Pope Francis continued his assault against the “Pelagians” of traditional Catholicism (Homily, 17 Oct. 2013), returning to a theme introduced shortly after his elevation when he belittled as “restorationist” those who offered him a spiritual bouquet of Rosaries.
Letting loose against those who recite memorized prayers “like a parrot,” the pope emphasized that “saying prayers” is not the same as “praying.”
The Pharisees, he noted, “these teachers of the law, said many prayers.”
Did the pope really intend to disparage such prayers as the Memorare and the Salve Regina, or was he simply pointing out that the venerable traditional prayers that Catholics so often recite from memory bear increasingly greater spiritual fruit as the purity of one’s intentions also grows?
It’s not immediately clear, but either way, the central point of the homily was to warn against what the Holy Father sees as “a serious illness, this Christian ideology.”
The faith passes, so to speak, through a distiller and becomes ideology. And ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements.
Who are these people that practice a “Christian ideology?” What is this “distiller” of rigidity and moralism of which the pope speaks?
As I suggested upon launching the Defensor Doctrinae project, in order to truly appreciate the gravity of Pope Francis’ intentions, it is necessary to examine similar threads of thought offered elsewhere; ideas that may initially seem disjointed, but once interwoven, form the fabric of his teaching.
Pope St. Pius X encouraged as much in his timeless Encyclical against Modernism:
But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis)
For example, if one revisits the Holy Father’s lengthy interview with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J., the intended message begins to come into sharper focus:
If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists — they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.
While the pope primarily intends to criticize traditionalists, urging them to “open up to new areas,” it is important to recognize that the “serious illness” of which he speaks has, at least in his mind, infected pretty much every devout Catholic, including many of the same neo-con papal defenders who have deluded themselves into thinking that they are safely living in peaceful harmony with Francis’ program.
Is it not entirely normal, and eminently healthy, for every Catholic to desire “doctrinal security” and to long for a Church wherein everything related to the Faith is “clear and safe?” Is this not precisely what one finds in God, and as such, is this not exactly what one should expect from the Church that He established?
According to Pope Francis, the answer is no!
Now, bear in mind, the pope is not saying that we should have no doctrinal security at all; rather, he is saying that such cannot be found in the professions, practices and disciplines of the past (prior to the 1960’s, one presumes), and he goes on to point toward that new “safe harbor” wherein he intends to moor the Barque of St. Peter. (God help us!)
I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else — God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.
Let us attempt to decipher what we have so far.
In the past, the pope appears to be saying, one perhaps imagined that he did well to seek God in the sure doctrine of the Catholic Church, wherein one could safely grow in communion with Him. Those who attempt the same today, however, will find not God, but rather will they find “nothing.”
So, if not in the arms of Holy Mother Church, where does the pope imagine the locus of “certainty” to be? In other words, where shall we seek the one true God?
In other human beings!
This forms an essential plank in the credo of the church-of-man, and it should, by now, sound familiar.
Remember, this is the same pope who told the atheist Eugenio Scalfari, “The Son of God became incarnate to infuse into the souls of men a feeling of brotherhood.” If that isn’t anthropocentric enough, he also said that the most urgent problem facing the Church, and the world, is youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. (And yet, remarkably, he accuses traditional Catholics of behaving as ideologues.)
What then of doctrinal security? Did it ever really exist, or were previous generations of Catholics, over the course of some 1900 years, simply fooling themselves?
All indications seem to suggest that Pope Francis believes that Catholic doctrine is to some extent malleable and must be adapted to humankind, not vice versa. Likewise, he seems to believe that Church teaching does not form the man; rather, the man forms, if not the teaching itself, the way in which it is formulated, even to the point of creating something new.
Speaking to Fr. Spadaro, he said:
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 or deluded about itself … 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.
The unavoidable conclusion is that Pope Francis imagines that the doctrinal formulae once considered nurturing for the soul are undeserving of our firm faith today as they have become like poison simply with the passage of time.
When precisely do these formulae become a source of illness? When they lose sight of God? No, when they lose sight of man!
In June, L’Osservatore Romano reported on a related reflection given by the pope.
They are today’s Pelagians who believe in the firmness of faith and are convinced that “salvation is the way I do things.” “I must do them seriously,” without any joy. The Pope commented, “they are very numerous. They are not Christians. They disguise themselves as Christians.”
Compare this warning against “the firmness of faith” with the words of Pope Pius XI:
Now, certainly in these days when so many impediments and obstacles are raised against the true sense of Christ, and the supernatural spirit, wherein alone our holy religion consists; when Naturalism, which weakens the firmness of faith, and quenches the flames of Christian charity, holds dominion far and wide; it is of the greatest importance that a man should withdraw himself from that bewitching of vanity which obscureth good things and hide himself in that blessed secrecy, where, cultured by heavenly teaching, he may form a just estimate, and understand the value of human life devoted to the service of God alone… (Encyclical, Mens Nostra, 1929)
According to Pius XI, “firmness of faith” is precisely what we need in order to have a proper understanding man’s value relative to the God to whom our service is due. Apart from it, he suggests, one is apt to overestimating the value of humankind, serving man instead of God.
If that isn’t striking enough, consider the following:
With faith comes a new reliability, a new firmness, which God alone can give. If the man of faith finds support in the God of fidelity, the God who is Amen (cf. Is 65:16), and thus becomes firm himself, we can now also say that firmness of faith marks the city which God is preparing for mankind.
And from where does the above treatment come?
From the first Encyclical Letter of the Supreme Pontiff Francis, Lumen Fidei! I think it’s rather safe to assume that these are the words of his predecessor. In any case, consider the implications: If the firmness of faith leads to the City of God, where does he who condemns it intend to go?
As much as one may wish to deny it, the picture that emerges when weaving together the pope’s numerous threads of thought is a rather stunning one; it forms nothing less than a blueprint for the City of Man, and it should strike holy terror in the hearts of the faithful.
We live in historic times. In an unprecedented way, the Church of Christ the King is under attack at the hands of those who wish to supplant her with the church-of-man.
No, Pope Francis didn’t initiate that battle within the Church; rather, it began in earnest on October 11, 1962, and apart from the boldness with which the devastation of Holy Mass was enacted shortly thereafter, the plan has been carried out with subtly and great nuance by the popes ever since.
Until now.
I think we are fast approaching the world religion without dogma.
http://www.leepenn.org/FalseDawn.html
When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hailed Pope Francis as “a spiritual leader of the world” and also commented on the pope’s choice to name himself after St Francis of Assisi, saying this was “a powerful message for the many goals shared by the United Nations” I knew we are in hard times.
Until now, indeed.
Thank you for this necessary commentary. I believe the gates of hell won’t prevail, but there is comfort in the knowledge that there are Catholics with an ability to help us understand what it is that our bishop of Rome is doing. I will read it again more studiously.
Thank you Louie for taking the time to parse out the fallacies, truths, lies and contradictions found in Pope Francis. Traditional Catholicism isn’t an ideology…it’s the attempt to live out the truth of Christ. Truth, by it’s very nature, is rigid. It’s what protects it, allows it to grow, and defines it…keeping chaos at bay. The whole emo, man centered, fumes ideology gets very old…I will be very happy when the hippy generation goes home (to heaven/purgatory I hope). Then we can clean up the mess and restore the intellect, will and heart in the Church and thus the world by speaking and living Catholic truth with every breath we take. God bless you for your work, Louie!
Personally, I’m just waiting for the present Pontiff’s no doubt forthcoming tv reality show. They can call it “Bishop of Home,” or “Roman Holiday.”
Or even just an appearance on Letterman.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid that he’d fit right in.
O tempora!
to Leo–
Thank you-I needed that. Proof that any solid Catholic has a sense of humor without which you , {nor I,} could be prepped for battle. And just in time for my 3 o’clock Puerto Rican coffee.
I just finished reading Pescendi about 2 weeks ago with a highlighter in my hand, thinking I might make a few marks, pointing out where the current B of R’s ideas and words were prophetically illuminated in this classic piece against Modernism. I came out of the reading with much of each page highlighted, underscored, and asterisk’d . I was stunned.
We are indeed in for some rocky times. Thank you for your great service to the Church, and your warrior spirit Mr. V.
I, too, would like to thank you, Louie (may I call you Louie?), for your work. YOU, sir, are the one with a balanced sense of humour. It’s no doubt your Italian heritage – a firm grasp on the more absurd side of reality, and rolling with it.
I also greatly appreciate Michael Voris, but I worry for the man’s heart.
I’m a newer kid in this hood, but just let relate that I think our host has pegged it with the “until now” angle.
Reminds me of Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of the Joker in Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman.
I can just see Pope Francis reading a summary of complaints submitted by the FSSPX and other resistance fighters concerning the Council:
“Terrorizes….wait’ll they get a load of me.”
Truth is real and what’s real is the Truth and thank God we are reminded of this. The Holy Ghost wasn’t misleading or, Lord have mercy, making anyone unfit for Heaven for 1900 years.
A perfect quote from a new Remnant article about the not-real and the not-truth:
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”
– Alice in Wonderland –
“It should strike holy terror in the hearts of the faithful.” Indeed it does. This is the “theology of the poor” which is the Argentine version of “liberation theology” which is based on marxism which is a failed attempt to build “the city of man”. Here is a link regarding Francis and “liberation theology”:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/09/pope-francis-and-liberation-theology/
In which Father Z. tries to make a case that “liberation theology without the Marxism is pretty much just Catholic social teaching”. Not exactly.
Also, when I saw the word “ideology” above being used by Francis it reminded me of another occasion when he used that word. He seems to use it as a shorthand for “a rigid ideology” or “dogmatic”. Of course the Catholic Church has always been known for being “dogmatic” — just ask any protestant or atheist.
The word “ideology” was used by Francis in a homily in which he criticized Judas for being an “ideologue”:
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/14/pope_at_mass:_a_big_heart_to_avoid_selfish_isolation/en1-691921
According to Francis “poverty as an ideology” was the downfall of Judas. But how is that different from his own “theology of the poor”? Presumably Francis does not turn his “preference for the poor” into an “ideology”. And yet he seems to be very dogmatic about how “stubborn” it is to want to “restore” the Church. But in fact the motto of the papacy of Pope St. Pius X was “restore all things in Christ”:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10supre.htm
And by the way, some sloppy translations of Pius X like to change the word “restore” to “renew”. They are not the same.
Pope Francis, apparently, doesn’t like “memorized” or “recited” prayers. But we do know that he has a devotion to Our Blessed Mother. Can anyone point to anything he has said about the Rosary? Does he say the Rosary? Does he consider the Rosary as “not really praying” because the prayers are “memorized” or “recited”?
As for the “solemn nonsense” that is proselytism and the apparent sufficiency for salvation of “following your conscience,” would Pope Francis object to my becoming a Lutheran? If he would object, on what grounds? Does it not really matter what church I belong to? Or none? I guess I’m saying that if it’s perfectly okay to be a Protestant, or an atheist, then shouldn’t it be okay for me to “convert” of my own free will to Protestantism?
And, finally, is anyone else just tired of the “I’m a loyal son of the Church” line that allows us to assume that the Pope believes whatever we project on him as orthodox Catholic belief? Can’t most dissident Catholics say the same thing, i.e. “I’m a loyal son of the Church” which justifies their their dissent? Pope Francis says he is a “loyal son of the Church” but then speaks in ways that make you doubt that.
The Pope, apparently, says three Rosaries a day. Then again, he’s the Pope, right? Heh. He’s basically sounding like an old-school Catholic-Anglican at this point, but I think the “ecumenical” currents within him are pushing him more to the right of that hyphen. I guess memorized prayers are okay as long as one is “spiritual” and not “rigid” and always “smiling” like he is. As always, though, given his contradictory signals, I just don’t know whom the Pope has in mind with the “memorized prayers” thing. I mean, I DO have a pretty good hunch, but I’m bending over backwards to be charitable. This quote shows his hand: “These do not pray, abandoning the faith and transforming it into moralistic, casuistic ideology, without Jesus. And when a prophet or a good Christian reproaches them, they the same that they did with Jesus: ‘When Jesus left, the scribes and Pharisees began to act with hostility toward him’ – they are ideologically hostile – ‘and to interrogate him about many things,’ – they are insidious – ‘for they were plotting to catch him at something he might say.’” The interviews are STILL on the Vatican website among his OFFICIAL speeches, so he’s obviously conscious that people are “trying to catch” him in his words. All the talk of the Devil and Pharisees, the surge of soft ultramontanist sniping on anyone even remotely critical of the Pope… I think he’s setting up a perfect matrix for quite literally demonizing his “restorationist” opponents. My somewhat informed hunch is that he suffered a crisis of legitimacy a decade or two ago, and is now renouncing his past self as an authoritarian over the Jesuits in Argentina, which in turn has him bashing traditionalists as projections of his past self. The distinct odor of a Messiah complex in the above quotation does not strike me as very humble.
in order to truly appreciate the gravity of Pope Francis’ intentions, it is necessary to examine similar threads of thought offered elsewhere; ideas that may initially seem disjointed, but once interwoven, form the fabric of his teaching
You might even say, his ideology.
I still don’t get this bashing of ideology. Ideology means simply a world view. Everyone has one. As rational creatures, it is impossible NOT to have one. If you have to have an ideology (aka a world view), then it behooves to have an ideology that comprots with reality. The only ideology that comports with reality to the fullest extent is the Catholic ideology. So the HF has a beef with an ideology that comports with reality?
Although he is a son of the Church, he is also very much a son of his generation and the “ideologies” in which his mind was marinated. I am sure his intentions are good and he really believes his approach is in the best interest of humanity. But just because he means well, does not mean it ends well.
Insofar as an ideology is not Personal, that is, the worldview is strictly based on rubrics, laws, and letters, then it is not Catholic. Catholicism is based on Personal reality: the Person of Jesus, Son of the Father and conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virigin Mary. See the difference? If we have no sense of the Personhood of God or of one another, then we are not in touch with reality.
I can quote Pascendi all day long, and be like a resounding gong: If I have not love for other persons, I am nothing
I get the feeling that this pope has no use for me. That hurts a little but I’m going right along being Catholic just like always.
Regarding ”..returning to a theme introduced shortly after his elevation…”
Yes, two themes that sounded familiar appear in this referenced October homily; one from April, ‘Ideologues in the Church’ and another from May, ‘Open Doors in the Church’. And so I thought to revisit these to get a good idea of what Pope Francis defined as ideologues and ideology and closed doors. I don’t have anything yet and I read all three several times. I am, however, burning through Ripley’s This Is The Faith.
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-mass-with-vatican-printers-losservato
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-open-the-door-to-faith
Look, let’s not pretend that Bergoglio is anything but what he says he is: a manifest public heretic….its time, not so much for a Defensor Doctrine project, but for a public petition to the entire college of Cardinals to convene and pronounced him self deposed in virtue of his pertinacious heresies…
I agree – let’s not pretend.
‘faith passes through a distiller…’ this may be the mind of the individual, or the matter of the Sacraments, or projecting the pharisiac anti-plebs onto whatever irks one’s peccadillos. Most of us these days have a hatred for absolutes because it makes us subject to something infinitely more important than our wee Willy winkies. PF’s alchemical language is very ‘reformation’ – as in protestant. God is mysterious but he’s not a sophist and he actually knows what’s best for us. Perhaps God had centuries worth of entertainment over the self-referential school of alchemy. People really still do believe that flammell found the elixer. Alice in wonderland again.
Christendom and Revolution by Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara: Fr Iscara points out that there is the City of God and the City of Satan – we belong to one or the other. He says that revolution is a ‘mystery of iniquity’, that Satan is the father of all revolutions – ‘non serviam!’ As such the City of Man is a misnomer, a euphemism for the City of Satan. Even Bob Dylan drawled -‘ya gonna have to serve somebody…it may be the devil, it may be the Lord, but ya gonna have to serve somebody.’ The Truth being that when we serve ourselves we serve Satan who really isn’t looking out for our wellbeing.
Christ cautioned us to seek, ask, knock…don’t just accept what comes unbidden over the fence. The long standing rock-founded Church is there for all to see, Her teachings, Her martyrs – God bless their fruitful blood, Her Doctors and Saints from every walk of life – but all hearing and following the voice of the True Shepherd. One only has to read the life of St Frances de Sales and the lengths he went to save the souls of Protestants and bring them back to Truth to find modern Ecumenism to be some satanic form of spiritual euthenasia.