“7 [T]here was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. 8 For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”

— 2 Corinthians 12:7-9

Anglican leader hints at joint ‘surprises’ with Pope Francis (4 Nov 2013)

“There are very fundamental and extremely important doctrinal and dogmatic differences that we have between us and they have to be worked on, as they are with Rome and the Anglicans with ARCIC [the Anglican – Roman Catholic International Commission], and we take those extremely seriously,” he said. “It’s absolutely essential that those are worked on. But we need to make sure we’re working on them in the context of churches and ecclesial communities that say no sacrifice is too great to be obedient to the call of Christ that we may be one.”

“God has given you, and given us all, a great Pope,” he continued. “And he’s a great Pope of surprises… Surprises? Yes, I think there’ll be one or two surprises. We’re hoping to produce a few surprises.”

Such “surprises”, which see no fundamental doctrinal differences as too great to be “worked on” for the sake of “unity,” must be read in the context of the Bergoglio whom Welby called (14 Mar 2013) an “inspired choice” for Pope:

He is much more of a Christian, Christ centered and Spirit filled, than a mere churchman. He believes the Bible as it is written. … He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary and that the Church needs us as Anglicans.

If we are still allowed to quote from the Spadaro interview, let us recall this “surpriseful” gem therefrom:

“God is encountered walking, along the path. … [S]omeone might say that this is relativism. Is it relativism? Yes, if it is misunderstood as a kind of indistinct pantheism. It is not relativism if it is understood in the biblical sense, that God is always a surprise, so you never know where and how you will find him. [Like, say, in the sacraments of the Catholic Church? In fact, God always was a surprise rooted to a particular people, but He has now revealed Himself definitively and finally in Christ (Rom 16:25-27, Eph. 3:1-3, Col 1:24-28, Heb 1, I Pet 1:10-12), Whose Incarnation is propagated in and by the Church. To expect a new and undefined “surprise” by God is to expect a new revelation.] You are not setting the time and place of the encounter with him. You must, therefore, discern the encounter. [To find what? If you never know how to find God, then how do you know you’ve found God?] Discernment is essential. [Oh.]

Ach, what does it even matter? No matter what the Pope or his appointed advisors say, Team Ultramontanism is always right, this papacy is always guileless and ideology-free, and my kind are just Pharisees whose parents never read us bedtime stories. In other words, there are always more water-carriers.

“It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” — Paul VI on 29 June 1972


Vatican Diary / Bishops under fire in Italy, the United States, and Spain (1 Nov 2013)

It is a change of stance, this of Pope Francis, who although he has not yet eliminated even one iota of doctrine has nonetheless raised widespread expectations among the more progressive sectors of Catholicism around the world.

But it is also a change of stance that has backed into a corner those episcopates – of Italy, of Spain, of the United States – which in the past  [The ‘past’? Pffft! Buh-bye! We own the past!] were considered models in their way of addressing on the public stage the anthropological challenges present in the contemporary world, but which now find themselves singled out as “scarcely in line” with the new papal leadership.In Spain, one signal has come from an editorial on the website “Religión Digital” that begins with this rhetorical question: ‘Is the Spanish hierarchy in harmony with Francis and with the new wind that is blowing from Rome?’

…in the newspaper ‘La Stampa’ the vaticanista Andrea Tornielli has presented it as a certainty that with Pope Francis comes ‘the end of an era: that inaugurated by Cardinal Camillo Ruini and continued by his successor Angelo Bagnasco, now called to open another….’

This same shift has also been welcomed by the historian Alberto Melloni, who has noted how in his first encounter with all the Italian bishops last May the pope ‘gave a talk soft in its forms but hard in its substance, and indicated a stance different from those followed until now.’ The representative of the ‘school of Bologna’ – which advocates a progressive interpretation of Vatican II – added: ‘In recent decades a pastoral and political project has been proposed by the Italian episcopal conference. Now the pope is placing at the center of attention a model of the bishop [Huh?]. For Italy it is a great leap [forward?].'”

chinese Propaganda Posters boat Leap Forward

I am le barque.

Please pray for me.

I’m starting to feel… um… again… well, just pray that the demons of a few weeks ago keep their distance.

As a sort of disinfectant, I shall close with a lengthy quotation from Mortalium Animos §9 by Pope Pius XI (6 Jan 1928):

These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. …

[I]n 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…. How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians.

But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. …

For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ’s believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all?

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.

Ents of the Church, unite! Let us fortify ourselves around the Eucharist!


About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Lovely…

  1. Brian Ortiz says:

    If he really said that about the Ordinariate… the most disturbing thing I have seen. Other papal remarks could be chalked up to his informal style, but there’s no amount of charitable interpretation that could salvage what he might have said about the Ordinariate. No, not good.

  2. Codg, here’s a question for you, and it is serious. You keep saying that you don’t REALLY think the Pope is a Modernist or a heretic, and yet almost everything you’ve written suggests otherwise. You gave me a list of so-called hysterical sites that you were better than only to qualify it with “Anyway if they’re right it doesn’t matter if they’re over the top”, which tells me you’re really leaning towards just agreeing with them. Really, why don’t you just admit that you think Pope Francis is a Modernist and a heretic? I know you post some things he says that you really enjoy, but that doesn’t make up for the doctrinal and theological errors you seem to think he’s making.

    I mean, the other option here is that the Pope is an idiot and simply has no idea what he’s talking about. So really – everything you say indicates that you think the Pope is a heretic. We’ve had heretic Popes before. I recall, though I don’t remember the name – Pope Honorius maybe? – a Pope in the distant past saying something that undermined Papal infallibility. He was clearly wrong. But he never declared anything infallibly, so so what?

    At the very least I think the Pope has made clear that he has no interest in making infallible statements that contradict doctrine, so I doubt you need to worry about that – he respects the Church too much for that. But according you, all of his personal beliefs point towards Modernism and heresy. So really, why don’t you come out and say that’s what you think of him? This is a serious question, because I honestly believe you might as well at this point.

  3. Malcolm:

    Short answer? I don’t want to call him a heretic.

    The idea bothers me, and, sincerely, I’m not convinced that he IS one. I am only willing to say that I think his entire sense of orthodoxy is so newfangled and “mystical” that he doesn’t really CARE enough NOT to make heterodoxoid statements. As I try to show in “The battle within” (part 3 WILL get done one of these days!), I think he is a riven man, and is battling massively competing spiritual and ideological currents. To say that he’s the Antichrist or the biblical False Prophet or a Taoist plant, is miles from what I’m actually saying: loose lips sink souls.

    One does not have to “be a card-carrying Modernist” to be infected by, and thus a transmitter for, modernist ideas. It is of the very nature of Modernism to be insidious, and to advance unevenly, one tendril at a time under the door, unless it is vigorously hedged and uprooted under the strong lights and hard old tools of the Magisterial Biblical Tradition. Modernism never comes at you head-on with full force, but just keeps undermining a stone here, a stone there, like little weeds, until the entire Way is buckled and clogged. PLEASE: If you have not done so, PLEASE READ PASCENDI!

    Hence, Pope Francis does not need to be tending the tree of Modernism for me to say that he’s being remiss in his duty to beat it back and chop it out of the Church’s wheat pastures. I think that, despite his commitment to orthodoxy, he is much more infected by modernism than the mainstream Catholic readership is willing to admit. It just makes no sense: if he hasn’t said anything askew or problematic, why has he himself (reportedly) voiced regret over what he said to Scalfari? Honorius was condemned for a private letter about the Incarnation. That’s the sword of Damocles under which I fear Pope Francis is placing himself with so many unguarded words (and omissions).

    I’m not worried in the least that Pope Francis will “change dogma”–God will see to that. Otherwise, why would I even bother being a Catholic? That’s a constant red herring, as if unqualified supporters of Pope Francis will doubt him only if he flagrantly apostasizes in his magisterial teaching capacity. Does he need to sacrifice a pig on the altar before we can agree that he’s simply not living up to snuff as the Vicar of Christ? I know, harsh judgments, Pharisees, Older Brothers, ideology, yada yada yada. The point is that, as Steve Skojec says, the actual issue is how much damage he can do while still remaining “within the bounds of orthodoxy.”

    I just think he’s an immensely haunted former conservative who is floundering to forge a new liberal self as a kind of atonement for his sins while a priest and bishop. That conflict not only accounts well enough for the utterly maddening inconsistencies and unpredictability, but also immensely galvanizes my sincere, sincere prayers for him as our Papa. The Honey Badger Pope thing used to be winsome, but now it’s utterly depressing: because I believe he is still unwilling to embrace the crucifixion of his personal identity which all Popes must undergo, I think his behavior shows great disdain for his office, as if he genuinely feels that he is bigger than the papacy. He’s anti-clerical, anti-institutional, anti-traditional, (allegedly) anti-ideological, yet the Papacy is a massively clerical, institutional, traditional and ideologically weighty reality.

  4. Dale Price says:

    What the Pope said to Rev. Venables was high-octane silliness. However, two points:

    1. Venables is one of the recognizably-Christian Anglicans, and not a member of the Kate Schori/V. Gene Robinson apostates.

    2. After he became Pope, he expanded the mandate of the Ordinariate.

    So, there’s a heartening sign that he recognizes he is no longer the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, but the pastor of the Church universal.

  5. Oh, I realize that the link you provide is from July, so by the power of prayer I only meant that those who were praying before him before I took to the habit inspire me to keep it up. I certainly don’t mean to say that my pitiful prayers are a cause for anything great.

  6. vermontcrank1 says:

    Such an action might also be a reminder of some of the problems originally associated with the Ordinariate that were bruited about in all of the wrong places; those wrong places being sedevacantist sites.

    I am not a sede but they have asked some pertinent questions and given that Anglican Orders were definitively declared to be absolutely null and utterly void (notwithstanding the apparently licit Ordinations of Two Anglicans that was carried out on a boat off the coast of Venice a long time ago) it seems problematical that they were welcomed aboard with the ability to use their faulty texts * which were developed precisely so as to deny the Catholic Faith as re Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation etc.

    * The again, there was the case of the then Prefect of The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ,Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, approving a Rite that had not one word suggesting Transubstantiation so one, long ago, lost the ability to be shocked

  7. Gina says:

    The Pope’s “Who am I I to judge” statement for me was really uncalled for. But if this is true, oh boy.

  8. Pingback: Hither tumbleth yet another turd… | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam," etiam sub patrocinio S. Ignatii Loyolae et Francisci Salesii

  9. vermontcrank1 says:

    You know you erred in making that claim. Admit it, you were just learnt this morning that you are wrong and that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Blessed John Paul II were right in approving those rites; so, go on, apologise.

    I apologise. I am always trying to load dynamite ideas into my cap gun sized mind and when I shoot my mouth off I just end-up blowing my mind.

    I apologise because I was dead, dead, dead, wrong. I am thinking of not writing another word unless I am absolutely positive I am absolutely right

    You are taking a vow of silence?

    You’re not funny, ya know

    Dear Codgitator. Thanks for letting me make the apology the same place I made my false claim.

  10. Pingback: The ball is still in play… | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam," etiam sub patrocinio S. Ignatii Loyolae et Francisci Salesii. C.S.S.M.L. + N.D.S.M.D. + V.R.S. N.S.M.V. S.M.Q.L. I.V.B.

  11. Pingback: I’m not dead yet… | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam"

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s