How dare they!

Who would dare criticize the pope (and for someone else to do so again)! The Pope is Christ on Earth for us! Someone should call these ferrets out!

Or…

Call them up?

I felt the duty to remind the Pope that I, together with Gnocchi, had expressed specific criticisms regarding his work, while I renewed my total fidelity [to him] as a son of the Church. The Pope almost did not let me finish the sentence, saying that he had understood that those criticisms had been made with love, and how important it had been for him to receive them.” …

[The main duty for Palmaro and Gnocchi] “is that of being lucid and watchful regarding the contents of the Catholic doctrine, and, even in what we wrote in Il Foglio, fidelity to the Pope was never called into question.

[Palmaro says that] “the removal of the interview granted by Pope Francis to [Italian journalist Eugenio] Scalfari from the Vatican website makes us think that something was wrong in the contents of that text, as we had remarked, among other things.”

“Our intention is that of keeping steady on the path that we have always followed, answering before our conscience. This without ever faltering in fidelity to the Pope and the Church, but precisely because of this fidelity and love.

I’ve still got a troglodyte or two on my neck for being a “pope hater,” but, as the tumult has died down, perhaps I can let the cautiously pained words of Palmaro and Gnocchi speak for me. If you still think it’s a “mortal sin” to raise eyebrows at any passing thing the pope says, recall that ultramontanism of that kind post-dates the Council of Trent by many years. To wit:

“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations”

Fr. Melchior Cano O.P., Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent —

[HT to Steve Skojec via his intrepid commenters, though I am still trying to hunt down a proper citation]

Meanwhile, I maintain “total fidelity” to the papal office, even as Pope Francis increasingly seems to be adapting to it. Oremus!

Advertisements

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.

26 Responses to How dare they!

  1. IbnYaqob says:

    Except dirtbag I bet neither Cano, Palmaro and Gnocchi ever said they where ashamed the Pope was the Vicar of Christ over nothing(i.e. a bad interview). Nor make cowardly claims he taught error that he can’t back up and keeps running from.

    You dare put yourself their auspicious company. What an ego!!!

  2. IbnYaqob says:

    So Codg you read extremists and conspiracy theory mongers now? This is your source for criticizing the Pope? A nutjob who infers the last Papal election was invalid?

    http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/11/revelations-over-papal-elections.html

    And called the Schismatic SSPX holocaust deniers who interrupted a memorial service for the holocaust in a Catholic Church “heroes”!

    http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/11/faithful-catholics-oppose-interfaith.html

    You know when I said if you keep going the way you are going you would end up being either another Rod Dreher or at worst Bob Sungenis. I didn’t think the later would be a real possibility.

    This is just sick!

  3. IbnYaqob says:

    Ok I jumped the gun and misread that bit about the Papal election & I own my mistake.

    But stil calling antiSemitic nutjobs who interrupt a memorial service on the holocaust “heroes”. That is still sick!

  4. Uh-oh. Looks like somebody needs a hug. Tell you what: Just this once, I’ll pretend you’re someone else so I can give BenYachov the attention he’s been so desperately craving.

    1) The genetic fallacy. Look it up. Facts are facts, no matter who the source is. If I start linking to or making sede claims and arguments without qualification, then you can make your ham-handed predictions about my faith. I assume you mean Eponymous called the SSPX protesters heroes; I certainly didn’t.

    2) Find where I ever said that I am “ashamed” of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ, full stop. The one claim you will find is that I was “on the whole embarrassed” to call him the Vicar of Christ, and even that I publicly revised since, when I first wrote it, it just didn’t ring true, and subsequent prayer confirmed that I should soften it. If I were entirely “ashamed” of him, why would I make a point to post about the things he says and does that make me proud? Nuance, honesty, change, reflection, growth. These are things you simply cannot abide, much less grasp, apparently. And so you keep roving around with your needy chest-pounding, trying to provoke me. In any case, if the “bad interview” was “nothing” why did Pope Francis express regret over it and why has it been removed from his Vatican webpage? I think Pope Francis is growing into the dignity and stability that the Vicar of Christ should show. He’s got the toughest job in the world, so it stands all the more to reason that he would have made some blunders in his first half-year. How in the world you get “sedevacantism” and “mortal sin” out of expressing concern over those blunders, I’ll never–oh, wait. You’re just being flamboyant to validate your own sense of Catholic loyalty.

    3) You simply fail to grasp the logical issue involved in my claim about the pope’s written statement about conscience. It was amusing to watch the first couple times, but it got very old once you just kept copy-pasting the same irrelevant passage from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It’s all heat and virtually no light with you, cuz yknow your a real MAN an yuo doint BACK DOWN!!! I’ll get to posting my case in polished form in my own time. Quit trying to boss me around, you petulant little guttermouth. If you have something worth saying, go start your own blog, at least so you can know how it feels to ban sniping jackasses every now and then. The only thing I’m “running from” is provoking you to stink up the air at this blog with the usual incoherent shrieking and feces-flinging. I’ve asked you to wait until Christmas before we *try* having a civil conversation (dry cough), but you’re obviously determined to pester me and make an ass of yourself as regularly as possible. I’ve got all your comments in my spam folder, and I will include whatever shards of a cogent criticism I can sift out of them in my upcoming posts. Keep calm and know that you, yes even you, are heard.

  5. IbnYaqob says:

    First don’t want a hug. That is just gay. Second genetic fallacy? These are the people you are now listening too! Their views are poison and anti-Catholic. You don’t see the irony in criticizing the Pope for his alleged imprudence by being imprudent yourself?

    >The one claim you will find is that I was “on the whole embarrassed” to call him the Vicar of Christ, and even that I publicly revised since, when I first wrote it,

    You should publicly apologize for it. It was offensive to pious ears and a clear violation of scripture. Rebuke not a Priest but exhort him as a Father. Your blog has been heavy on the rebuking, bedwetting hysteria and noticeably lacking in the exhorting department.

    Even Crude who is lacks my level of outrage said you have gone over the line.

    >You simply fail to grasp the logical issue involved in my claim about the pope’s written statement about conscience.

    I read your link & compared the relevant quote to the CE. There is no difference & you have no case. At best you can charge the Pope with ambiguity but neither clear error nor heresy which are the words you used. The former which I would have no problem with but the later two are bullcrap. The burden of proof is on you to show the Pope clearly meant to teach some heresy that objective right and wrong can be determined by conscience alone. You have not done so but merely assumed it.

    Even his critics in this area at best are charging him with some level of ambiguity. You have no case. I don’t blame you for putting it off because you will loose.

  6. IbnYaqob says:

    >Quit trying to boss me around, you petulant little guttermouth. If you have something worth saying, go start your own blog, at least so you can know how it feels to ban sniping jackasses every now and then.

    I would never start a blog & if you don’t like the snipping jackasses then keep your opinions too yourself.

    >The only thing I’m “running from” is provoking you to stink up the air at this blog with the usual incoherent shrieking and feces-flinging. I’ve asked you to wait until Christmas before we *try* having a civil conversation (dry cough), but you’re obviously determined to pester me and make an ass of yourself as regularly as possible.

    Yeh you don’t arrogantly accuse the Pope of teaching either heresy or error & then stick your head in the sand. If such a charge is justified you should have no trouble being able to justify it on the spot or maybe it is as I said you have not in fact vetted your criticisms.

    Put up or shut up!

    >In any case, if the “bad interview” was “nothing” why did Pope Francis express regret over it and why has it been removed from his Vatican webpage?

    The issue is the over the top way you ahve responded to it while giving the previous Popes a pass. Benedict made a statement about Muslims that lead to riots and deaths(not that I blame Benedict). JP2 kissed a Koran. You bedwet over this interview and attack the Pope in the most disrespectful way possible. Then you act suprised others take offense?

    Get a clue!

  7. If all you did was “raise eyebrows” at what the Pope said, that would be fine. Fr. Z does that all the time. You’ve mocked the Pope and come up with all sorts of justifications how somehow comparing him to Fr. Guido, a parody of a Catholic Priest intentionally designed to make them look stupid, is perfectly all right, and you’ve basically been taking everything he says and giving it the worst possible interpretation.

    I mean, you linked to websites supposedly “more extreme” than you, then qualified it almost immediately, because I don’t think you really think they’re wrong.

    You gave a long response to me before about why you don’t think the Pope is really a heretic, but you admitted yourself that the only reason you don’t believe he is one is that you don’t want to.

    Even if you think you’re in the right is it hard for you to understand why people are frustrated with you right now?

  8. IbnYaqob says:

    I tried talking to Codg’s buddy here. He is not the brightest bulb in the bunch.

    http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/11/faithful-catholics-oppose-interfaith.html

    The issue here is not Codg’s weird meme that nobody is allowed to give fair sober and concerned criticism or feedback on the Pope’s public statements.

    The issue here happens to be is he one of those principled critics or is he giving grave scandal?

    Well if just a hot head like moi was complaining he would have plausible deniability.

    But I am not the only one here with a problem here now am I?

  9. Dale Price says:

    So far, I see two, maybe three people frustrated with Elliot right now.

    For my part, Elliot Bougis–and those like him–aren’t the problem–it’s the Praetorian Guard mindset that stridently hacks down confusion and doubt. Whereas, Ironically, the Pope doesn’t seem to want that.

    The people most starry-eyed about the Pope are the least receptive to that part of his message which emphasizes less hierarchy and more dialogue.

  10. IbnYaqob says:

    Price you wrote this on your blog.

    >Because, for my part, the most visible fruit of this pontificate has been the occasion to watch intelligent people–my friends–who genuinely love the Church and want what is best for her hurl anathemas, come to blows and engage in a rhetorical civil war.

    Really have you not been paying attention during the reign of Pope John Paul II?

    Back then I do remember a time when persons named Mario Derksen, Bob Sungenis, Scott Hahn, Gerry Matitics and Karl Keating where all on the same side. Then it all went south because some of these individuals became “Papal Critics”. Now of the names I just listed two are sedes, & another one is a holocaust denier.

    Still in spite of the two Sedes and the Geocentrist holocaust denier I learned of principled Papal Critics like Carl Oslen or Kevin Tierney.

    It’s all happening again.

  11. Crude says:

    Dale,

    Well, I’ll be the curmudgeon and say I think everyone is making mistakes here.

    The Praetorian Guard is in Viva Papa! mode, focusing on defense of the Pope – and some of them (particularly the liberal inclined) are being particularly zealous, because they finally get to be Fervent Loyal Catholics for a Pope that their liberal friends seem to like. It’s been a lonely couple of decades trying to a loyal Catholic with liberal political sensibilities, even superficially. Some of them are just plain used to defending the Pope to the wall, period.

    The Social Liberals are, of course, doing what social liberals tend to do – misrepresenting everything the Pope says according to whatever their whims are at the time. There’s still some ‘Bergoglio is a monster!’ sorts out there, precisely because the Pope hasn’t changed anything they want changed, or signalled he would do such a thing. The Cult of Gnu atheists are also less than pleased, because now that it’s suddenly cool to like the Pope they feel particularly out in the cold. But the SoLibs are out there.

    The Papal Purity Force meanwhile gets comprised of some out and out sedevacantists or SSPX types on one end (who didn’t become so due to Francis, but who just see all the people getting worked up over him as vindication, so they yell louder than ever), and on the other, suspicious and paranoid types who are now at the point where, unless Francis garrotes Andrew Sullivan with his bare hands right in St Peter’s Basilica, they’re treating Francis either as an idiot-Pope who has no idea what damage he’s causing, or quite possibly a crafty subversive enacting his master plan to undermine the Church.

    Among all of this are people making good points, raising valid concerns about the pope, granting reasonable praise, etc. I think Codg has made some good points, but also a lot which just baffle me. (See the most recent conversation on here.)

  12. IbnYaqob says:

    You link doesn’t work Crude.

    I think you mean here?

    https://ebougis.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/looks-like-somebody-forgot-to-take-his-meds/#comments

    BTW anyone wants to some really interesting Traditionalist Catholic News on Francis.

    Need look no further than here.

    http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/2013/11/various-francis-news.html

  13. Trad Dad says:

    As for the citation, I believe the passage is found in Melchor Cano’s De Locis Theologicis Libri Duodecim (1563). I believe this is the original passage in full, and in the original Latin:

    Nunc illud breviter dici potest, qui summi pontificis omne de re quacunque iudicium temerè ac sine delectu defendunt: hos sedis Apostolicae auctoritatem labefactare, non fovere: evertere non firmare. Nam ut ea praetereamus, quae paulò antè in hoc capite explicata sunt, quid tandem adversum haereticos disputando ille proficiet, quem viderint non iudicio, sed affectu patrocinium auctoritatis pontificiae suscipere, nec id agere ut disputationis suae vi lucem ac veritatem eliciat, sed ut se ad alterius sensum voluntatemque convertat? Non eget Petrus mendacio nostro, nostra adulatione non eget.

    My Latin is not good enough to attempt a translation, but I know enough to have good reason to think this is the original source. As you can see, the version I provided on Steve’s blog is edited from this, but I think the gist is the same. Hope this helps.

  14. “unless Francis garrotes Andrew Sullivan with his bare hands right in St Peter’s Basilica”

    Funny because true.

  15. drprice2 says:

    Yeah, I kinda did notice that infighting, Ben. Your consistent penchant for attributing to me such attributes as blindness and stupidity don’t endear.

    There’s a fundamental difference between apologist infighting (about which no one outside the teensy nerdfest which is the apologetic wars subculture even noticed) and the widespread sense of disquiet which no less a figure than Archbishop Chaput felt necessary to publicly acknowledge and address.

    I trust you can see the difference.

  16. drprice2 says:

    Fair enough. And I wouldn’t claim to be without error myself, either.

  17. Pingback: Thou art Peter… | 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.

  18. IbnYaqob says:

    >Yeah, I kinda did notice that infighting, Ben. Your consistent penchant for attributing to me such attributes as blindness and stupidity don’t endear.

    You don’t exactly endear me with your emotive “Francis reminds me of my liberal bishop” mishigoss because of some superficial similarity between the two either. If you can’t take criticism don’t offer any & don’t complain either. Otherwise man up and take it like the rest of us.

    >There’s a fundamental difference between apologist infighting (about which no one outside the teensy nerdfest which is the apologetic wars subculture even noticed)

    Nonsense! As if regular non-apologist Trads & conservative laymen didn’t exist. You think these people fought alone behind the scenes and the faithful serious Catholics (not C&E types) who consumed their material didn’t take notice? They took notice and they took sides. EWTN kicked Sungenis off their network because of the holocaust denial.

    > and the widespread sense of disquiet which no less a figure than Archbishop Chaput felt necessary to publicly acknowledge and address.

    You sir where definitely not paying attention. The first Assisi event was a total cock up and a Scandal. Then Cardinal Ratzinger refused to attend it because he did not think it was a good idea. Buddhist statues on the Altar! Many in the curia where not happy & complained so rules where established so the next one was a vast improvement. Kissing the Koran was a disaster. Also JP2’s blind spot when it came to Fr Marcel & his cult the Legions of Christ hurt a lot of people & that was a big problem. Ask Pete Vere sometime.

    I say all this as a staunch defender of Pope John Paul the Great! Sorry buddy but if you want to convince me we lived in the good old days back then & have now entered the dark times it will only provoke me to turn up my mockery volume to 11. I was there and I was paying attention.

    I see there is a difference. A dumb interview with an Atheist is peanuts. An Orthodox Priest getting murder by a Muslim mob for something Benedict XVI said innocently off the cuff is worst! Mind you I don’t blame either Francis or Benedict because I take the time to pay attention.

    I recomend you do too.

    Cheers.

  19. drprice2 says:

    >>You don’t exactly endear me with your emotive “Francis reminds me of my liberal bishop” mishigoss because of some superficial similarity between the two either. If you can’t take criticism don’t offer any & don’t complain either. Otherwise man up and take it like the rest of us.”>>

    Your aggressive posturing aside, the problem is that you insist on making your faulty, shoot-from-the-hip interpretations the other guy’s problem. In fact, you’ve done so with every blogger you respond to who isn’t Ed Feser, invariably wearing out your welcome in the process.

    Let’s be blunter yet: you also have a habit of insulting people. Recall, your parting shot to me was “Jerk” and a snarl at my family life—and I STILL didn’t ban you, chief–so let’s not pretend you have any moral high ground to pontificate from. When you add to that condescending, patronising, misreading, cherry-picking and berating, and it gets tiresome. Which you did to the tune of approximately 100 comments at my place. And, really–griping about someone else’s “emotive” style? Pot, kettle, opposite of white.

    Nevertheless, and at the risk of prolonging a futile endeavor, I will respond:
    Do you remember it was a four part essay? The longest series I’ve ever written in 11 plus years of blogging, in fact. Five, actually, if you include my initial concern post, which is what started the ball rolling. So, read in their entirety, without a prosecutorial mindset, it’s evident I did not compare Francis to Untener–except in the very, very limited way the non-Catholic world tended to celebrate both, and for the same reasons. After all, I offered no praise for the latter (though honesty compels me to admit he had his gifts), but offered considerable praise for the Pope and his outreach to the margins. So, yeah, wrong again.

    In other words, you engaged in the very activity you pound the table at others about—taking limited sections out of context, misreading them and zealously projecting them on someone you have problems with.

    The irony—she burns!

    If only you had been deliberately ironic, I’d be almost appreciative. Alas. There’s still that “jerk” thing, and bringing my family into it.

    What I did express was my concern—with carefully drawn examples–that Francis was empowering progressives like Untener. You know, praise for Martini as a “father to the Church” and a “prophetic” figure. Martini, the man who said the Church was 200 years behind the times? Martini, beloved by the staff of the National Catholic Reporter? In your prosecutor’s mode, you insisted I was raising an anodyne liturgy complaint. Total misread. Again.

    What I related—in context–was my rather uncomfortable experience with a progressive regime, and the fear that such could return. Which, I would think we could manage to agree would be bad. I would hope so.

    >>There’s a fundamental difference between apologist infighting (about which no one outside the teensy nerdfest which is the apologetic wars subculture even noticed)
    Nonsense! As if regular non-apologist Trads & conservative laymen didn’t exist. You think these people fought alone behind the scenes and the faithful serious Catholics (not C&E types) who consumed their material didn’t take notice? They took notice and they took sides. EWTN kicked Sungenis off their network because of the holocaust denial.
    and the widespread sense of disquiet which no less a figure than Archbishop Chaput felt necessary to publicly acknowledge and address>>

    The wider Church doesn’t notice apologetic infighting, much less care about it. Really. To compare a couple of “whozat” figures like Derksen and Sungenis to the reaction a prominent Cardinal Archbishop felt the need to speak to and multiple MSM outlets have done stories about is comparing apples to linear accelerators. Then again, if Archbishop Chaput had a column in Denver addressing the widespread tumult caused by Derksen going Sede, I will immediately retract. I barely remember it happening myself, and I was paying attention then.

    I wasn’t Catholic before 1999. I recall the Quran kissing incident, and it did not provoke remotely the consternation. Not at all. Ditto Benedict praying in the Blue Mosque, which I also noticed.

    >>I say all this as a staunch defender of Pope John Paul the Great! Sorry buddy but if you want to convince me we lived in the good old days back then & have now entered the dark times it will only provoke me to turn up my mockery volume to 11. I was there and I was paying attention.>>
    If I’d said something as self-evidently stupid as “you lived in the good old days back then and we have now entered the dark times” you’d have me dead to rights. But I didn’t. Again, I was paying attention from 1999 onward, despite your patronizing insistence I was not.

    >>I see there is a difference. A dumb interview with an Atheist is peanuts. An Orthodox Priest getting murder by a Muslim mob for something Benedict XVI said innocently off the cuff is worst! Mind you I don’t blame either Francis or Benedict because I take the time to pay attention.>>

    Again with the patronizing insistence that you pay attention, and I do not. But, yeah, it’s my fault. Again, it’s ironic, since I devoted very, very little of my multi-parter to Scalfari, but you’ve managed to read that into my writing. And Regensburg wasn’t “off the cuff”—it was a carefully-constructed statement about the relationship between faith and reason, the fruit of a lot of thinking about how each needs the other and cannot be sundered. The reaction was hardly intended, but that doesn’t make the Palaeologus reference “off the cuff.”
    Really, Ben, I don’t know what else to say. You reacted—and continue to react—to me like I did you some personal harm. Whereas I have not, nor have I even pissed in your Wheaties. I assure you your approach to me has not done any good whatsoever. For either of us.

  20. Pingback: The pope, the papacy, and the love of God… | 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.

  21. drprice2 says:

    Whatever, Ben. Go with God.

  22. drprice2 says:

    And for what little they are worth, I will remember you and your family in my prayers.

  23. drprice2 says:

    Addendum, to forestall a freakout–“what little they are worth” refers to my prayers.

  24. Ibn Yaqob says:

    Back at you brother Price and that is meant with all sincerity, no irony and no freak out.

    God bless you & keep you.

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

  26. Pingback: So, let me get this straight… | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam" fidescogitactio @ gmail . com

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s