. (To be fair, this does seem to be working out for Pope Francis.) It would be easy to twist the the Bear's meaning. He is not advocating hiding behind the walls of the Church while the world goes to Hell. We should engage the world, but with evangelism, not indifferentism; charity, not socialism; truth, not accommodation of error.
We should all be Catholic as if it mattered. Especially the Pope.
Of course, the Franciscan Church has a horror of walls or division of any kind. The supernatural must be tolerated for the sake of the masses, but for the initiates, purple, red and white, "There'll Be Pie In the Sky When You Die" remains the favorite hymn. A sarcastic number right out of the Little Red Songbook. The religion of the Franciscan Church, much like Freemasonry, is The Brotherhood of Man. It is remarkable, but true: you could strip it of every specifically Christian element, and the world would not be able to tell any difference.
This is no accident. Religious differences must be downplayed in pursuit of the 8th Sacrament of the Franciscan Church: the Holy Photo-Op. And, of course, the aforementioned Brotherhood of Man.
The funny thing is, no one in the Franciscan Church would deny that they are tearing down walls and erasing boundaries. They might deny celebrating error, but only because they don't recognize error. The Pope can travel to Sweden this Halloween to commemorate "the blessings" of Martin Luther's reformation because we're all Lutherans now. In other words, what the Bear laments, the Franciscan Church is most proud of. "Rebranding" indeed. A crass and ignorant word to cover a multitude of sins.
The Mad Virtues of Pope Francis
We would do well to remember what Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy. It is almost as if he foresaw Pope Francis. In his day, it was Christianity in general that had been shattered. In ours it is particularly the Catholic Church, but the same warnings apply. No mad virtue is as mad as a Catholic virtue, as we have seen in history.
The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.
Pope Francis is, as far as the Bear can see, more virtuous than the Bear. He is also more mad, if the Bear knows anything about madmen. No virtue may remain merely good with Francis. It must become a mania, a delusion, another shiny object to be incorporated into the narcissistic personality of Francis the Humble, Francis the Tolerant, Francis the Compassionate. Of course, what the Bear calls "madness" becomes "rebranding," or "transcending his own religion."
A Spontaneous Resistance
We who have retained a Catholic identity have universally resisted Jorge Bergoglio. We didn't ask for this. We didn't organize it. It just happened. We found ourselves being appalled by the same things, connecting the same dots, reaching the same conclusions. We speak with one voice from the same vision, without collaboration. The very people who would normally be the Pope's most fervent supporters have become his harshest critics.
Bergoglioism and Catholicism cannot both be right. (The Bear thinks the collection of pathologies motivating Pope Francis deserves the honor of its own name.) The Bear is not going to repeat the indictment here. It is contained in the archives of this ephemeris, and of many others. It is literally becoming difficult to keep up with Francis the Talking Pope. Perhaps the plan is to beat us through attrition, the way he buried the message of Amoris Laetitia in 247 pages that defy all but the most clever and mind-numbing analysis.
If Pope Francis is indeed all we fear he is, there's not much we can do. By and large, people travel with the herd, and try to think the thoughts the world tells them are right. That worked great when a confident Church put the stamp of the Christ on the culture. It was not so long ago that the joke ran: "Hollywood -- a place where Jews make movies selling Catholic theology to Protestants." Not anymore.
The Most Popular Man in the World
Why not just back a winner? The latest poll shows Pope Francis with a popularity rating of 54%, 85% among Catholics, and -- tellingly -- over 50% among agnostics and atheists. "Francis is a leader who transcends his own religion," said Jean Marc Leger, president of WIN/Gallup International. He's the most popular public figure in the world, and has replaced the Dalai Lama as Generic Spiritual Leader. Only Turkey, Tunisia and Algeria don't like him.
Perhaps, any day now, Pope Francis is going to cash in all that full-spectrum popularity to tell the world about Jesus. More likely not. After all, what does "transcend his own religion" mean? What does "rebranding Catholicism and the papacy" mean? Are these words not chilling to any normal Catholic? Do not the pages of old prophecies begin to rustle out of the dust? Whether you want to go there or not, it makes no difference. Prophecies warn about dangers to come. We didn't listen, and now Nebuchadnezzar is in the sanctuary.
From comments out of Catholic officialdom, we know we are heard at the highest levels. Our message is getting through. We speak out, and others take comfort. We try to preserve the truth and condemn error not because we are holy, but because nobody else will do it. Looking over the last three years, we have done a surprisingly good job, in the Bear's opinion. That's how we operate. Independent francs-tieurs. Partisans. The resistance.
This is not to glamorize anyone. Partisans don't always have pure motives, and sometimes go beyond what is reasonably necessary. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we're amateurs. Perhaps our sins will be applied to those who have made the resistance necessary in the first place. We take real risks. One blogger got himself sued by a priest -- papal PR flack Fr. Rosica. But more seriously, we also take spiritual risks.
Ephemerists need your prayers. For prudence, temperance, fortitude, and charity.
Francs-Tieurs
Pope Francis uses the entire spectrum of media to spread his errors. If there's a single problem with the man, it's that he lacks a supernatural dimension. Perhaps he suffers from a cultural resentment and envy coming from his background. He cannot think in proper categories. For example, he recently made the bizarre comment that he sees the evangelization of Europe as "colonialism," Worse, from the same interview, he cannot differentiate between Jesus sending forth his disciples to the nations and the blood conquests of ISIS. Mad virtues indeed. Can madness from a pope really go unanswered? There is hardly a peep from the bishops. Surely all of them are not deaf or in agreement. It would take a lot of courage for a bishop to criticize a sitting pope. The Bear may not be qualified, but at least he's willing to put on his hat, take up his shovel, and start trying to put out some of the brush fires Pope Francis sets.
There is a place for dry and sober analysis. But the internet has its own idiom. The legitimate weapons we place at the service of the Church include agitprop, and sometimes a dash of snark and a dollop of satire, so people will enjoy reading what the Bear writes. (Besides, Bears have a hard time being serious for longer than ten minutes.)
Is it sinful to criticize the Pope? That is not a question the Bear is going to answer for anyone else. It is an important one to him, because, after all, he still has to go to confession like everyone else. We should not perform an evil act so that we may obtain a good result. But the laity has a legitimate say in the Church. The Bear is performing a lawful act by informing, educating, and commenting about this man who has effortlessly twisted the Church according to his own personal hobbyhorses.
In a nutshell, together, we are staying with the "old brand" of Catholicism, before Pope Francis "rebranded" Catholicism and the papacy, and "transcended his own religion." So what if most people say they like Pope Francis? Since when was the truth found in poll numbers? The Bear has noticed that most of the people who like Pope Francis seem to be unfamiliar with his actions, unable to articulate what he has done to earn their approval, or progressive Church dissidents.
If the Pope and his public business are portrayed in an unflattering light, that is an unavoidable consequence, even as it is not the real objective. Few are criticizing the Pope for the sake of criticizing the Pope. Even the Bear, who may take an unholy glee in what he does isn't playing.
The Sin of Silence
But there is also the sin of "adulation." Nobody ever talks about it, so here it is, right from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another's vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages.
CCC 2480.
Funny, the Bear has never heard Fr. Rosica say, "Patheos bloggers are a bunch of sycophantic losers with a pathological need for approval and an aversion to sound doctrine. We must pray for these disturbed, broken and angry people."
Of course, Fr. Rosica's job might be to commit the sin of adulation continuously, but the Bear does not know the man's heart, or how much culpability might be reduced by mental issues, or secret struggles. One must wonder about someone who brags about "rebranding" Catholicism, though.
Rugiemus Quasi Ursi Omnes
When they gave us a Protestantized Mass, we were silent. When they smashed the altar rails, we were silent. When the nuns started dressing in mufti, we were silent. When the bishops cared more about gun control than souls, we were silent. When the mania for interfaith and ecumenism started, we were silent. And when we were told to sing hymns by Martin Luther, we sang. One thing is for certain. We will never be silent again. We are guardians of something. The Bear does not want to label it, because it does not belong to this faction or that. But he thinks his readers know what he's talking about. We encourage one another -- and it is just as much readers encouraging ephemerists as the other way around. Pope Francis and his minions are learning that whatever they do in public will be challenged by some very smart and talented people. (And also, the Bear.) It obviously bothers them.
And the Bear says ultramontanism is solemn nonsense.
Yes, it does. I would respect their position much more if they would at least recognize that. I mean if they are allowed to resist the teachings of a true pope on faith and morals and remain Catholic, then go all out.
However, there are things in Vatican II that contradict the universal ordinary magisterium (religious freedom, ecumenism, etc).
And yet Paul VI tells us we must assent to it.
When someone says this is a non-issue it reminds me of those three monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil (ie. turning a blind eye). It appears that at least you are not doing this.
“Magisterium infallible ... extraordinary and universal ordinary magisterium ...”
I agree that the the magisterium is infallible in its extraordinary and universal ordinary manifestations. I referred to “gobbledygook” because it is only since the late 1800’s that we even had to define these nuances and it can seem as though we are at the proverbial point of defining what the meaning if “is” is.
Truth is not obscure and the magisterium is the magisterium.
The issue at hand is that the Church is indefectible and apostolic and we were told this by Christ Himself.
Therefore, how do we reconcile the fact that there is almost certainly heresy contained within the Vatican II documents and accepted and enabled by the succeeding Popes and Paul VI?
Is the Chair Vacant which means the Church will become and is even now in the process of becoming defectible once the apostolic succession fades when valid Bishops die out as happened to the Church of England and rendering the sacraments ultimately invalid?
An acceptance of that position leads to a defectible Church.
The other position is also very problematic. i.e., the Chair is not vacant but headed by a heretic which is not possible because a formal heretic Pope is de facto “not” (anti) Pope by nature of his heresy.
This is why I invoked Our Lady undoer of knots.
It is a difficult dilemma and the supreme enemy of the Church and Christ is the one who has wrought this confusion.
That in a nutshell causes one to wonder if we are in the end times, but I am not a millenialist type and they have been around and wrong since day one and the Church has pulled out of it, but this one is a real dilemma. Of course the Trinity and Our Lady will prevail and crush the serpent, but ...
Time will tell us in the end, and our trust in the Lord’s promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail. We are in dark times, that is for sure.
Those who live in glass houses...
How ironic that members of one of the smaller breakaway factions have taken to referring to the Church as a "cult." :)
Suggested reading:
It’s Not About You: A Meditation on the Abrupt End of the Acts of the Apostles
You’re right this isn’t about me..and I never said it was. I expressed an opinion about your position...something posters do quite often regarding opposing opinions on forums such as these in case you haven’t noticed. Let’s not make this personal.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Resist-Indefect-P.pdf
Nothing "personal" here, except the sedevacantist presumption to private, "personal" judgment, i.e. their unilateral, sweeping excommunication and contemptuous mockery of those who remain in the Church. Not a winning formula for recruitment.
Really now? Could have fooled me. You highlighted "I" in my post and then proceeded to tell me that "it's not about me" (albeit via another man's sermon). I have not mocked anyone who call themselves Catholic here. In fact, I try very hard to give all Catholics the benefit of the doubt given the mess we are all in these days. I haven't told anyone here they are not Catholic.
On the contrary, a number of non-sedes have used their private judgment to judge that I and other sedevacantists are not Catholic and are out of the Church. However, in my travels in a number of trad forums, I know that most non-sedes recognize that they could be wrong and do not judge sedes in this way.
I happen to think that most of the Catholic posters here (and other forums) are of good will even if I think they are wrong in their position.
Please understand that, in response to your post #41, I was merely pointing out that whether or not you (or anyone else, for that matter) "respects" the points made by other posters is hardly apropos to a factual discussion regarding Church doctrine.
On the contrary, a number of non-sedes have used their private judgment to judge that I and other sedevacantists are not Catholic and are out of the Church.
"Private judgment" has no bearing on the matter. It is the sedevacantists themselves who publicly reject the post-1958 Church. And it is they who publish books and blogs referring to those who remain in the Church post-Vatican II as "catholics" with a small "c", "popes", etc. and host radio shows featuring snarky clerics cackling mockingly at those who remain in the Church. Anyone who spends a minimal amount of time perusing sedevacantist media can see this for themselves. It comes off as very disingenuous to identify as a sedevacantist while making the claim that sedevantists don't judge, when their media openly judges and ridicules faithful Catholics (including faithful, holy priests) who remain on the Ark. The facts speak for themselves.
Pius, we have wildly digressed from the OP. Would not want to irritate the "Bear". Time to agree to disagree.
Pax.
I am certainly not going to just "agree to disagree" with you that I am not Catholic. By telling me that in so many words, you have made it personal whether you wish to admit it or not.
The dogmatic sedevacantists are wrong (those who believe that non-sedes are not Catholic). And those of you who are dogmatic sedeplenists (those who believe sedes are non-Catholic) are equally as wrong. Based on your posts you appear to be a dogmatic sedeplenist.
Pope Pius XI: Mortalium Animos
"...And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time...
...For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith...
...During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills."[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]...
...11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors...
St. Thomas Aquinas:
"It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: "Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve." And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: "The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter's confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him."
(Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36)
Let’s Raise a Glass to the Bad Popes!
"It may seem odd, on the feast day of the Roman Fact, to discuss the less-than-stellar occupants of the Chair of Peter. I would propose that it is precisely these weak and sometimes sordid men who offer one of the most startling historical and apologetical claims for the indefectibility of the church. Catholics ought not to be reticent or ashamed about such men. A frank analysis of their weaknesses shows that often the Church survives in spite of the papacy, while the office endures as a witness to the seamless garment of Church tradition.
The demerits of some of the popes can be broken down into three categories: the inept, the imprudent, and the immoral. It is astonishing among the 265 holders of the office that so few can be charged with any of these (indeed around a third of all popes are recognized as saints). Nonetheless they are to be found; weaklings who refused to teach when teaching was necessary, spectacularly imprudent miscalculators, and downright seedy and Augean characters..."
Well if we’re going to talk about objective realities, those of you who reject the Vicar of Christ’s magisterium (Vatican II), discipline (1983 Code of Canon Law) and liturgy (the Novus Ordo) are schismatic.
Pardon me for observing, Pius, but how in the world are statements like “you have no credibility” and “you appear to be a dogmatic sedeplenist” NOT personal?
Well if one parses words, then sure it can all sound personal. The complete sentence was “if you do XYZ, then you have no credibility”. In addition, I said one “appears to be” which is not the same thing as saying one “is”.
Of course when others tend to make things personal it does make it even harder for the receiving poster to remain objective in his/her posts. Perhaps if others would refrain from judging fellow Catholics as non-Catholic or not remaining on the Ark given the unprecedented Crisis in the Church these days, it would help the overall productivity and tenor of the discussion.
If we want to talk about parsing words...saying that "Blather doing what he does means he has no credibility" is not really a tremendous improvement on simply saying "Blather has no crediblity." xD
Of course when others tend to make things personal it does make it even harder for the receiving poster to remain objective in his/her posts. Perhaps if others would refrain from judging fellow Catholics as non-Catholic or not remaining on the Ark given the unprecedented Crisis in the Church these days, it would help the overall productivity and tenor of the discussion.
Well, from the perspective of both me and Blathernaut, sedevacantists are NOT in the Church, as they reject the legitimacy of validly elected Popes. It would be rather disingenuous for us to pretend that we thought the circumstances were otherwise.
So you both judge that we aren’t in the Church. It’s interesting how it’s easy for you to come to that conclusion but not to the conclusion that Francis is not in the Church ....when we actually profess the Catholic Faith and he does not.
Anyway, I am tired of arguing. The Devil must love what he’s accomplished between the various groups of trads. The fact that there is no unity among the trads is just more proof that there is no pope.
As far as whether I am in the Church, I’ll leave that for God to judge. Heck, if the Vatican II Church is the true Church and Francis is the true pope then I really don’t have anything to worry about given they both teach that other churches are means of salvation.
His errors are myriad, but the sedevancantists make one specific error that separates them from Rome. That is the fundamental difference. It's not that sedevacantists make more theological errors than the Pope---it's that they make one particular error that on its own severs ties with the line of Peter.
True. Those who recognize the current Pope's contempt for the Deposit of Faith are justifiably scandalized. The extremeness of his behavior makes it tempting to want to escape his orbit by denying his legitimacy; however he sits on Peter's throne due to God's permissive will. We need to pray for Francis (along with his partners in chaos). "And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints." (Rom 8:28)
I would argue that the sedevacantist error (if they are even in error which I obviously would say they are not) is not one that severs them with the Church. It would be an error of fact. At best we would be guilty of making a sincere mistake as to the identity of the true pope.
I don’t think anyone can know for sure how God will judge those of us who have tried to remain faithful to the best of our ability in these unprecedented trying times.
God Bless.
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.