Or, How I Learned to Stop Caring and Play the O! Brother Francis Drinking GameTM (or, O! BFD G).
[I have amended this post, as indicated by the text in red.]
Pardon me as I once again post some excerpts from the Pope’s tumultuous “encounters” so far. They take on new meaning and implications with each passing day, and thus make for a daily spiritual ice-bath. The key in this post is to note the resonance, not only between the passages from two authors whom I cite after citing the Pope, but also between his cited words and those of the speech I cite at the end of this post.
+ + +
From the Pope’s 4 September 2013 letter to Eugenio Scalfari:
“I would not speak about ‘absolute truths, even for believers, in the sense that absolute is that which is disconnected and bereft of all relationship. Truth, according to the Christian faith, is the love of God for us in Jesus Christ. Therefore, truth is a relationship. As such each one of us receives the truth and expresses it from within, that is to say, according to one’s own circumstances, culture and situation in life [or, Sitz im Leben!], etc. This does not mean that truth is variable and subjective, quite the contrary. But it does signify that it comes to us always and only as a way and a life. Did not Jesus himself say: “I am the way, the truth, and the life?”
It is a subtle point, but worth noting. While truth, according to Pope Francis is not s”variable and subjective,” its expression/conception always is, and therefore its expression/conception is always susceptible to historical change.
+ + +
From the Pope’s 19 August 2013 interview (released 21 September) with Fr. Spadaro (not all of them in proper sequential order, sorry):
“Discernment is always done in the presence of the Lord, looking at the signs, listening to the things that happen, the feeling of the people, especially the poor. My choices, including those related to the day-to-day aspects of life, like the use of a modest car, are related to a spiritual discernment that responds to a need that arises from looking at things, at people and from reading the signs of the times. …
“Only in narrative form do you discern, not in a philosophical or theological explanation, which allows you rather to discuss. The [Jesuit] style … is … shaped by … discernment, which of course presupposes discussion as part of the process. The mystical dimension of discernment never defines its edges and does not complete the thought. The Jesuit [Pope] must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking. …
“I do not want token consultations, but real consultations. The consultation group of eight cardinals, this ‘outsider’ advisory group, is not only my decision, but it is the result of the will of the cardinals, as it was expressed in the general congregations before the conclave. And I want to see that this is a real, not ceremonial consultation. …
“The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church. … Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture…. Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are … as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualising its message for today … is absolutely irreversible. … When does a formulation of thought cease to be valid? When it loses sight of the human or even when it is afraid of the human…. The thinking of the church must recover genius and better understand how human beings understand themselves today, in order to develop and deepen the church’s teaching. …
“[T]he thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. … The structural and organisational [R]eform[ation]s are secondary — that is, they come afterward. The first [R]eform[ation] must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, … who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost. The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials. The bishops, particularly, must be able to support the movements of God among their people with patience, so that no one is left behind. But they must also be able to accompany [accommodate?] the flock that has a flair for finding new paths. Instead of being just a church that welcomes and receives by keeping the doors open, let us try also to be a church that finds new roads, that is able to step outside itself….
“Finding God in all things is not an ‘empirical eureka.’ When we desire to encounter God, we would like to verify him immediately by an empirical method. But you cannot meet God this way. God is found in the gentle breeze perceived by Elijah. The senses that find God are the ones St Ignatius called spiritual senses. Ignatius asks us to open our spiritual sensitivity to encounter God beyond a purely empirical approach. A contemplative attitude is necessary: it is the feeling that you are moving along the good path of understanding and affection toward things and situations. Profound peace, spiritual consolation, love of God and love of all things in God – this is the sign that you are on this right path. …
“God manifests himself in historical revelation, in history. Time initiates processes, and space crystallises them. God is in history, in the processes. We must not focus on occupying the spaces where power is exercised, but rather on starting long-run historical processes. We must initiate processes rather than occupy spaces. … This gives priority to actions that give birth to new historical dynamics. And it requires patience, waiting. …
“If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions — that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation.
“The risk in seeking and finding God in all things, then, is the willingness to explain too much, to say with human certainty and [dogmatic?] arrogance: ‘God is here.’ We will find only a god that fits our measure. The correct attitude is that of St Augustine: seek God to find him, and find God to keep searching for God forever. …
As the Hallmark card says, the journey is the destination.
“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus.
“The young Catholic churches, as they grow, develop a synthesis of faith, culture and life, and so it is a synthesis different from the one developed by the ancient churches. …
“St Vincent of Lerins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. … [T]he other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings [over time?] is wrong. … There is always the lurking danger of living in a laboratory. Ours is not a ‘lab faith,’ but a ‘journey faith,’ a historical faith. God has revealed himself as history, not as a compendium of abstract truths.“
And lastly I provide a couple of excerpts from the Pope’s 9 October 2013 interview with Scalfari:
“We need to learn to understand each other, listen to one another, and increase our knowledge about the world around us. It often happens that after one meeting I want to have another one because new ideas emerge and new needs are discovered. This is what is important: to know one another, to listen to one another, broaden the range of thought. … [O]ur objective is … to listen to needs, aspirations, disappointments, desperation and hopes. We must restore hope to the young, help the elderly, open up to the future and spread love. To be poor among the poor. We must include the excluded and preach peace. Vatican II, inspired by John XXIII and Paul VI, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to open up to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that opening up to modern culture would mean religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. Subsequently, however, little was done in that regard. I have the humility and ambition to want to do it. …
“I decided that the first thing to do was to appoint a group of eight cardinals to be my advisors. They are not courtiers but rather wise men who share my intentions. This is the beginning of a Church whose organization is not only vertical but also horizontal. When Cardinal Martini spoke about this and emphasized the role of the Councils and Synods, he knew only too well how long and difficult the road ahead in that direction would be. It must be taken with prudence, but also firmness and tenacity.”
As you’ll see, you’re lucky we haven’t started playing the O! BFD G yet!
Now let me quote from an unclean source: a rigorously Thomistic tome written before Vatican II. It is titled Nature, Knowledge and God, and was written by Brother Benignus in 1947. I shall cite pages 439 and 440:
“Modernism gets its name from the fact that it is an effort to modernize religion, that is, to bring dogmas and ecclesiastical institutions into harmony with modern scientific knowledge and with modern social needs. Its aim is, in the words of one of the Catholic modernists, Abbé Loisy, ‘To adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral, and social needs of the day.’ … [M]odernists … clung to the old faith, but ‘reinterpreted’ it to bring it into harmony with the ‘new knowledge.’ The traditional conceptions of revelation and dogma had to be radically changed so that they would … be able to remain valid in a world of changing needs … under the universal law of evolution. …
“[According to Modernism, faith] in the supernatural must find some other foundation than intellect, for intellect is only in the realm of the material and sensible [i.e. the empirical, the ‘lab faith’]. This new foundation is feeling–man’s feeling for God, his inner aspiration for perfection. There is no such thing as Revelation in the sense of a direct communication of supernatural [or abstract] truths from God to man. Rather, it is man’s feeling for God that is the source of revelation. The human soul, reaching upward toward the unknowable God, endeavors to interpret its spiritual experiences and sentiments in intellectual [or, ideological?] formulas. … [The value of the Church’s dogmas] lies in their usefulness in preserving faith, and they preserve it as long as they are relevant to man’s needs. When they have outlived their usefulness they ought to be abandoned. Hence the truly religious soul will strive constantly to bring the Church to modernize its teachings. … The only source of dogma, according to modernists, is private consciousness; dogmas come into being with the rise of new needs and pass away with the passing of these needs. The truth of dogma is not its conformity to a real fact or object, but its capacity to satisfy a momentary need of the religious sentiment.”
Now let me cite from a much less prurient source, namely, one that was published in the heyday of Vatican II. I shall cite pages 35 of The Catholic Catechism (1975) by Fr. John Hardon, SJ:
“How does a Christian, in Modernist language, pass from agnosticism in the secular order of faith to faith in the order of religion? He does not. Nothing from outside of man explains faith. It is uniquely from within. In fact, it is part of our nature, ‘a kind of motion of the heart,’ hidden and unconscious [like leaven]. It is a natural instinct belonging to the emotions; ‘a feeling for the divine’ that cannot be expressed in words or doctrinal propositions [or a compendium of abstract truths? or a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently?] because it has no intellectual content to express.”
Indulge me to cite one more time one of my all-time favorite Francisian nuggets:
Only in narrative form do you discern, not in a philosophical or theological explanation…. The mystical dimension of discernment never defines its edges and does not complete the thought. The Jesuit [Pope] must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking.
By now you might want to know how to play the O! BFD G.
Simple enough.
The following rules may be retroactively applied to the quotations above, and/or limited to the speech cited below, but the optimal method is to play as often as possible as this papacy continues to unfurl its murky chrysalis.
Rule 1. If you hear the word “modern” or “future”–drink!
Rule 2. If you hear the word “open” or “bridge”–drink!
Rule 3. If you hear the word “dialogue” or “the people”–drink!
Rule 4. If you hear the word “reform”–capitalize and reify it (The Reform…), steady your hand, and then drink.
Rule 5. If you get called a hater, a Pharisee, a RadTrad, or functionally illiterate–oops, time to stock up again.
+ + +
Jitters all gone now? If so, let’s wrap things up by listening to the other side of the echo effect in this post.
Whispers in the Loggia (Rocco Palmo) provides the full text and audio of some talks that Pope Francis’s personally appointed coordinator of the Francis-selected Gang of Eight, the Honduran Cardinal Maradiaga, gave recently in Dallas. Palmo calls it “the vision of this pontificate through the eyes of the closest thing Francis has to a ‘Vice-Pope.'” It’s 5,500 words. I will not be fisking the speech, but I will leave you with some of my favorite knee-slappers so far.
But first, a modest conceptual framework.
The new head of the CDF, Cardinal Müller, recently issued a lengthy defense of the Church’s teaching on divorce, remarriage, and communion. It was taken with great relief (albeit in stride) by Pope Francis’s defenders, since surely a prelate as high up as Müller, addressing a major topic about which the Pope, to much media fanfare, has spoken in the past few months, is speaking in loco Papae. This feat of magisterial ventriloquism was taken as another handy vindication that Pope Francis is, in fact, not out to deform the Church’s tradition, after all. But what’s sauce for the Müller is sauce for the Maradiaga. If Müller is supposedly a hand-puppet for the Pope on divorce, then might not Maradiaga be a pilot test for the newest face of Catholicism? If Müller was speaking in the very voice of Pope Francis, then we have every right to assume that Maradiaga is doing the same.
Even so, I grant that no one, not even the Pope, can ensure that his selected aides always and totally express his own ideas. I am willing to grant that there is a gulf between Maradiaga’s Spiritism-of-Vatican II pontifications and the Pope’s own views of the matter. Indeed, given the Pope’s famously warm rapport with Jews, if this news is reliable (“Is Pope Frontrunner From Honduras Anti-Semitic? Cardinal Rodriguez [Maradiaga] Blamed Priest Abuse Scandal on Jews” – 17 February 2013), it seems that Maradiaga may have very different feelings about the Jews.
Which is an interesting dialectical twist in its own right: for if we grant a wide divergence of thought between the Pope and Maradiaga, we are logically compelled to grant a similar cleft may exist between Müller and the Pope. Interesting times.
Wassail!
Keeping in mind, then, the Neo-Theodrome of quotations that began this post, take a whiff of the groovy space brownies baking in the Gang of Eight Bakery. [DRINK-SPIT-LAUGH WARNING!]
The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.
Wait a minute. If Vatican I was a dogmatic and infallible council, while Vatican II, by its own charter, was merely a pastoral council (with admitted ambiguities built into it), and if Vatican I condemned the essence and implications of Modernism, then how could the pastoral Vatican II rescind any dogmas of Vatican I?
Incidentally, reading this comment finally swayed me to add this caveat, which I had intuited when I was writing this post, but was not confident enough about to bother including: Technically, I think Cdl. Maradiaga is incorrect when he says that Vatican I condemned Modernism, but–I take his point to be that, insofar as the post-Vatican I Church was vigorously anti-Modernist, Vatican I was the magisterial fuel for condemning said anti-Modernism. Thus, insofar as the goal of Vatican II was to redress the “fortress” ecclesiology of Trent and Vatican I, it entailed rejecting the post-Vatican I Church’s anti-Modernism, and thus entailed marginalizing the anti-Modernism latent in Vatican I. Even with that caveat, though, I think Maradiaga’s point is as clear as it is damning: Vatican II intentionally embraced Modernism.
Further, and I mean this genuinely, how can a pastoral council be infallible? I understand that the reception of Vatican II is an infallible expression of the ordinary Magisterium, but if each particular doctrinal component of Vatican II is merely pastoral, how can any one component (unless it plainly just reiterates prior infallible canons) be considered infallible? I accept the claim that it is an infallible teaching of the Church that the texts of the Second Vatican Council must be obeyed insofar as they conform to the Tradition, but that is logically distinct from the claim that the texts themselves are infallible. Pondering…..
In any event. Back to Maradiaga:
“Within the people [of God], there is not a dual classification of Christians –laity and clergy, essentially different.”
I think the shamans of the Spirit of Vatican II need to dust off their copy of the actual texts of Vatican II, because according to Lumen Gentium, #10, 2:
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist.
Sorry! Back to not fisking.
“Even Christ himself did not proclaim or preach Himself, but the Kingdom. The Church, as His disciple and His servant, ought to do the same. … She must do this service living in the world, herself a part of the world [!] and in solidarity with it, because ‘the world is the only subject that interests God.’“
I…
But…
It’s just…!
Back to macro-fisking!
John 17: 14 I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. 16 They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world.
Romans 12: 2 And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.
James 4: 4 Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that the scripture saith in vain: To envy doth the spirit covet which dwelleth in you? … 8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners: and purify your hearts, ye double minded. 9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into sorrow.
I John 2: 15 Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever. 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. … 24 … [L]et that which you have heard from the beginning, abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise which he hath promised us, life everlasting. 26 These things have I written to you, concerning them that seduce you.
And now back to Cardinal Wackytobbacky:
“[W]ith the dawning of the Age of Vatican II, the] Church did not have a monopoly on truth [?] anymore, nor [!] could she pontificate on a thousand human matters, or hold stances denoting arrogance or superiority. Instead, she should go out into the common arena, plainly and humbly, and share in the common search for truth.“
As if the Church had ever claimed to have a monopoly on all truth. On the truth of salvation, yes; on everything else, much less “a thousand human matters”? Child, please.
If you go on to read the whole of Maradiaga’s speech, be sure to bring a designated driver. Happy drinking!
FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam" fidescogitactio @ gmail . com 
Bonus fun: Maradiaga is a good ol’ fashioned Jew-baiter with *fascinating* theories about the sexual abuse crisis.
http://forward.com/articles/171392/is-pope-frontrunner-from-honduras-anti-semitic/
If I try to play this, I’ll rapidly find myself broke, with an empty liquor cabinet, and unable to do my job.
As Jimmy Buffett taught me, “If we couldn’t laugh, we’d all go insane.”
If you play Elliot’s game, you won’t need to be embalmed after your (rapidly-approaching) death.
What am I supposed to cover, Ben?
I don’t know, Ben. You read Pascendi, then you read Francis and Maradiaga, and you can’t help but scratch your head. The point is, with BXVI “condom kerfuffle” it was pretty easy to see he did not intend to approve of condom use, and HE cleared it up pronto. With Francis, it is not that “easy,” and as of yet, I have not heard Francis himself say “this is what I meant,”..”I was misquoted” yadda yadda. If Francis does that somewhere, great – where is it? Where can you get the secret Franics decoder ring that turns this all perfectly orthodox? As for Maradiaga, the only defense is that hopefully he does not represent the thinking of the Pope.
BENNNN!!!! CALM DOWN!!!! WORDPRESS AUTOMATICALLY FILTERS WHAT IT THINKS ARE DUPLICATE POSTS. YOU ARE BEING ATROCIOUS. CALM DOWN OR BE QUIET.
Ben. Calm down. WordPress automatically filters what it thinks are duplicate posts. You are being atrocious. Calm down or be quiet.
Even without CAPS on, Ben, I think you’d have to admit that you come across as a shouter and a chest-beater. I don’t have any time for interactions like that. You can post pretty much anything you want here, but don’t expect me to let myself get dragged into a flame war with, well, I think you know your reputation. Am I right? You yourself admit you’re in “full Ben Yachov mode”, but that entire persona is not someone I want to deal with. It’s unhealthy and, I believe, ultimately futile. All the best,
While I don’t share Ben’s tone I think his points are valid. And he has another point, to be honest – he’s really not treating you any worse than you treat Pope Francis here.
Codg, I’ve been very critical of you. In my defense, you have been very critical back. That’s fine, if I dish it out I should be able to take it, so go right ahead. But honestly I think you’ve been twisting Pope Francis’s words more than Ben and other “defenders” have. Crude offered you a challenge in the comments section of his blog, and I’d love to see you take him up on it.
Here’s the thing: You are selectively quoting the Pope, and then you are claiming that if we reply that you need to read everything he says in context, well, that means he’s not being clear. I think that’s completely ridiculous, but you’ve been pretty insistent on this. Oh, not in as many words, but I think the objective observer should be able to point this out with ease.
Malcolm:
First, this is a blog. I’m an obscure layman. If I’m really such a vicious moron, why do my Catholic betters bother coming here? If I’m not making any cogent points, why not just write me off and let me decorate my echo chamber with my confused little band of readers? In any case, to imply that the pastoral duties of an obscure lay blogger are on par with those of the Pope’s duties to speak clearly and consistently, is literally laughable. The apparently insuperable inability of certain Catholics to lay even SOME of the blame for all this rancor and confusion among the faithful at the feet of the Pope, is a thing of fearful wonder. Meanwhile, I gladly and loudly promote the Pope when he teaches beautifully and passionately for our Faith (largely on my Facebook and Twitter, when I used to use it). If just happens that this blog is where I work through my faith struggles of late.
I’ve honed my worries (in the intellectual sense) down to a few key themes and trends in Francis’s papacy. I’m trying to read him in the context of his formative background and, especially in this post, through the lens of those whom he emulates and whom he chooses virtually to speak his mind for him. If you can’t see how Madriaga’s comments reek of the worst shamanism of “the Spirit of Vatican II,” then, well, you just can’t see it. I love the Vatican II texts, which is PRECISELY why I’m poking fun at the hermeneutic of discontinuity (in this post and elsewhere).
I cannot get to every point and to every objection at once. I still have it on deck to reply to Brendan and Mike’s comments about the theology of encounter from several posts back. I also want to reply to and meditate on some good points raised about prayer recently. I also need to polish up and post my arguments about conscience (and, in part, conversion). And yes, I will also gladly get to Crude’s request as time permits. Meanwhile, it’s pointless to address rambling objections that can’t even grasp the precise logical claims involved.
The claim that I can’t “take it” is puerile machismo. I’ve been called a panicky bedwetter, a Pharisee, an older brother, a perfect symbol of the catechesis crisis, (implicitly) a minion of Satan, a Protestant with Rosaries, a RadTrad, and so on. I love some good jesting as much as the next person (more so, actually). But demonizing us conscientious objectors to All Things Francis is worse than useless. I do not call the Pope a Modernist, nor a heretic, nor a scoundrel, nor a liar, etc., but I do not hesitate to articulate the major currents in him that leave my head spinning with holy dread. I’ve taken plenty of heat for not just smiling and clapping at this whole papacy, and I’m taking more from some of my betters very recently. I refuse to get into chest pounding and flame wars. I am not perfect. I fail in charity. I confess my sins. I seek the Lord of mercy. But I do not merely roll over when… wait for it… my informed conscience will not let me. Pick your battles, they say, and that’s what I’m doing. I guess I need more grace from St. Jude (who is included among the papal intentions for October–yes, I follow the Pope!) before I bother wrangling with this or that lost cause in this very large discussion. I was always taught to walk away from a hornet’s nest. If that’s all you think I am, then I suggest you walk away as well. Otherwise, keep your prayers and insights coming! 🙂
A well reasoned post!
Personally, I most object to the Pope’s gratuitous insults and false accusations. “Pelagians.” “Triumphalists.” “Restorationists.” “Disciplinarians.” “Cowards.” “Hypocrites.” “Legalists”. “Small-minded.” “Obsessed”. “Doctrinal security-ists,” “Narcissists.” And most recently he told CLOISTERED nuns that they shouldn’t be too spiritual, and warned them of smiles like airline attendants. And that’s just a sample. It’s a good thing that he is not judgmental!
What are you even talking about? What is your problem? Why are you here posting?
TBH I think the misleading-ness of Pope Francis’ statements is being rather overplayed. I mean, sure, NARAL and various liberal journalists have been misinterpreting them, but then again as Crude said they used to do the same with Benedict’s statements (albeit in the opposite direction), and if somebody really wants to twist your words, they’ll find a way to do it. Probably the most misleading statement I’ve heard from the Holy Father is that one about how “each person has his or her own vision of the good”, and even that can be explained in two or three sentences.
Ben “Dunning-Kruger effect” Yachov:
You’ll notice that I said you can post “pretty much anything” here, intentionally phrasing it that way because I expected (correctly, as it happens) that you would just keep blindly charging ahead, chasing your own tail, and ultimately working yourself into a frenzied hypostasis that “pretty much” can no longer post anything here. No more vulgarity, thank you. No more adolescent baiting, thank you. No more berating fellow commenters, either, thank you very much. Once you make a point or a criticism, do not keep repeating it. As hard as it is to believe, I bear you no ill will. I just know that there is no spiritual benefit for either of us if I keep engaging you. I grant that I may be just as much of a blowhard as yourself, but that doesn’t mean I need to tolerate you in my tiny little corner of the blogosphere.
Now, I realize my decision will only aggrandize your… wait for it… conspiracy theory-style paranoia about “RadTrads” (I’ve never even been to a TLM, by the way, have never read more than an article of The Remnant, and fail to conform to almost every other rubric you might want to levy against me), but I have decided that ending the farce now is worth the almost certain risk of hardening your irrational animus towards me.
However, I’m letting your, ahem, contributions heretofore remain on my blog for two reasons. First, I want to show that I have nothing to hide. Second, I hope they serve as a public reminder that, while I eagerly welcome informed, constructive criticism, I have my limits. I hope I’m wrong, but I expect you shall denounce my name on as many blogs and forums as you can find before grace and good sense kick in. Oh well. Haters gonna hate. Go troll someone else, and let’s see about having a civil conversation again no earlier than Christmas 2013.
Thank you, and Godspeed.
Pingback: “Not in my house!” Great ad! | F(ide)C(ogit)A(ctio) : omnis per gratiam. C.S.S.M.L. + N.D.S.M.D. + V.R.S. N.S.M.V. S.M.Q.L. I.V.B.
30 Responses to Here’s to the hermeneutic of continuity! Wassail!
Dale Price says:
October 30, 2013 at 09:47 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
Bonus fun: Maradiaga is a good ol’ fashioned Jew-baiter with *fascinating* theories about the sexual abuse crisis.
http://forward.com/articles/171392/is-pope-frontrunner-from-honduras-anti-semitic/
Reply
Flambeaux says:
October 30, 2013 at 10:52 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
If I try to play this, I’ll rapidly find myself broke, with an empty liquor cabinet, and unable to do my job.
As Jimmy Buffett taught me, “If we couldn’t laugh, we’d all go insane.”
Reply
Dale Price says:
October 30, 2013 at 11:01 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
If you play Elliot’s game, you won’t need to be embalmed after your (rapidly-approaching) death.
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 11:46 (Edit)
0 2 Rate This
So I take it Codg like your typical Gnu who has been caught red handed talking bullshit as you have been with your comically false claims(which where easly shown to be so by moi) regarding Pope Francis on conscience your only response is to throw a heap of mud and Shit at the wall & A) hope nobody notices your initial screw up B) Hope that something you throw sticks? & C) Hope that somehow taking this cue from Papalintion’s play book will intimidate your critics into silence?
Well isn’t that special!
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 12:07 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
Codg wrote:
“However, if you want a real bone to chew on, consider the Pope’s (written!) false teaching about goodness and conscience.”
Codg you claimed above that a statement made by Francis on conscience was in error.
BTW here is Francis’ quote in context.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130911_eugenio-scalfari_en.html
“I now wish to address the three questions from your article of 7 August. I believe that in the first two questions, what interests you is to understand the attitude of the Church towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. Above all, you ask if the God of Christians forgives those who do not believe and who do not seek faith. Given the premise, and this is fundamental, that the mercy of God is limitless for those who turn to him with a sincere and contrite heart, the issue for the unbeliever lies in obeying his or her conscience. There is sin, even for those who have no faith, when conscience is not followed. Listening to and obeying conscience means deciding in the face of what is understood to be good or evil. It is on the basis of this choice that the goodness or evil of our actions is determined.”
Here is again the Quote from the 1910 Catholic Encylopedia in the entry under Idolatry..
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm
QUOTE” Considered in itself, idolatry is the greatest of mortal sins………………………….No sin is mortal — i.e. debars man from attaining the end for which he was created — that is not committed with clear knowledge and free determination. But how many, or how few, of the countless millions of idolaters are, or have been, able to distinguish between the one Creator of all things and His creatures? and, having made the distinction, how many have been perverse enough to worship the creature in preference to the Creator? — It is reasonable, Christian, and charitable to suppose that the “false gods” of the heathen were, in their conscience, the only true God they knew, and that their worship being right in its intention, went up to the one true God with that of Jews and Christians to whom He had revealed Himself. “In the day when God shall judgethe secrets of men by Jesus Christ . . . . . the gentiles who have not the law, shall be judged by their conscience” (Romans 2:14-16). God, who wishes all men to be saved, and Christ, who died for all who sinned in Adam, would be frustrated in their merciful designs if the prince of this world were to carry off all idolaters.END
What is the difference? I see none.
Maybe you are just plain wrong? I doubt you can make the case the CE article here is against Aquinas or the CCC.
Plus throwing a wade of shit at Pope Francis doesn’t move me or any honest person. If anything we should suspect the shit.
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 12:15 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
Oh you are moderating me now?
Yeh you can cover your own arse & Dale Price can cover it if he wants to.
But Crude has let my criticisms of you post in the comments box over at his blog.
Reply
Codgitator (Cadgertator) says:
October 30, 2013 at 13:50 (Edit)
1 0 Rate This
BENNNN!!!! CALM DOWN!!!! WORDPRESS AUTOMATICALLY FILTERS WHAT IT THINKS ARE DUPLICATE POSTS. YOU ARE BEING ATROCIOUS. CALM DOWN OR BE QUIET.
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 14:25 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
Stop yelling & I might “calm down”.
Codgitator (Cadgertator) says:
October 30, 2013 at 14:33 (Edit)
1 0 Rate This
Ben. Calm down. WordPress automatically filters what it thinks are duplicate posts. You are being atrocious. Calm down or be quiet.
Codgitator (Cadgertator) says:
October 30, 2013 at 14:37 (Edit)
1 0 Rate This
Even without CAPS on, Ben, I think you’d have to admit that you come across as a shouter and a chest-beater. I don’t have any time for interactions like that. You can post pretty much anything you want here, but don’t expect me to let myself get dragged into a flame war with, well, I think you know your reputation. Am I right? You yourself admit you’re in “full Ben Yachov mode”, but that entire persona is not someone I want to deal with. It’s unhealthy and, I believe, ultimately futile. All the best,
Dale Price says:
October 30, 2013 at 12:24 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
What am I supposed to cover, Ben?
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 12:41 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
If you don’t know Dale then you are not doing it.
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 12:43 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
Some sanity for your consideration.
http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/2013/10/amateur-hour-traditionalism.html
Reply
c matt says:
October 30, 2013 at 13:04 (Edit)
2 0 Rate This
I don’t know, Ben. You read Pascendi, then you read Francis and Maradiaga, and you can’t help but scratch your head. The point is, with BXVI “condom kerfuffle” it was pretty easy to see he did not intend to approve of condom use, and HE cleared it up pronto. With Francis, it is not that “easy,” and as of yet, I have not heard Francis himself say “this is what I meant,”..”I was misquoted” yadda yadda. If Francis does that somewhere, great – where is it? Where can you get the secret Franics decoder ring that turns this all perfectly orthodox? As for Maradiaga, the only defense is that hopefully he does not represent the thinking of the Pope.
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 13:19 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
Matt
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 30, 2013 at 12:07 ”
Lovely but Codg apparently doesn’t want to be taken to task.
So I take it my post will remain invisible?
BTW B16 wasn’t very clear to some fanatics who all but insisted a) he really was changing the Church’s teaching on condoms and gay sex & b) other chuckleheads who faulted him for their thinking he was endorsing condoms and gay sex.
If you have it in for the Pope & a love of spiritual pornography some things are just not going to be clear.
So far I have had little difficulty defending a handful of accusations.
Multiplying more of them to see what sticks is still not convincing.
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 13:52 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
“In regards to the Francis interviews, myself and many others have, without much difficulty, shown how the words are Orthodox. When confronted with these, Mr. Verrecchio does one of two things. First might as well be “well sure, you can prove that, but it’s clear Francis doesn’t believe that, it’s make believe because….. MODERNIST!” When another person pointed out how Francis words could be justified within tradition, Mr. Verrecchio objected that….. Francis isn’t speaking with enough clarity to as to satisfy Mr. Verrecchio, who wants to *winkwinknudgenudge* have God “end” Francis pontificate, but there’s nothing bad about those words! He doesn’t actually go through Francis words or Aquinas’ to show how the Pope is wrong. It’s just clear he didn’t mean it because…… because…… FRANCIS IS A HUMANIST GENERALISSIMO! He’s not even trying to have an intellectual discussion over what words mean.
So I’ve written a lot more than I normally care to write. People will see those endorsements from otherwise Orthodox Catholics and think what Mr. Verrecchio states is okay. People will see Mr. Verrecchio as a traditionalist, and think this is what healthy traditionalism is all about. There’s nothing traditionalist about this. It is simply amateur hour where someone is not trying to meaningfully work through something, but just shout and scream and display outrageous outrage. In this challenging environment, faithful traditionalists are going to be marginalized. It would help if we didn’t give the enemies of the cross inside and outside the Church any extra ammo.”
-Kevin Tierney
You know there was a time back in the day Kevin & I would knock heads.
I love how he has turned out. His Traditionalism & that of Edward Feser is the kind I want to embrace.
Any other type need not apply.
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 14:39 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
>Ben. Calm down. WordPress automatically filters what it thinks are duplicate posts. You are being atrocious. Calm down or be quiet.
Well that is good to know. But of course you are clearly at fault for not clearly putting a message at the top of you blog warning me that might happen.;-)
After all it is not unreasonable the standards of uber clearness you demand of Pope Francis be exercised by yourself?
Can we make a drinking game of this too?
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 14:44 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
Still can’t help but notice your claim of Francis teaching error in regards to Conscience and Goodness doesn’t appear in this post’s wall of shit?
How much shit must we wade threw & clear before this wall disappears?
An if someone with far too much time on their hands and a strong stomach pulls off this feat will it just be replaced by a new wall of shit? Complete with a drinking game & everything?
Am I being too harsh with you? Too mean? I am only treating you like you treat Pope Francis & any in his “personallity cult” who dare to take offense.
Feels good at your end doesn’t it?
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 14:47 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
>Even without CAPS on, Ben, I think you’d have to admit that you come across as a shouter and a chest-beater.
Of course I am the only here who is like that.
>I don’t have any time for interactions like that. You can post pretty much anything you want here, but don’t expect me to let myself get dragged into a flame war with, well, I think you know your reputation. Am I right? You yourself admit you’re in “full Ben Yachov mode”, but that entire persona is not someone I want to deal with. It’s unhealthy and, I believe, ultimately futile. All the best,
So in short you can dish it out but you cannot take it?
Gorgeous ! As Deter from SPROCKETS would say.
Reply
malcolmthecynic says:
October 30, 2013 at 15:45 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
While I don’t share Ben’s tone I think his points are valid. And he has another point, to be honest – he’s really not treating you any worse than you treat Pope Francis here.
Codg, I’ve been very critical of you. In my defense, you have been very critical back. That’s fine, if I dish it out I should be able to take it, so go right ahead. But honestly I think you’ve been twisting Pope Francis’s words more than Ben and other “defenders” have. Crude offered you a challenge in the comments section of his blog, and I’d love to see you take him up on it.
Here’s the thing: You are selectively quoting the Pope, and then you are claiming that if we reply that you need to read everything he says in context, well, that means he’s not being clear. I think that’s completely ridiculous, but you’ve been pretty insistent on this. Oh, not in as many words, but I think the objective observer should be able to point this out with ease.
Reply
Codgitator (Cadgertator) says:
October 30, 2013 at 16:35 (Edit)
1 0 Rate This
Malcolm:
First, this is a blog. I’m an obscure layman. If I’m really such a vicious moron, why do my Catholic betters bother coming here? If I’m not making any cogent points, why not just write me off and let me decorate my echo chamber with my confused little band of readers? In any case, to imply that the pastoral duties of an obscure lay blogger are on par with those of the Pope’s duties to speak clearly and consistently, is literally laughable. The apparently insuperable inability of certain Catholics to lay even SOME of the blame for all this rancor and confusion among the faithful at the feet of the Pope, is a thing of fearful wonder. Meanwhile, I gladly and loudly promote the Pope when he teaches beautifully and passionately for our Faith (largely on my Facebook and Twitter, when I used to use it). If just happens that this blog is where I work through my faith struggles of late.
I’ve honed my worries (in the intellectual sense) down to a few key themes and trends in Francis’s papacy. I’m trying to read him in the context of his formative background and, especially in this post, through the lens of those whom he emulates and whom he chooses virtually to speak his mind for him. If you can’t see how Madriaga’s comments reek of the worst shamanism of “the Spirit of Vatican II,” then, well, you just can’t see it. I love the Vatican II texts, which is PRECISELY why I’m poking fun at the hermeneutic of discontinuity (in this post and elsewhere).
I cannot get to every point and to every objection at once. I still have it on deck to reply to Brendan and Mike’s comments about the theology of encounter from several posts back. I also want to reply to and meditate on some good points raised about prayer recently. I also need to polish up and post my arguments about conscience (and, in part, conversion). And yes, I will also gladly get to Crude’s request as time permits. Meanwhile, it’s pointless to address rambling objections that can’t even grasp the precise logical claims involved.
The claim that I can’t “take it” is puerile machismo. I’ve been called a panicky bedwetter, a Pharisee, an older brother, a perfect symbol of the catechesis crisis, (implicitly) a minion of Satan, a Protestant with Rosaries, a RadTrad, and so on. I love some good jesting as much as the next person (more so, actually). But demonizing us conscientious objectors to All Things Francis is worse than useless. I do not call the Pope a Modernist, nor a heretic, nor a scoundrel, nor a liar, etc., but I do not hesitate to articulate the major currents in him that leave my head spinning with holy dread. I’ve taken plenty of heat for not just smiling and clapping at this whole papacy, and I’m taking more from some of my betters very recently. I refuse to get into chest pounding and flame wars. I am not perfect. I fail in charity. I confess my sins. I seek the Lord of mercy. But I do not merely roll over when… wait for it… my informed conscience will not let me. Pick your battles, they say, and that’s what I’m doing. I guess I need more grace from St. Jude (who is included among the papal intentions for October–yes, I follow the Pope!) before I bother wrangling with this or that lost cause in this very large discussion. I was always taught to walk away from a hornet’s nest. If that’s all you think I am, then I suggest you walk away as well. Otherwise, keep your prayers and insights coming! 🙂
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 17:19 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
>I’m an obscure layman. If I’m really such a vicious moron, why do my Catholic betters bother coming here?
Translation: I am popular therefore how could I be at all bad?
>If I’m not making any cogent points, why not just write me off and let me decorate my echo chamber with my confused little band of readers?
Translation: Either believe what I say about the Pope or just let me slander him in peace. I should not ever be challenged because I will ignore serious challenges.
>In any case, to imply that the pastoral duties of an obscure lay blogger are on par with those of the Pope’s duties to speak clearly and consistently, is literally laughable.
Translation: The Pope is better and more compotent then I & should be held to a higher standard then I hold myself but that doesn’t mean everyone should doubt my own compotenct to show the Pope isn’t really all that compotent a Pope.
Of course if you defend the Pope you are just a member the Papal personality cult who thinks he is better than the rest of us.
So? Do I really need to weight threw the rest of Codg horseshit?
It’s an insult to my own intelligence which is considerable.
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 17:32 (Edit)
0 1 Rate This
>I’ve honed my worries (in the intellectual sense) down to a few key themes and trends in Francis’s papacy. I’m trying to read him in the context of his formative background and, especially in this post, through the lens of those whom he emulates and whom he chooses virtually to speak his mind for him.
Translations: I promise I really really really know what I am doing. So much so I will continue to ignore my challenge to BenYachov & my triumphalist claim Francis taught a completely erroneous view of conscience and goodness.
But rest a sure I will continue to make accusations faster than I can justify any of them.
By the way did I mention how competent & careful I am even thought I am an obsure layman?
_____
This is almost as fun as watching that HHS woman squirm before congress.
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 17:53 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
Geez how obtuse do you gotta be Codg? You are like the average Gnu who bashes Christians. Says very nasty over the top things about them or religion. Engages in massive scattershot attacks then acts all surprised when Christians respond to them in a hostile manner.? Instead of “Gee isn’t nice of you to show us how badly we suck and we don’t deserve to defend ourselves because of it”?
Radtrads in the previous decade did this with their asinine bashing of John Paul II.
Your shit isn’t at all original.
Reply
Codgitator (Cadgertator) says:
October 30, 2013 at 19:36 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
Ben “Dunning-Kruger effect” Yachov:
You’ll notice that I said you can post “pretty much anything” here, intentionally phrasing it that way because I expected (correctly, as it happens) that you would just keep blindly charging ahead, chasing your own tail, and ultimately working yourself into a frenzied hypostasis that “pretty much” can no longer post anything here. No more vulgarity, thank you. No more adolescent baiting, thank you. No more berating fellow commenters, either, thank you very much. Once you make a point or a criticism, do not keep repeating it. As hard as it is to believe, I bear you no ill will. I just know that there is no spiritual benefit for either of us if I keep engaging you. I grant that I may be just as much of a blowhard as yourself, but that doesn’t mean I need to tolerate you in my tiny little corner of the blogosphere.
Now, I realize my decision will only aggrandize your… wait for it… conspiracy theory-style paranoia about “RadTrads” (I’ve never even been to a TLM, by the way, have never read more than an article of The Remnant, and fail to conform to almost every other rubric you might want to levy against me), but I have decided that ending the farce now is worth the almost certain risk of hardening your irrational animus towards me.
However, I’m letting your, ahem, contributions heretofore remain on my blog for two reasons. First, I want to show that I have nothing to hide. Second, I hope they serve as a public reminder that, while I eagerly welcome informed, constructive criticism, I have my limits. I hope I’m wrong, but I expect you shall denounce my name on as many blogs and forums as you can find before grace and good sense kick in. Oh well. Haters gonna hate. Go troll someone else, and let’s see about having a civil conversation again no earlier than Christmas 2013.
Thank you, and Godspeed.
Reply
Brock Fowler says:
October 30, 2013 at 17:55 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
A well reasoned post!
Personally, I most object to the Pope’s gratuitous insults and false accusations. “Pelagians.” “Triumphalists.” “Restorationists.” “Disciplinarians.” “Cowards.” “Hypocrites.” “Legalists”. “Small-minded.” “Obsessed”. “Doctrinal security-ists,” “Narcissists.” And most recently he told CLOISTERED nuns that they shouldn’t be too spiritual, and warned them of smiles like airline attendants. And that’s just a sample. It’s a good thing that he is not judgmental!
Reply
BenYachov says:
October 30, 2013 at 18:28 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
>Personally, I most object to the Pope’s gratuitous insults and false accusations.
Translation: If your dad ever tells you to get your head out of your arse you are justified in calling him an asshole.
Ten Commandments be damned!!!!!
Reply
Brock Fowler says:
October 30, 2013 at 19:15 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
What are you even talking about? What is your problem? Why are you here posting?
The original Mr. X says:
October 30, 2013 at 19:18 (Edit)
0 0 Rate This
TBH I think the misleading-ness of Pope Francis’ statements is being rather overplayed. I mean, sure, NARAL and various liberal journalists have been misinterpreting them, but then again as Crude said they used to do the same with Benedict’s statements (albeit in the opposite direction), and if somebody really wants to twist your words, they’ll find a way to do it. Probably the most misleading statement I’ve heard from the Holy Father is that one about how “each person has his or her own vision of the good”, and even that can be explained in two or three sentences.
Reply
First, this is a blog. I’m an obscure layman. If I’m really such a vicious moron, why do my Catholic betters bother coming here? If I’m not making any cogent points, why not just write me off and let me decorate my echo chamber with my confused little band of readers?
Because I think you’re representative of a lot of conservative Catholic views on Pope Francis, and I do think you make good points sometimes, though they’re lost in what honestly seems to me to be hysteria.
Do you see why it looks like hysteria? Do you understand that you really, truly look like you’re severely overreacting? You object to this characterization of you, but surely you can see that if you take a step back and look at what you’re writing, it’s pretty over the top.
Speaking of that, Ben went way over the top here, and I don’t support that. His spamming became ridiculous, so I want to be on the record as saying this.
In any case, to imply that the pastoral duties of an obscure lay blogger are on par with those of the Pope’s duties to speak clearly and consistently, is literally laughable.
Not sure what point you’re going for here. Is it something Ben said that you’re responding to?
If you can’t see how Madriaga’s comments reek of the worst shamanism of “the Spirit of Vatican II,” then, well, you just can’t see it.
Oh, I see it. Though I do think, actually, that some of what you make fun of is perfectly fine, but then I’d really be nitpicking. It’s pretty bananas.
I’m glad you’ll respond to Crude’s request, I didn’t think you wouldn’t. I’m just looking forward to it.
I do not call the Pope a Modernist, nor a heretic, nor a scoundrel, nor a liar, etc…
Sure, not technically in as many words. Practically, why not just call him a Modernist or heretic, since you seem to believe that.
Anyway, you took it from me just fine and dished it back just fine. I expect that and even welcome it, so go ahead.
… a spiritual discernment that responds to a need that arises from looking at things, at people and from reading the signs of the times.
Well, that is hardly humility is it?
I mean, how many of us can claim that we have not been intellectually infected by the cultural milieu in which we suffer and daily die (but rarely to our on selves) but, rather, that we are virtual Saints whose souls are so purified that we are capable of applying the apt spirituality in response to the needs that we identify, with such putative spiritual acuity, before us.
And what spirituality will be applied? Certainly not Traditional Catholic Spirituality – nope, something else is needed during this epoch of effete ecumenism during our Inertia Into Indifferentism.
(One is either purifying or putrefying; one, rarely, stays at the same level spiritually speaking)
No, I do not think the latter is what Pope Francis (Our Pope and Our Cross) is suggesting but I won’t attribute a motive to him (not that I am not afflatic).
One oblique observation about Pope Francis’ soi disant humility; how is it any different than the humility of the modern Popes who refused the Triregnum?
Jesus Himself was radically humble in allowing Himself to be Crowned as King and the Vicar of Christ is going to be humbler than Jesus? (is that the liberal version of More-Catholic-Than-The-Pope?)
Maybe it was not humility at all; maybe it was fear of being ridiculed by the world; maybe it was mundane cravenness.
Just a thought.
Dear Codgitator. Thanks for the link to your Blog. So far, I really like what I see.
Oh I certainly agree. I think Francis has yet to learn to stop being “his own man.” He still wants to be Cdl. Bergoglio, which is why he wants to imprint so much of his own persona on the papal witness; which is in turn why he rejects so many of the papal trappings. As if all previous popes were not men, and did not feel hampered and maybe even a bit hoaky at all the regalia. But by accepting those trappings, they had their individuality crucified in the functional anonymity of the pontificate. Being pope is an ornate and highly ritualized crucifixion, but a crucifixion nonetheless. I don’t think Pope Francis is willing to embrace the many little crosses of the papacy, since he feels he, as a unique non-conformist, can do it better according to “new social needs.” He’s just as cavalier with his words as he is with his papal conformity. But at least he makes people smile.
Here’s a better article on the Maradiaga quote.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34722
The Cardinal did apologize, and there’s no record of him saying anything similar since. And he was something of a foe to the new left in Latin America, criticizing Crazy Hugo Chavez and backing the coup against Honduras’ would-be Chavez.
But you have to worry where the Jewish media reference bubbled up from.in the first place.
Dale:
Of what sense (sic) do you make such news? You mentioned something Maradiaga’s (or was it Francis’s?) reference to certain “financial types”…? I’m curious.
It was Maradiaga. Here’s the section that takes on a more sinister cast (at least to me) given his previous accusation against the Jewish media. The first part is a quote he takes from someone else, but a little disquiet nonetheless:
4. In a globalized world
“The globalization of the exchange of services, capital and patents has led over the past ten years to establish a world dictatorship of finance capital. The small transcontinental oligarchies that hold the financial capital dominate the planet… The lords of financial capital wield over billions of human beings a power of life and death. Through their investment strategies, their stock market speculations, their alliances, they decide day to day who has the right to live on this planet and who is doomed to die.” (J. Ziegler, Derechos humanos y democracia mundial [Human Rights and World Democracy], Latinoamérica 2007, p. 26).
The effects and consequences of the neoliberal dictatorships that rule democracies are not hard to uncover: they invade us with the industry of entertainment, they make us forget about human rights, they convince us that nothing can be done, that there is no possible alternative. To change the system, it would be necessary to destroy the power of the new feudal lords. Chimerical? Utopian?
If it indicates what I think you think it might indicate, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen liberal anti-capitalism run cover for old-time anti-Semitism. Take any OWS pamphlet, or any progressive economic rant, hell, even a rant like that from “conservative” libertarians, and replace “bankers” with “Jews.” The arguments won’t miss a beat and sound like something at least next to The Protocols of Zion on the library shelf.
But you have to worry where the Jewish media reference bubbled up from.in the first place.
Well, he could have read about in a Joel Stein column or from other similar sources;it’s not like the Mormons control the media.
I love the Vatican II texts, which is PRECISELY why I’m poking fun at the hermeneutic of discontinuity (in this post and elsewhere).
Ok, let’s take Sacrosanctum Concilium.
To me, it is a galactic sized rupture with Trent and reading it is not unlike the experience to be had sitting outside the Golden Corral at closing time as the beefy broads from the Oprah Book Club come waddling out; that is, iSacrosanctum Concilium is one long line of ugly buts.
Latin yes, but vernacular; Gregorian Chant but….
Rev. Anthony Cekada rightly observed (Work of Human Hands) that …But on this question, as on so many others in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, both sides and neither side was simultaneously right and wrong. They were arguing over another vintage Vatican II formulation, written in the yes-but-no, on-one-hand/on-the-other/hand style.
And having seduced the conciliar conservatices (girondists) into signing onto this questionable hard-to-pin-down product, the conciliar Jacobins worked their new theology will and wrecked the Roman Rite but that was to be expected given that Sacrosanctum Concilium was written by a Mason, Bugnini, and a cleric who hated the Roman Rite, Jungmann.
There can be no restoration until the Bugnini Mass is completely and utterly destroyed.
I’m sorry, did you say, “step back” and see how “over the top” I’m being? Let me step back a few paces…
http://www.romancatholicimperialist.org/
http://biblicalfalseprophet.com/
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/160bev10_30_2013.htm
Even if I were half as “over the top” as those links, it wouldn’t matter. Truth is not a matter of consensus or popularity. One man’s over the top is another man’s life raft. Tonight I read some words that really grabbed me, and captured how I felt last month: “[Pope Francis is] forcing me for the first time in my life to consider that the Orthodox perhaps are [right], and that terrifies me. … I merely want to emphasize what a monumental tragedy this pontificate is. No Catholic such as myself should ever be put into the position of ever having such thoughts even enter his mind through the casual or official uttering of the Roman Pontiff. This is scandal (the endangerment of souls) on a global scale. God help us.”
Fun times.
I know there are people reacting worse than you. I don’t even go near them, because I don’t think it’s even possible to speak with those people, nor do I think that there’s any sort of point, even for the selfish benefit of me working my thoughts out. The stuff put on those sites is so extreme it would be like debunking 9/11 truthers – compellingly argued but very, very wrong.
Even if I were half as “over the top” as those links, it wouldn’t matter. Truth is not a matter of consensus or popularity.
Well, “over the top” isn’t actually a judgment on the truth value of your posts, but on the level of alarm you’re displaying, so fine.
Tonight I read some words that really grabbed me, and captured how I felt last month: “[Pope Francis is] forcing me for the first time in my life to consider that the Orthodox perhaps are [right], and that terrifies me. … I merely want to emphasize what a monumental tragedy this pontificate is. No Catholic such as myself should ever be put into the position of ever having such thoughts even enter his mind through the casual or official uttering of the Roman Pontiff. This is scandal (the endangerment of souls) on a global scale. God help us.”
Fine, that last quote encapsulated how you felt last month. Do you still believe it’s true now, that the Pope is committing the mortal sin of scandal on a global scale? Because if you’re still convinced of that then seriously, why not just say that you think the Pope is a heretic or a modernist? Oh, he’s not a heretic, he just says heretical things? Oh, he’s not a Modernist, he just echoes Modernist beliefs? So, either the Pope is a heretic and a Modernist or he’s an idiot, because that’s the other option I’m left with.
And if that last quote doesn’t encapsulate how you feel, well, what do you really think of him now if that’s not it?
Pingback: Meanwhile, in the Land of Catholicism WOW! … | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam," etiam sub patrocinio S. Ignatius Loyola et Franciscus Salesius
Pingback: On one other variety of bullshit… | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam," etiam sub patrocinio S. Ignatius Loyola et Franciscus Salesius
Pingback: My Homepage