We have in the meantime become somewhat accustomed to robust words from the Holy Father. The one with ending up praying the devil if one doesn't pray Christ was excellent, and the one about the necessity to preach the entire Truth rather than only the convenient parts was also very good. Several of those observations have graced the site of Radio Vaticana, and the easily contented are all in a flurry. “You see? Your fears were nonsense – they say to us -. Look at what he has said, again!”.
I am very sorry to disappoint, but I don't think a couple of words will wash. Pope are measured mainly by what they do. Talk is cheap. Even Pope Paul VI was good at talking.
Yesterday we had another example of this attitude. A Pope calling Paul VI “great” can only fill us with dread, as if Paul VI is the example of how Francis wants to be Pope we had better start to dig our trenches now.
Still, the easily satisfied will tell us that the Pope has also said that Jesus can only be found within the Church, so we are all fine.
Strangely, the Pope did not explain how he intends to square his beautiful words of the present with his embarrassing deeds of the past. I seem to remember he wrote a book together with a sodomy -loving Rabbi who is a pal of his, and exactly how much Jesus is to be found in such a one he hasn't explained yet.
Of course – and as I never tire to explain – we can't automatically attribute to the Pope all the mistakes he made as an Archbishop. Still, a situation where his books full of the past mistakes are going to be published worldwide is a dangerous enough situation, and should prompt him to at least make some observation concerning the new duties and responsibilities of a Pope, & Co.. This would warn the readers from the danger of reading the reprint as if they were reading “the Pope's book”.
I don't see any of this. Not only has this Pope been perfectly inactive in front of the veritable tsunami of homosexual legislation now sweeping the Western world, but he doesn't seem concerned in the least about giving a properly coherent message. Rather, it seems to me this Pope says what pleases him on the day, but doesn't care that his words are either followed by actions, or the strident contrast between them and his past behaviour is explained. This way, he probably thinks he will give some fodder to the conservative pigeons, whilst taking care the henhouse continues to be solidly in the hands of the V II foxes. Cue Pietro Marini's astonishing words about sodomitical “unions”, still unchecked by him as I write his.
Easy words. No action.
Yep, it's no surprise he thinks Paul VI was a great Pope.
Posted on April 24, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged Conservative Catholic, conservative catholicism, Pope Francis, Pope Paul VI. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.
Still invisible in the Hierarchy is that Prelate who embodies the elements of Catholic Tradition that can be applied to our inertia into Indifference.
The Brick By Brick Bund worships Bishop Emeritus, Joseph Ratzinger, but when he was Pope they swallowed their tongues when he openly taught heresy about their being defensible reasons for a queer to use a condom; that us, in a complete rupture with Catholic Tradition, Catholic Doctrine, and right reason he, in essence, claimed that one could do evil so that good may come of it.
All of what you wisely write is true – only it does not even begin to plumb the depths of the sulphurous situation that we are in
Oh, I have written on that. I think he was misunderstood (if you use the search function, you’ll find a couple of post of mine about this).
Still, it was imprudent of him to use an example so easily misunderstood and subject to manipulation.
I liked the brick by brick theory in the sense that it is better to build one brick at a time than not to build at all. But I do not believe in gradualism. We need to go back to sanity, period.
I have found a link to my old post on the matter:
Some on Rorate Caeli are saying his sermons are barely coherent…a “stream of consciousness” so to speak. I’m afraid I agree.
I wouldn’t say his sermons are contradictory, rather that they do not match both his past words and action, and his present total lack of action.
I also miss a certain lack of depth in his thinking. It’s a bit as if the parish priest-like homilies who were considered so refreshing at the start were now losing some of the glitter when one slowly reflects that he gets every day the same parish priest stories…
Having said that: if he were strong in his action and orthodox in his liturgy I wouldn’t complain a bit.
Marini (not the good one) has launched an homo-bomb basically on the same day as Schoenborn, and what has the Pope done?
Dear Mundabor. I am not a trained theologian but it I think he intentionally opened a can of worms and we, the laity, were tasked with the duty to collect those worms and cram them back in the can and the fact that the vast majority of men thought he was giving the thumbs-up to condom use by sodomites signals his poor decision to treat of this matter publicly; and the way he did it – drop the bomb and go into hiding and let everyone else try to explain it away?
That is scandalous behavior.
As to The Brick By Brick Bund – it has been a complete and utter failure and the harping on he who abdicated as our orthodoxy touchstone is disquieting, at best.
I’ll continue to reference the great Pope Saint Pius X as a real Catholic Guide; one can not even imagine him arranging for an interviewer to ask him questions about condoms
I do not have any problem with Benedict’s abdication, Vermontcrank, and I have written abou it in the past in no uncertain tones.
I will not persuade you and you will not persuade me, but you might reflect on whether reading this blog will be of much use to you, then you are one of the very few to whom I must appear shockingly moderate.
God knows Benedict was an indecisive Pope, too much in love with his books and not as pugnacious as one would expect a Pope to be. But the only matter in which I think disingenuousness can be attributed to him is his behaviour towards the Society, and I think his dcision to step down was a wise one.
If he only had had the guts to appoint more Orthodox cardinals, we would probably be having a different kind of conversation now.