Hiding Behind One’s Fingers

 

 

In another demonstration of the liturgical confusion in which the “new simplicity” has plunged the Church, the often hilarious Father Lombardi has tried to justify the bishop of Rome’s liturgical abuse on Thursday by saying that if the community is small, you can do whatever you please provided you want to be “inclusive”. The rule does not apply, though, to big masses. Big masses are, as we all know, not inclusive; therefore, we can leave it by the rules.

I do not know whether this is more “spirit of Vatican II” or more stupid, though the two are largely synonymous. Respect of the rules is either something that is required, or it isn’t. If it is, the Bishop of Rome should be the first to give the example. If it isn’t, the same Bishop should explain to us why he needs rules in the first place.

Then there is the question of the small settings. Not many Catholic churches are as big as Santa Maria Maggiore. Most masses take place in small churches and small communities. With Father Lombardi’s reasoning, almost every priest outside of big cities (and in England many of them even within big cities) should feel authorised to “experiment” as he pleases to make things more “inclusive”.

If you ask me, at the bottom of the matter there is a simple problem: we have a Pope who thinks he is above the rules of his Church. Mind, I am not saying that he thinks he can change (certain) rules. Of course he can, but he is doing something different: he is saying that he has the right not to care for them, because he has the right not to respect them.

As a Pope, Francis should be the first one to give an example of obedience to Church rules. Servus servorum Dei does not mean that he is the personal servant of those who are the Lord’s servants in the most humble social positions. It means that he is the first and most preeminent among the servants of God.

As the first of the servants of God, he is the one most immediately bound to the observance of the rules of the Church. Therefore, the scandal is gravest when the Pope himself gives scandal.

Father Lombardi can exert himself as much as he likes with his absurds attempts at explanation. The brutal truth is that we have a Pope in the business of liturgical abuse, who doesn’t care of which rules he disobeys but goes on showing in front of the cameras how humble he is.

Mundabor

Posted on March 30, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Sorry, but I must have brushed the post button in the middle of typing above. What I was saying was that I believe our pope’s action must also be interpreted as a continuation of his actions as archbishop in Argentina. He ignored the rules regarding the mandatum while not a pope, and continues to do so now. For this reason I think this is not even a statement on his part that he is now not bound by rules because he is a pope, but rather a mere continuation of a preexisting attitude about such rules themselves.

    • I am aware that he made the same abuses when he was in Buenos Aires, but he is aware that he is now the Pope, surely? There’s no way he can ignore the implications of this on everything he does, including the liturgical abuses.

      M

  2. awkwardcustomer

    ‘Inclusive’ is a weasel word, as is ‘diverse’. We are expected to celebrate the ‘diversity’ of, for example, London. But in reality we are being asked to celebrate the fact that fewer and fewer English people live there. In fact, the traditional English working class have been virtually ethnically cleansed from the city.

    Similarly, Pope Francis’ Maundy Thursday Mass will be admired for being ‘inclusive’ because Muslims were present at the Washing of the Feet. But how many Catholics were there? They can go all out to be ‘inclusive’ and ‘diverse’ at small parish Masses. But the end result will be that fewer and fewer Catholics will attend their dreadful liturgies.

    The quest for simplicity is a cover for rule breaking and the dismantling of Tradition. And there’s nothing humble about tearing down what our Catholic forefathers built up, often at great cost to themselves, spiritually and materially. Destroying our heritage and dismantling what our ancestors held to be sacred suggests the opposite of humility. It suggests a certain pride that this generation knows better and can do things better than the generations which lived before us.

    They got everything wrong and we’ll put everything right, is the thinking behind all this ‘humility’ and ‘simplicity’.

    • I am personally of the opinion that the bishop of Rome (I respectfully follow his lead here) is not opposed to Tradition per se. I think what he seeks – for himself and the Church – is popularity, and he thinks this Franciscan rhetoric will deliver the goods. This is a very superficial way of thinking of course, utterly oblivious of the importance of proper liturgy; but then again, superficiality and easy quest for popularity have always been basic traits of NuChurch.

      M

  3. From the defensive comments made from the Vatican, it is clear that HH knows that some Catholics are unhappy. Let’s hope that he takes notice. In The Times today, some spokeswoman for the ‘wannabe priestesses’ lobby sees the feet washing as a coded message to the Church about female ordination (and possibly Muslim ordination?)

    • Yes, predictably, the leftist loonies are trying to exploit Pope Francis for all it’s worth.
      I wonder how at the Vatican they cannot see this. Or perhaps they can?
      It seems to me a “light” version of what the German bishops do: “we would like so much to help you, but unfortunately we can’t…”

      M

  4. I certainly think he is aware he is now pope, but I just don’t think we can interpret this action as if it were something he did because of that fact. Because it proceeds with a previous continuous behaviour I think we should, intellectually speaking, view it as extending from that. Some may be inclined to see this choice of washing the feet of women and Muslims as simply an expression of his authority as pope, and by so doing avoid addressing or considering other motivations and purposes. I, however, am inclined to see this as continuous with what he has done before, and so it seems rather to be reflective of one who is rather dismissive about liturgical rubrics altogether, whether he is pope or not, and wants the world to know that. Yes, I will grant that as pope he does seem not to feel bound by such rules, but I just have doubts that he believes that applies only to popes, if you get my meaning.

    • I agree with you, cothridge.
      He doesn’t do it because he is Pope, he does it because he was a liturgical abuser when he was Archbishop and has decided to go on now that he is Pope.

      My prospective is that once elected Pope, he should have had a very hard and long reflection whether as a Pope he should not behave differently, as now such antics cause immediate, worldwide scandal.
      He seems simply not to care. Humbleness and humility are his pride and joy.

      M

%d bloggers like this: