Showing posts with label rome. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rome. Show all posts

Monday, June 24, 2013

Trying to Figure Out Francis


Perhaps its just me but ever since the election of Francis to the Papacy it seems like everyone, even faithful Catholics are complicit in creating an aura of rupture over the new papacy.  Perhaps it should be expected that people are so fascinated with every little aspect of Francis’ ways that they forget that its really not about the person but the office.  It was the same thing with JPII (and no I don’t say the great, let history decide that), people treated the papacy as a celebrity office, picking and choosing what they like to hear from him and propping up an image that is friendly to them, like that hes ecumenical because of the Assisi issue.  Benedict was a known commodity unlike these two, so no honey moon existed.  With Francis it is said that people are walking on egg shells around him (I would presume with what he says its probably like walking on egg shells when hes around traditionalists). 

There have been many gestures and things that have been said in this short 3 months by the Holy Father that have often left us scratching our heads as to what he means by such.  I think I am at the point that I want to compile some things I have noticed and give a quick take on them.

1.       Forgoing of wearing the Mozetta and the red shoes.  Just after he appeared as the new pope most people recognized that he was not wearing the traditional Mozetta and later on that he was not wearing the red shoes.  Many in the media pointed to this immediately saying that surely this was a guarantee of ruptures to come, that finally the carnival was over as rumors put it, which were later refuted.  Such clothing is often viewed as luxurious wear, trampling on the poor and their misery.  Anyone can learn that the red is symbolic thing representing the blood of the martyrs which the Pope is to always prepare to also undergo.  Many said that the shoes were from a prestigious maker that the rich and famous use, but the shoes were actually made by a local cobbler, so strike 2.  Protestants came out saying that this was a good sign that he would forgoe such things, but as with everything else protestants have a hard time understanding the importance of symbols in the Christian life.  Francis later said that he was keeping his black shoes because they were fairly

2.       Just after the Pope was elected he made a couple statements that he hoped for a poor church and a church of the poor.  Many people immediately jumped on the words and said finally a Pope focused on the poor and not just the Vatican’s wealth.  I think its fair to say that the Pope is a Jesuit and very detached from worldly things including money and power.  I remember hearing a story from Badger Catholic about Father John Hardon and his profound simplicity where he is said to only have had 2 pieces of clothing, 2 cassocks.  Now I will note here that he did from time to time were pants, but still it was a detachment from the world and the concerns of the world that defined the late Fr. Hardon.  So too Francis is not attached to the things of the world and people cannot put him in a box that that confuses a culture built on division.  My initial thought on his statement of a poor church was a church detached from the things of the world that often keep us from being the evangels we are called to be.  He later confirmed this thinking in one of his addresses in the Paul VI hall during a general audience.  If we think for just a second it was the poor Catholic immigrants that came to this country that built the cathedrals by taking out 2nd mortgages, who had children, who were persecuted for the faith and yet persevered.  They were detached from how the world saw them.  Its not that they would not want to be American but they knew that they were to be in the world but not of it.  Having a love for creation doesn’t mean you place it above the final goal of being with the creator of the creation.  We are called to go against the grain, to be the light of the world.  The poor who have made up the majority of Holy Mother Church were dependent on God and trusted him just as he told them to.  The concerns of the world for riches and control distort the simple joy of trusting in him.  I know not where I will get my food, my clothing or the respect I seek, I place that in his hands and I pray his will be done and he never disappoints.  Even when things take a turn for the worse I remember Colossians 1:24 when Paul says Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

3.       When Francis decided to not move into the Papal apartments it was generally hailed as another fantastic break from the church’s so called Traditions and represented the humble aspect of the new pontiff, a paradigm shift from the past.  Supposedly it was said that he thought the apartment was too huge so he shunned to life.  I want to point out a couple things.  First no Pope since Leo XIII has occupied more than one level of the apartments.  About a year or two ago the History Channel got permission to make a documentary about the Vatican including the Papal apartments.  From what I remember the apartment that Benedict XVI occupied was not glittering, but very modest with a small TV and old furniture.  After the announcement was made the Eponymous Flower posted an article really looking at the supposedly shunned apartments, which the Pontiff still uses for meetings by the way.  You can find that great article here.  Perhaps one of the things that need to be cleared up is the reason why he choose not to be in the Papal apartments, namely he doesn’t like being entangled in bureaucracy and he loves being around people.  Benedict was a shy man and familiar with the way the Vatican Bureaucracy worked.  The bureaucracy does act as a buffer, but it also prevents the pontiff from getting helpful information.  For instance during the reign of Benedict XVI there were some in the Vatican who wished to see the Neocatecatical ways liturgy approved, and it was nearly approved until Raymond Cardinal Burke received a private audience with the Pope where he revealed the plot greatly saddening the Holy Father and eventually stopping the plan.  Francis in staying at the guest house is able to step out of the bureaucracy and get to business on his terms without a million road blocks that hindered the previous pontificates. 

4.       A couple weeks ago the Holy Father made a statement about Atheist’s that was all of the sudden blown up by the media who claimed it meant Atheist’s were assured of Heaven.  In fact the Pope made no such comment, he merely said that we can meet each other in doing good.  Now before we delve into the issue that only Good can be done by those in Christ understand I agree, but we are talking about actual grace which is given to all and we can use this grace that God gives to the heathens to bring them closer to God.  This whole thing reminds me of the former Pontiffs interview with Peter Seewald where he was asked whether it was a good thing that Male prostitutes use condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.  The Holy Father said that it was a move in a moral way that the person thinks of the others good when asking the question.  However he didn’t say that it would be ok, just that it is a move in the right direction, not a saving one and still sinful.  The moral of both stories is that the media is incompetent, and some are even downright evil in their distortion. 

5.       Another complaint is that the Holy Father only rarely refers to himself as the Pope.  Many see this as a shift of emphasis that he rejects the office.  This, however, is a mistake.  It is true that he much prefers at least publicly to be refereed to as the Bishop of Rome, but in doing so he doesn’t reject any other title afforded to the Supreme Pontiff.  For instance I can think of a number of times he references himself as the Pope so its not like it escapes him.  Rather in continuity with Benedict I think he is really trying hard to bring the Orthodox back in Communion with the Holy See and one of the ways to create the trust is to use familiar terms that both “lungs” share.  Specifically speaking Ignatius of Antioch refers to the Bishop of Rome who over sees the church in charity, so it’s a common link.  So too before he was elected as a pope he was asked his opinion on titles.  He did not reject that titles should be used but he did say that when one has to use titles over and over again to demand they recognize his authority he has already lost that authority.  So when people say that he is breaking the Tradition’s you can recognize that they are removing themselves from reality.  The Pope does not wish to hold himself up as a man against all others, but as the Servant of Servants correcting those dissenting from the faith in all charity.  Therefore don’t make a big deal of which title he prefers all of the titles are valid and it is up to the Pope how he wishes to wield his authority in the church. 

6.       This love of the poor is often referenced by those in the church (or out of it for that matter) who seek to set up Francis against the previous pontificates.  This is yet another media blitz to control the conversation and create false distinctions that only serve to confuse and divide the faithful.  All Pontiffs even the bad ones loved the poor to some degree or another.  Benedict didn't see his being a Pope in every sense as being opposed to loving the poor.  For instance in 2010 he was given a gift of a $2500 truffle, he immediately had it delivered to a soup kitchen for their use.  Living in the Vatican or living in the streets makes no difference in the end, and it shouldn't be used to condemn either.  St. Louie IX was a King, living with all the indulgences due his honor, yet his Love for the Lord humbled him to be a Christian King taking care of the poor and the widows while defending the country he was entrusted to. 


7.       A confusion of humility with simplicity, is perhaps the greatest confusion that is permitted by quite a few out there.  Even Catholic media sources allow this to propagate.  When people see that he doesn't wear the red items, or that he doesn't use a golden pectoral cross or lives in the guest house and not the papal apartments they say isn't that humble?  Hes rejecting material goods, he’s so humble.  Such thinking is Jansinist.  Its not humble to reject the traditions that are developments of the office.  It might indeed be simplistic, but its not humble.  Imagine if a King existed that when asked to give its people hope in leading his people into battle instead appoints another to take his place so that he may maintain his comfortable existence.  It is the same with Francis he might well feel uncomfortable with the so called “trappings” and tempted if he were to adhere to the Traditions that are part of the development of the office.  This is not an exclusive feeling toward the papacy.  Fulton Sheen and even Pius X were uncomfortable in the office with all of its traditions, yet they submitted themselves humbly accepting the office and all that came with it.  Perhaps when Francis is convinced that he will not be tempted by such aspects he will be more open to giving himself over to the office completely.


Let Us always pray for the Holy Father in his most difficult work in the Vineyard.  So too continue in praying for all the clergy and religious, for their battle with the diabolical is unceasing!  Oh and by the way I dont think Francis really cares about the issues most Traditionalists do, thats going to have to be a grass roots effort

Friday, May 17, 2013

Catholic world Report and First Things promoting error: Ecumenism without truth

So I am again going to point out another false attempt by the modernists (condemned by pontiffs like Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII specifically) to create unity for unities sake and all in the spirit of Vatican II, saying the documents allow this but doesnt quote anything and appeals to revolutionary ideas and novelties to condone their standing and opinions on the matter.  Enjoy! [My comments]


CWR: Most Catholics probably envision future unity between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church as a re-installment of one world Church organization with the pope of Rome at the top of the governing pyramid. A look at history shows that such a model never existed, so what could Orthodox-Catholic communion actually look like if it were achieved? A renewal of Eucharistic communion? The possibility of an eighth ecumenical council? A resolution for the dating of Pascha/Easter?



[Considering that Peter was the earthly head of the church with the Keys to loose and bind the heavens and the Earth and acted on this commission throughout scripture and the sacred history of the Church, yeah I do expect that there is a singular head, a visible sign of unity which Peter is.  To say that such a model never existed where the Bishop of Rome didn’t in fact hold primacy over all the other Bishops is to blatantly disregard history, one need only read Clement, Leo and the Early councils and Popes and see that Popes where not merely first among equals, but the rock of the faith.  The difference rests in the application of the office not in the actual understanding of the office, that is solemly defined by Vatican One under infallible decree, to deny that Peter is the visable head of the church is not merely to be sismatic, but to be heretical because as Catholics we must profess all the decrees handed down.  The Orthodox might claim it wasn’t solemnly proclaimed when they split so they might say they are only systematic, but denying truth is to be in error, thus hertetical.  Heaven knows what we don’t need now is another ecumenical council when the vaugness, and yes Mr. Mira the Vatican II documents are vague if they weren’t they wouldn’t require a strict hermanutic of continuity (see trent and Vatican I documents then compare).  The dating of the Pascal feast is another issue, see the link below for information on this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm]

Taft: What it would look like is not a “reunion” with them “returning to Rome,” to which they never belonged anyway [considering that there is One Church with Peter as its head, and this is clearly seen in scripture and in the History of the Church from the beginning this is a false statement] ; nor us being incorporated by them, since we are all ancient apostolic “Sister Churches” with a valid episcopate and priesthood and the full panoply of sacraments needed to minister salvation to our respective faithful [Hmmm so having valid episcopates and sacraments is the only thing needed to be in the church; wow I guess we should tell the Polish National Church and the Old Catholic Church they really never left since they have valid sacraments], as is proclaimed in the renewed Catholic ecclesiology since Vatican II [where does Vatican II call for a new ecclesiology?  And where does Vatican II state that it is to be held by the faithful as de fide?  This is more spirit of Vatican II garbage where the power play is to create a situation where the pontiff is merely a symbol, but not different then anyother Bishop in substance, thereby denying Vatican I.  Pope Paul VI is said to have been made aware of this collegial power grab and quashed it, feeling deeply saddened by the actions of the other Bishops] and enshrined in numerous papal documents from Paul VI on [so disregard anything before Paul VI, even if it is infallible teaching.  I mean really! First things what are you?  CWR what are you?  Modernists giving lip service to a hermanutic of continuity, but practicing the hermanutic of rupture], as well as in the wonderful Catechism of the Catholic Church. [But not the Catechism of Trent, because that’s not friendly enough] So we just need to restore our [our, wait we broke communion with them?  I don’t seem to remember this, we have Peter they don’t.  They continue to fall into error allowing divorce, contraception and other innovations from the top of their episcapates, but we need to be in communion with those perpetuating error? Please] broken communion and the rest of the problems you mention can be addressed one by one and resolved by common accord.
. . .
CWR: How could the papal claims of Rome be modified in a way that would be both acceptable to the Orthodox Churches and faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church? Do you think the jurisdiction issue really is a hang-up for the Orthodox since they also practice cross-jurisdiction throughout Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, and East Asia?

Taft: The new Catholic “Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution [Yippie a novelty, spirit of Vatican II!  Lord please when will the modernists be exiled from the Holy Church.  He is admitting a Heremantic of Rupture here!  Wake up people and see shes under attack by those within!] in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block [so we are not the one true faith in which the gates of Hell would not prevail?  Again these “sister churches” as he likes to call them are all ok with error.  We are literally the only kid on the block that has upheld truth in the face of mounting evil.  Playing semantic games like the whole church or the only kid on the block is creating a new novelty against the faith and denies the no salvation outside the Church dogma, and yes I know the nuance but still they will only be saved by the one church not being a sister church which is confusing the structure of the early Christians before the great schism], the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held, simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other Christians returning to Rome’s maternal bosom [And where in Vatican II does it deny this fact?  I will admit that Bishops have become cowardly especially with the Russian Orthodox playing semantic games that they would protestalatize, but how is this actually church teaching?  Writing a treaty is not a teaching, but an indult, to not act on truth, but not to deny it either].

Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality [This is such a stink bomb its incomprehensible that CWR and First things are making these statements public when they will cause confusion and scandle.  Again where is this idea in Vatican II?  Saying that the fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church necessarily means that all other bodies are lacking to some degree or another and must come into communion with the fullness]. In doing so they had a strong assist from the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and defenders of that reality [Where?  Where is this novelty introduced and does it even carry with it a de fide statement?  Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council and where it restates Catholic truth it is indeed infallible, but where novelties are introduced without a statement defining it to be held by all the faithful as can be seen in previous councils then it is a matter of being ambiguous and not actual de fide teaching. Such statements require a heremanutic of continuity to be in line with the whole tradition of the Church].



In this context I would recommend the excellent new book by Robert Louis Wilken, The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press 2012). Professor Wilken, a convert to Catholicism who is a recognized expert on Early Christianity and its history and literature, shows that Early Christianity developed not out of some Roman cradle but as a federation of local Churches, Western and Eastern, each one under the authority of a chief hierarch who would come to be called Archbishop, Pope, Patriarch, or Catholicos, each with its own independent governing synod and polity, all of them initially in communion with one another until the vicissitudes of history led to lasting divisions. [The Clement letter itself denies this possibility, just because a professor writes a book doesn’t make it correct].


+JMJ+