It is Easter; a season wherein Catholics are moved to contemplate anew the glorious mystery of the Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord, its meaning and its impact.
In truth, if not for the reality of the Resurrection, our Faith would amount to little more than a pious fairytale; a work that springs forth from the hearts of man, about man, and for man, that although capable of igniting the flames of emotion; perhaps even leading to various random acts of kindness, ultimately changes nothing of the human condition.
It can be said, therefore, that the Resurrection serves as the foundation upon which all Catholic doctrine and our comprehension of the same in some way rests; i.e., a compromised concept of the Resurrection places in jeopardy one’s ability to faithfully accept and proclaim the reality of the Church, Holy Mass, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the sacraments, etc.
Not only does the Catholic who fails to embrace the reality of the Resurrection fail to know his faith; he fails to know Christ as His rising from the dead and all that it implies is, in the words of Monsignor Ronald Knox, “the climax of that series of miracles by which our Lord justified his claim to be the ambassador of a Divine revelation.”
Sure, pretty much every self-identified Catholic will say that he believes in the reality of the Resurrection, but in these dark days of crisis in the Church we must ever heed the warning of Pope St. Pius X concerning the modernists who “pervert the meaning and force of things and words.” (cf Pascendi Dominici Gregis)
When a faithful Catholic hears “Resurrection,” for example, he naturally envisions the Risen One who reigns victorious, Christ the King, to whom “all power in Heaven and on Earth has been given.”
This, however, is not necessarily what the modernists intend when invoking the Resurrection, as for them the ancient formulas of the Faith are “living, and should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes.” (ibid.)
With all of this said, let us now consider the example provided by Pope Francis relative to his view of the Resurrection, and how this impacts his ability to faithfully proclaim the fullness of the Faith, in this case, as it concerns the priesthood.
For further insight into the mind of the pope on this matter, we will also examine commentary offered by Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga (head of the so-called “C-8” chosen by Pope Francis to advise him on the reform of the Roman Curia) as given in his now infamous speech at University of Dallas in October 2013.
As I stated then, these two men are undoubtedly of one mind, and the present discussion will most certainly demonstrate that this is indeed the case.
First, let us consider a homily offered by Pope Francis on September 10, 2013, as reported by Vatican Radio:
The Pope noted that “there are also the Christians who are embarrassed. They are embarrassed to “confess that Christ is risen.” Finally, said Pope Francis there is the group of Christians who “in their hearts do not believe in the Risen Lord and want to make theirs a more majestic resurrection than that of the real one.” These, he said are the “triumphalist” Christians. “They do not know the meaning of the word ‘triumph’ the Pope continued, so they just say “triumphalism”, because they have such an inferiority complex and want to do this …
A well-formed Catholic cannot but be stunned by these comments when considered in the light of tradition as expressed so beautifully by Pope Pius XI:
After his resurrection, when giving to his Apostles the mission of teaching and baptizing all nations, he took the opportunity to call himself king, confirming the title publicly, and solemnly proclaimed that all power was given him in heaven and on earth. These words can only be taken to indicate the greatness of his power, the infinite extent of his kingdom. (cf Quas Primas)
Setting aside the harsh reality of a Holy Father who repeatedly and publicly demeans his very own children, one must ask, how can he imagine that anyone, “triumphalist” or otherwise, might even begin to envision a Resurrection that is one drop more “majestic” than “the real” one?
The answer, I’m afraid, is both disturbing and simple; our Holy Father does not embrace the reality of the Resurrection as the Church understands it.
We see the impact of this failure in a particular way in his treatment of Holy Orders, which shouldn’t surprise us since the priest is configured to the Risen Christ; an impoverished view of the Resurrection therefore necessarily leading to an impoverished view of the priesthood.
For example, Pope Francis writes in Evangelii Gaudium:
The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general. It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness.”
In this case, Francis is quoting from the document Christifideles Laici of Pope John Paul II who wrote:
In her participation in the life and mission of the Church a woman cannot receive the Sacrament of Orders, and therefore, cannot fulfil the proper function of the ministerial priesthood … Here we are in the area of function, not of dignity and holiness.
Read in context, John Paul II is saying that the inability of women to serve as priests should not be understood as a reflection of female holiness or dignity as compared to that of males; rather, this is a reflection of the “function” of the sexes as it relates to “the anthropological foundation for masculinity and femininity,” a concept that he introduced in the preceding article.
While it is true that ordination does not result in holiness, it does most certainly confer a degree of dignity that is derived, and uniquely so in the priest, from the dignity of the Eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ.
As a result of Pope Francis’ misappropriation of his predecessor’s words, readers are given the impression that the Sacrament of Holy Orders confers little more than permission to carry out certain ministerial duties. In fact, this very well may be precisely what the Holy Father believes and intends to teach. In any event, this isn’t the faith of the Church.
For greater insight, let us now look to the words of Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga:
The hierarchy has no purpose in itself and for itself, but only in reference and subordination to the community. The function of the hierarchy is redefined in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant, not as “Pantocrator” (lord and emperor of this world); only from the perspective of someone crucified by the powers of this world it is possible to found, and to explain, the authority of the Church. The hierarchy is a ministry (diakonia = service) that requires lowering ourselves to the condition of servants. To take that place (the place of weakness and poverty) is her own, her very own responsibility.
If nothing else, we must be grateful for the Cardinal’s willingness to admit that what is desired is indeed a “redefinition” of the priesthood such that it is henceforth to be viewed “in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant.”
In authentic Catholic thought, the priesthood can only be properly understood, expressed, and exercised in reference to Jesus Christ risen in glory, He who is most certainly Pantocrator no matter how much certain clerics may wish to pretend that He is not, thereby crowning Him with thorns all over again.
You see, for them, the priest is configured not to Christ the King, but rather to this figment of their modernist imaginations; a Jesus who is little more than an itinerant preacher who goes about doing good deeds, most especially those that are focused on the natural ends of the temporally poor, only to be crushed by the powers of this world.
It is this falsification of the Resurrection that leads Pope Francis to assert:
The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. (Evangelii Gaudium)
This, of course, is wholesale anticlericalism, the same of which Pope Pius XI said:
If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. (cf Quas Primas)
The connection couldn’t be plainer; those who fail to embrace the reality of Christ’s Kingship, inextricably linked to His glorious Resurrection, are destined to embrace anticlericalism in its stead.
Returning to Evangelii Gaudium:
In the Church, functions “do not favour the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others.” Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops.
Yes, and Blessed Jacinta of Fatima, just a child, is more important than the pope. So what? Does this mean that the sacred hierarchy is to the laity as a postman is to an electrician; a chef to a painter?
If so, how is one to understand the “hierarchical” nature of the Church?
Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical”, it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members”. Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. (ibid.)
Note well: In the mind of Pope Francis, “hierarchy” and “power” when understood and exercised in ways other than the mere administration of a service must necessarily entail an unsavory form of “domination;” it is, therefore, to be avoided.
This attitude, however, is derived from an utterly earthbound concept of the Church’s hierarchical nature.
Oddly enough, the word “domination” itself is derived from the Latin “Dominus” which refers to the Lord, He in whom “all power in Heaven and on Earth” rests, as well as all goodness and kindness and mercy!
It is precisely the Holy Father’s unwillingness to embrace the “majestic” Resurrection of Christ the Most Benevolent King that gives rise to his twisted understanding of the Church’s hierarchical authority, even as it resides in the Successor of Peter as evidenced over the last year by his “regular Joe” comportment.
Once the Risen Lord is effectively stripped of His Kingly dignity, power and authority, as in the minds of modernist thinkers like Pope Francis, to whom is the priest thus configured?
According to Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga:
Jesus’ entire life was a priestly life, in the sense that He became a man, was poor, fought for justice, criticized the vices of power, identified Himself with the most oppressed and defended them, treated women without discrimination, clashed with the ones who had a different image of God and of religion, and was forced by His own faithfulness to be prosecuted and to die crucified outside the city. This original priesthood of Jesus is the one that has to be continued in history.
Thus is the priest, the bishop, and even the pope (who after all is just the Bishop of Rome anyway) rendered little more than a glorified Peace Corp worker.
More could be quoted from these documents in support of the present argument, but the modernist spirit is evident enough already in these words of Pope Francis and his chosen right hand man.
Sure, they invoke “Resurrection, hierarchy, and priesthood,” but make no mistake about it, the intent is not to express immutable Catholic doctrine; rather, it is to assert yet another Newchurch novelty.
Speaking of which, barring the Lord’s merciful intervention, we will encounter yet another example on April 27th as the Holy Father “perverts the meaning and force of things and words” by proclaiming John XXIII and John Paul II to be among the Church’s canonized saints.
Pope St. Pius X, ora pro nobis!
This reeks of a protestant ideology, stripping the clergy of all delineation from the laity. This smells like a cross between liberation theology and protestant relativism. We are in for a very rough stretch.
Well said, Louie!
Wow, I don’t know who this guy is that you’re talking about but I sure don’t like him.
–
I much prefer His Holiness Pope Francis who said the following while celebrating the feast of Christ the King!
–
“Today’s solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, the crowning of the liturgical year, also marks the conclusion of the Year of Faith opened by Pope Benedict XVI, to whom our thoughts now turn with affection and gratitude…The Scripture readings proclaimed to us have as their common theme the centrality of Christ. Christ as the center of creation, the center of his people and the center of history…The apostle Paul, in the second reading, taken from the letter to the Colossians, offers us a profound vision of the centrality of Jesus. He presents Christ to us as the first-born of all creation: in him, through him and for him all things were created. He is the center of all things, he is the beginning. God has given him the fullness, the totality, so that in him all things might be reconciled (cf. Col 1:12-20). This image enables to see that Jesus is the center of creation; and so the attitude demanded of us as true believers is that of recognizing and accepting in our lives the centrality of Jesus Christ, in our thoughts, in our words and in our works. When this center is lost, when it is replaced by something else, only harm can result for everything around us and for ourselves…
–
Of course, Ganganelli is not aware that, as the great document Pascenci points out, modernism is shifty by nature – those who espouse it sometimes sound orthodox: “Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist”.
–
I’d guess he’s also never heard the maxim that the devil is happy to repeat 99% truth if he can introduce 1% error.
–
I can find quote from Ghandi, Clinton, & Obama that sound great, but that doesn’t make them good Catholics. You cannot undo the numerous statements of this pope that reek of abject modernism by “countering” them with those that are orthodox (as if the faithful should have to beg for such statements from a supreme pontiff).
–
If Christ is actually the King of the Universe, why did the Vatican start pressuring Catholic states, immediately after Vatican II, to become secular states and repeal all laws protecting & elevating the True Faith? “Do what they say, but not what they do”, said Our Blessed Lord about those who occupied the official teaching authority – the Seat of Moses – in His time.
–
You have a great deal to learn, Ganganelli, and you really should do some learning before continuing to offer criticism here. Honestly. God bless.
Well said, Louie. This leads easily to the protestant style minister, the married priesthood, and the further devaluation of the sacred nature of the priest as one set apart for the specific purpose of the care of the things of God. Looking at the Old Testament we know that God was very clear in his rules for the Levitical priesthood. And Our Lord was very clear in his setting up a new priesthood. It is a sad state of affairs when we see men who no longer take seriously their ordinations, publically flaunting their misbehavior impenitently and without correction. They need our prayers, and of course, we need our prayers.
i agree that the neo-modz ‘Jesus’ is something Lloyd Geering would be proud of. A neo-marxist. A social worker. Not the Word Incarnate who defeats hell, conquers the world and destroys death, rescuing us to live everlasting. I can only conclude that they do not know Him. One homily I heard from a priest, ‘look, what he (Christ) was on about’ was, according to the priest, being nice.
–
“an impoverished view of the Resurrection therefore necessarily leading to an impoverished view of the priesthood.” Your posts are a brilliant antidote to the poisonous fangs of the neo-modernist, Louie. Frankie said, ” Its key and axis is not power understood as domination” – odd, coming from a self-professed authoritarian who swept through the pontificate as if it were his own and very own kingdom.
–
“how can he imagine that anyone, “triumphalist” or otherwise, might even begin to envision a Resurrection that is one drop more “majestic” than “the real” one?” I think the only answer is a dearth of supernatural faith. We are told that when one sinner repents the angels in heaven rejoice. How must have Heaven and Earth rejoiced at the Resurrection? Just because a bunch of dull humans slept while it happened has nought to do with the Glorious Resurrection – “the greatness of his power, the infinite extent of his kingdom.”
St Paul said, ‘And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep.’ The Resurrection is the victory of the Cross; this is why you see the standard with the red cross of victory on it in Resurrection icons.
p.s. During WWII an Italian town was saved by a painting of The Resurrection by Piero Della Francesca. Some twenty years before, Aldous Huxley had visited the Town Hall as had many thousands of pilgrims to view the painting. In his travel writings he called it ‘the greatest picture in the world’. An English battery sergeant in the 40s was about the shell the town to the dust because of the German presence there, but he remembered that Sansepolcro housed the ‘greatest picture in the world’, and refused to raze the place that contained such a wonder. Unbeknownst, the Germans had already left so there was no longer an enemy. Long and short the town was saved, lives were saved and all because of The Resurrection.
A Catholic Thinker,
–
Far be it from me to even dare make a suggestion to Our Lord’s Holy Vicar who is, as the infallible first Vatican council declared, the Supreme judge of the faithful; nevertheless, I offer the following with full understanding of my extreme lowliness in comparison to His Holiness.
–
Holy Father, as Pope Benedict XIV said in 1740, you hold the place of God on earthso I write this with fear and trembling. Please consider calling the bluff of the so-called trads you so rightly disdain. I suggest you immediately announce that within two month’s time all dioceses throughout the western world will be required to offer at least one tridentine mass EVERY Sunday. At that mass, require the priest to make an announcement that anyone in attendance who has fornicated, masturbated, contracepted or otherwise engaged in the sins that most upset the “trads” are absolutely forbidden to come forward to communion. Do this for at least a year. NOW here is the most important part. YOU must post both the attendance and collection plate revenue for these masses. The only way you can call out the rank hypocrisy of these trads is if you implement these last steps. After just a year, we both know that the entire edifice will come crashing down on the trads like a house of cards. You can then go on to “harvest the fruits of Vatican II” and get on about preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
As quoted by Louie, Maradiaga states: “The function of the hierarchy is redefined in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant, not as “Pantocrator” (lord and emperor of this world)”.
This should be compared with the following statement from the Council of Frankfurt, quoted in Denzinger, 30th ed., #313 (emphases below added):
“[I]f the prophet called Him servant, it is not, however, from the condition of servitude, but from the obedience of humility, by which He was made obedient to the Father even unto death [Phil. 2, 8].”
It is also worth noting the verse referred to from Philippians, which with subsequent verses reads as follows:
“8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above every name:
10 That in the name of Jesus, every knee should bow of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.”
Ganganelli,
–
Who sent you to this site to defame the good name of faithful catholics? ChurchMilitant.TV? Opus Dei (although I suspect they both work together so one and the other is probably the same thing)? The Evil One? Because it definitely seems like you are saying these things not out of your own account, as you clearly have zero interest either in this site or in Tradition, but someone charged you with trolling this site daily with the express intent of sabotaging Louis’ blog.
–
You would worship the pope as some sort of God? You are not afraid of the sin of idolatry, one of the most grievous sins there is?
–
You say (correctly) that the Supreme Pontiff is the supreme judge of the faithful. You’ve never heard Francis utter these infamous words when referring to the scandalous open sodomitic priest Msgr Ricca, “if someone is “gay”…who am I to judge?”?
–
You don’t think novus ordites commit any of the sins – and more – that you listed above in an attempt to defame the good name of faithful catholics? You’ve never heard of open sodomites and abortion approving politicians sacrilegiously being handed the Body of Christ from cowardly prelates such as Card Dolan and Card Wuerl of DC?
–
It is one thing for a catholic to argue positively in favor of Vatican II and its ensuing reforms in a spirit of charity and truth (although I would clearly vehemently disagree). It is quite another thing to maliciously defame the good name of faithful catholics through an act of breathtaking hypocrisy, as if the sins they allegedly commit are not also carried out by novus ordites (and much worse ones: abortion, sacrilegious communion, communion in the hand, farcical “annulments” – de facto divorce – etc etc).
–
God have mercy on your soul.
Dumb_ox,
–
Many thanks for your continuing excellent contributions on Louis’ blog – contributions such as yours is part of the reason why this is such an excellent place for faithful catholics to visit.
–
God Bless.
I agree with dear Edu,
thank you Dumb_ox !
and if I may say,
thank you dear Edu.
Peace be to you.
Thank you both, and thanks to Louie for giving us the chance to find good companions in difficult times. Happy St. George’s Day.
Ganganelli, since you disagree with pretty much everything Louie writes, one might reasonably question why you visit this blog. Regardless, pray for me and all the faithful, and I, on my part, will pray for you in union with the risen Christ, our triumphant Savior and King.
I strongly suggest none of us respond any longer to Ganganelli’s comments. Let him write what he wills, we should ignore all and not take the bait. It is beyond boring. Pax.
There is still a real problem here, Ganganelli, even if you choose not to see it.
—
The feast of Christ the King was instituted to place special stress on his Kingship over societies and governments, and that governments must recognize Him, and His Catholic Church as the one true faith. And must work to support the true Church and repress, as is feasible, the public manifestation of doctrinal and moral errors.
—
Now if we were to tell this to Pope Francis, he undoubtedly would recoil in horror at such traditional authoritative doctrine, perhaps believing that it crimps the wonderous flowing of the spirit. Perhaps he would add one of his signature insults to boot, such as claiming that such beliefs in the 21 century could only be held by promethean, neo-pelagian restorationists who are rigidly beholden to previous Catholic ‘styles’ that must be abolished for an amorphous glorious neo-modernist/modernist future.
Edu,
–
Faithful Catholics don’t worship the Pope as God but that brings up an interesting question. Do you agree with Pope Benedict XIV who in 1740 declared in his encyclical Ubu Primum that the Pope holds the place of God on earth?
Enchante,
–
While I can’t speak for His Holiness, I am sure that he would embrace every word of that beautiful encyclical of Pope Pius XI Quas Primas that instituted the feast of Christ the King! Pope Francis constantly speaks of the evils of international financial capitalism and it’s baneful consequences including divorce, contraception, and abortion. How wonderful it would be for a Catholic state to deprive the Koch brothers of their ill-gotten wealth. What a great blessing it would be if the state required that horrible employers like Walmart had to pay a just wage(according to Catholic doctrine) and couldn’t be open for business on Catholic feast days and Sundays. Alas, the godless capitalists have established their profit at all cost hegemony with their useful idiots on the Catholic “right” cheering them all the way.
By the way, I encourage everyone to read Quas Primas of His Holiness Pope Pius XI. You will see that he says not one word about jews or muslims or protestants. The whole encyclical is about the aggressive secularism and anti-clericalism that was rampant at that time and remains so today.
–
I love this following line that so well condemns those aggressive libertarianism:
–
“The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin.
Gangli,
–
You are twisting the meaning of Benedict XIV’s words from the encyclical.
–
Besides which:
Why no answer to my numerous other questions?
Too hard to answer?
–
WHO sent you to fill Louis’ blog with hate filled spam?
Edu,
–
Nobody sent me here. And I would remind you that upon reopening the comments, Louie welcomed the participation of those that don’t agree with him. I guess he has thicker skin than you.
–
Furthermore, I don’t see any relevant “questions” that I failed to address. I pointed out that while Catholics don’t worship the Pope – therefore decimating your notion that there is idolatry involved – we are to treat the Pope as “God on earth”.
–
Lastly, I find some of your “questions” no more than talking points for a right wing agenda. When you start demanding that the bishops refuse communion to the likes of Paul Ryan(who is pro-abortion when the child is conceived by rape) and not just the darn libruls like Pelosi and Biden, maybe I’ll believe you are more than just a partisan conservative. I, for myself, will stick with Our Sweet Christ on earth(as St. Catherine called the Pope) who declared that he “has never been a right winger.”
Gangnelli, you must be joking.
While Pope Francis would undoubtedly embrace selective aspects of Quas Primas, there is virtually no chance he would embrace it as a whole, including its key central message regarding government.
Joseph Ratzinger has roundly and repeatedly denounced the idea of a Catholic state, claiming that the state has no competency to recognize and support the one true faith. Not exactly the acclaimed scholar he is said to be, is he?
It would be almost impossible that Pope Francis would have any more of a traditional view on the subject that Joseph Ratzinger.
Wanting government to promote certain Catholic values is not the same as wanting government to official recognize the Church as the one true faith and give it special protection and privilege over other religions.
Implicitly, Quas Primas does deal with false religions, as it is written in line with what had been explicitly affirmed by the 19th century popes, and the governmental configurations and legal treatment of non-Catholic faiths in Catholic countries in the late 1920s and 1930s showcase Catholic doctrine as affirmed by Pope Pius XI.
By the way, Ganganelli, kudos for your comments on American Republicans and their hypocrisy. I’m with you on that one.
I think Biden and Pelosi are always the usual suspects because they are clearly the most outspoken on the abortion issue (as far as “Catholic” politicians are concerned). Of course they should be denied communion…along with any other Catholic who openly supports abortion, regardless of the political party they associate themselves with.
As far as Jorge saying that he was never a right-winger, why would any actual Catholic be proud of saying something that inherently idiotic? Any Christian would obviously have to align themselves with the right as opposed to the left, no? Catholicism and liberalism cannot mix any more than water and oil can.
A faithful Catholic could never align himself with either the left or the right. At least not in the terms as they are currently understood. Now a faithful Catholic could align himself with someone on the right like Pat Buchanan or someone on the left like Senator Joe Manchin but we shouldn’t think they are good representatives of the current left/right paradigm.
Gangli,
–
What on earth do you know about my political views? You enjoy criticizing others of judging & criticizing while doing exactly the same yourself. What despicable hypocrisy. To a more honest soul I would gladly open up on such an issue, but certainly not to someone as yourself.
–
Meanwhile, my questions go completely unanswered.
–
I guess they really are too tough to answer after all.
–
And no apology for your despicable attempt at defaming the good name of faithful catholics.
Nope I will not apologize for defending out Sweet Christ on earth His Holiness Pope Francis. Nor will I apologize to those who attack him.
Gangli,
–
OK, I think we all get it by now – you worship the pope instead of Our Lord Jesús Christ. I need say nothing more other than this: papalotry.
–
God have mercy on your soul.
I can do nothing more than quote his Holiness Pope Boniface VIII’s bull Unam Sanctum:
–
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
–
So really, God have mercy on your soul.
Ganganelli seems to be the epitome of the blind man led by the blind.
Ganganelli, your understanding of Catholic authority is so naive and simplistic it is painful to witness.
–
All here – all faithful traditionalists – are subject to the supreme pontiff. As Louie has pointed out, we of the SSPX are more subject to him and more loyal to him than anyone else, perhaps ironically, recognizing the conciliar novelty of collegiality for what it is.
–
Would you have blindly defended Pope Liberius (whom ETWN refers to as a “weak man” when he persecuted and eventually excommunicated Athanasius, the leader of the orthodox in the time of the Arian crises when ~75-90% of the episcopacy defected? That is, the man later raised to the altars as SAINT Athanasius, the very first Doctor of the Church. I think all indications are that you absolutely would have, comfortable on your mainstream high horse.
–
I realize you may simply be naive. Only roughly five years ago, I thought much as you do. But, I was not so brazen as to spend my time constantly criticizing those who obviously knew more of the faith than I.
It is absolutely laughable that you think you know more about the Catholic faith than myself.
–
Quick question for you? Let’s see if you can answer it honestly. Did you even know that Blessed Pope Pius IX demolished the protestant lie about Liberius in his encyclical Quartus Supra where he declared, “And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.”
–
Strange times when so-called traditionalists would rather believe a protestant lie than the words of His Holiness Blessed Pope Pius IX.
Ganganelli, do you mind if I ask if you are a former adherent of the SSPX? I think I recall you mentioning something along those lines in the past. I’m a former SSPXer myself. When I first left the SSPX I was quite bitter. But now I see that even though there are huge problems in the SSPX (and in their chapels), they are right, IMO, to defend tradition and to speak out against modernism and novelties.
Denise,
–
Yes I was. In fact, I still have very fond memories of the pastor of our chapel. But the “recognize and resist” position is untenable. You end up making yourself a protestant with the hubris to set up your own private judgment as the arbiter of tradition.
Gangli,
–
I can’t resist asking this question: Would you, after the canonization of “St” JP II “The Great” be prepared to take part in the next ecumanical extravaganza a la Assisi I-III were the opportunity presented to you?
–
Let me give you an example: Let’s say one day you go to mass, and the priest during the sermón is all joyous and excited that the next ecumenical extravaganza is to be held in your very own parish church, with various local leaders from religions ranging from Buddhism to Hinduism gladly taking part. In addition, the priest tells the parishioners that the statue of the Buddha will be placed on top of the tabernacle. Lastly, the priest mentions that people will be asked to Kiss the “holy” Quran in memory of and to emulate the action of “St” JP II “The Great” of “happy and blessed memory”. Oh, and before he finishes off, the priest hurriedly mentions as if in passing that the leaders of the other religions (that are also means of salvation he reminds them) will be allowed to perform their religious services inside the church.
–
The question is: would you happily take part in this event, in good conscience?
–
Would you recommend other catholics to take part?
Edu,
–
It would totally depend on the context. If I knew the priest to be an orthodox believer in the teachings of the Church and most importantly if it was approved by the Supreme judge of the faithful I would be OK with it.
–
Assisi I-III proves the power of the papacy. I love seeing the pictures with the Pope in the middle with the followers of the various false religions flanked on either side showing who’s boss. The leaders of these false religions would laugh in the face of someone like the mormon bishop calling for such a meeting but they RESPECT the papacy so they have to come. How could you not be proud as a Catholic to know that the successor to St. Peter still has the power to move men and armies in this hyper secularized world of 2014?
”
It would totally depend on the context….blahblahblahblahblahblah…I would be OK with it.”
What possible context would make the proposed scenario ok?
wow…just, WOW.
From the INFALLIBLE First Vatican Council:
–
Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
Dear Susan,
–
“It would totally depend on the context”
= “I would be OK with it”
Yes indeed.
But our dear beloved troll Gangli is too cowardly to say this openly.
–
God have mercy on his soul.
–
“Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.”
~ Matthew 15:14
Dear Susan,
–
“It would totally depend on the context”
= “I would be OK with it”
Yes indeed.
But our dear beloved troll Gangli is too cowardly to say this openly.
–
God have mercy on his soul.
–
“Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.”
~ Matthew 15:14
Ganganelli, I’m not going to descend to the land of playground insults with you, and, yes, I am well-aware about what Pius IX wrote about Liberius. It does, however, remain a fact that Liberius signed Athanasius’ excommunication. And, it is a fact that Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council.
–
Here is a bit more about what actual *popes* have had to say about popes who stray from the faith:
–
Pope Innocent III (died 1216): “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because ‘he who does not believe is already judged.’ (John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.'” (Sermo 4)
–
Pope Adrian VI (died 1523) “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).
–
Pope Adrian II: “We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches ( i.e., the patriarchs and bishops ), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematized by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings.” (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)
–
Pope Paul IV: “In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling”(Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio ).
–
Venerable Pope Pius IX: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
–
You see the recognize & resist position as untenable because you lack the faculties to properly determine what is and what is not authentic Catholic teaching. But, the Church tells us how to decide – the infallible teaching of Vatican I adopted the age-old teaching of St. Vincent of Lerins: “The criterion of truth and, moreover, of the infallibility of the Pope and of the Church, is its conformity to Tradition and to the deposit of the Faith. Quod ubique, quod semper—That which is taught everywhere and always, in space and in time.”
–
Study the Church throughout the ages – especially the teachings on false religions (that is, every religion but the true religion), the primacy of the See of Peter, and the Social Reign of Christ the King, and perhaps one day you will be able to understand that the novelties of Vatican II (ecumenism, collegiality, and religious liberty), which *the conciliar popes themselves told us are “pastoral” only and non-binding – contradict these actual doctrines.
Ganganelli, yes, again, all here are aware that the supreme pontiff enjoys complete juridical authority on Earth. And, again, it is ironic that is the traditionalists – most notably the SSPX – who believe & understand this most fully, thus rejecting the conciliar novelty of collegiality out of necessity.
–
As two of his earliest Italian critics noted, it seems Pope Francis wants to be Simon much more than Peter. In that he follows the other conciliar popes, yet taking things one stop further, as is his style. He does not want to command authority. He does not want to wield authority as the Vicar of Christ because the world does not like that.
–
So, even though the pontiff most definitely enjoys complete juridical primacy in principle, this absolutely does not mean that he cannot issue an invalid command that cannot be obeyed. The popes I quoted for you above make that abundantly clear. All the major theologians say the same thing. All of them.
–
Here is some genuine Catholic wisdom regarding true & false obedience:
–
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-18.htm
–
http://sspx.org/en/can-obedience-oblige-us-disobey
–
It is a mark of the seriousness of this horrible crisis of the faith that even good-intentioned Catholics can be led astray. It takes a deep faith, and great knowledge of the faith, to see clearly the true path. The true path is not to join in the destruction of the Vineyard due to a confused sense human obedience that amounts to papalotry.
sigh…don’t waste your time Catholic Thinker…
it’s like trying to reason with a banana.
(but I do offer thanks for citing some most excellent quotes!)
Ok…we’re obviously not going to agree but I have to throw in one last comment about why I believe you do nothing more than cut and paste quotes from dubious sources:
–
How is it possible that Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote a letter to Bishop Brizen when there has NEVER BEEN a bishop Brizen? If you think there was one, please tell me the diocese?
I think we should cut people like Ganganelli as much slack as possible – the confusion in the Church is such that many well-intentioned souls are led astray. (This is something else that our senior prelates who have been hypnotized by diabolical disorientation and love of the world will have to answer for.)
Ganganelli thinks he is defending the Church. This is not wholly impossible to understand. Yes, with more knowledge of the true faith comes less possibility of such misunderstanding, but not everyone has that (and I am not patronizing you, Ganganelli).
Only approximately four years ago I myself argued vociferously that, while the Church was a complete mess, no pontiff had been tainted by modernist influences. Of course, that was incredibly naive. I simply wasn’t aware of the evidence (which includes their own words, and much more).