…of madness and joy.
My students reminded me of this:
And I thought of this:
It’s going around.
This is the theme music for John Zmirak’s diddy:
Any pope who’s ever reigned’s a saintly scholar-mystic,
And every thing a pope has said is binding and patristic.
Popes can change the weather and make ice cream out of lipstick.
The popes should choose our favorite bands, and set fashions stylistic.
Some say such docility’s a trifle Stalinistic.
But we prefer our minds’ blank slates and passions fatalistic!
Unrelated and not at all creepy:
(HT to Bones)
And while I am committed not to making claims of my own about Pope Francis’s recent apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (EG), until I’ve read it in full, I don’t feel any compunction sharing what others might be feeling. Apparently, as Louie Verrecchio notes, 90% of the citations in EG post-date Vatican II. The words “self-referential Church” come to mind, no? Mundabor makes a related point.
Meanwhile, in case you weren’t ginned up enough on the spirit of Thanksgiving, there’s this everlasting gobstopper of spiritual warmthiness:
(HT to Crescat.)
“Thankfully,” Dr. Taylor Marshall restores some sanity: “6 Interesting Catholic Thanksgiving Facts You Need to Know“.
Being very much in the spirit of the season, this abortion “doctor” avows her divine calling:
The owner of the last remaining abortion facility in Mississippi told reporters last week that she believes God wants her to be a part of the abortion industry.
“I feel like God wants me to do this job,” Diane Derzis, owner of Jackson Women’s Organization, told the Associated Press in a report published on Saturday. …
“I thank God every day I had that abortion,” she told reporters, noting that she herself had an abortion as a newlywed because she did not want to have any children. “It was not a great experience, but you know what? I had a safe abortion. And that’s what counts.”
(HT to Creative Minority)
Fortunately, the Pope–along with the reaction of the papacy’s usual enemies–has made the Church’s teaching on abortion clear once again.
Considering how how our age is so given to “openness”, “constant adaptivity” and “transforming everything”, I leave you with this sage excerpt from Lumen Fidei:
48. Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity. Precisely because all the articles of faith are interconnected, to deny one of them, even of those that seem least important, is tantamount to distorting the whole. Each period of history can find this or that point of faith easier or harder to accept: hence the need for vigilance in ensuring that the deposit of faith is passed on in its entirety (cf. 1 Tim 6:20) and that all aspects of the profession of faith are duly emphasized. Indeed, inasmuch as the unity of faith is the unity of the Church, to subtract something from the faith is to subtract something from the veracity of communion. The Fathers described faith as a body, the body of truth composed of various members, by analogy with the body of Christ and its prolongation in the Church. The integrity of the faith was also tied to the image of the Church as a virgin and her fidelity in love for Christ her spouse; harming the faith means harming communion with the Lord.
In closing, as you may be reading over the Thanksgiving break, and as I want you to be clear-minded in your faith, I leave you with a cautionary quotation (c/o of Pertinacious Papist via Mundabor) from Pope Pius VI’s papal Bull Auctorem Fidei (1786):
They [our most holy predecessors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error. Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine, who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed. …
In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.