Sensus Hereticus, Or The Pope On The Bus

Spot the Pope.

Believe it or not, one of the three is supposed to be Catholic.

Every time that I smell something fishy in the public declarations of the man currently sullying the Papacy, several readers intervene with very apposite comments from great saints of the past.

It is the first mark of the “sensus catholicus” that a properly instructed Catholic immediately or almost immediately perceives that something is not in order, even if in the moment he might have some difficulties in saying why. Expressions like “Jesus was pretending to be angry”, or “Jesus in the Gospel was never angry” instinctively go against our grain of Catholics, because even if we cannot remember on the spot that God cannot deceive or that Jesus drove the merchant out of the temple with savage fury, we have been instructed to fear the Lord and not incur His wrath, and to say “the Word of the Lord” as the very epitome of everything that is truthful. Catholicism is like a diamond, that can be looked at from every possible angle but is in the end always the same whatever the vantage point. A Catholic who has been halfway properly instructed will notice rather fast that the diamond is being partially obscured, or sullied by personal opinions and strange theories.

Another example is this omnipresent obsession with poverty. When abortion is condemned because the aborted baby is “poor” something has gone fundamentally wrong: poverty, not the dignity of God-given human life, has become the main argument, the litmus test used to validate every condemnation.   

Creepy Caress.

Creepy Caress. The man is still at his place.

It is evident now that Francis completely lacks this kind of sound perception of Catholicism.  What he has learned – if he has ever learned it – and what faith he used to have – if he ever had it – has been now buried under so many strata of social and socialist blabbering, and washed out by so many decades of “social Gospel” and ecumania, that he might genuinely wonder how it can be that so many people take scandal whenever he opens his mouth.

At some point, Luther must have totally forgotten the truths that he used to believe; to the point that he must have been shocked at being repeated verbatim what he used to believe decades earlier. Francis isn’t as far advanced in this process as Luther, but it is clear that we are in front of one whose Catholicism has slowly slipped out of his hand, becoming the exterior clothing of an ideology that is not Catholicism anymore, though perhaps he does not realise it.    

Take the “who am I to judge”, or the “salvation for atheists”, or the “following one’s atheistic conscience” stunts. Isn’t it evident that here an entirely secular mentality is at work, covered or painted with Catholic clothes to let people believe, or to persuade himself, that the body itself of this thinking is Catholic?

One of the two is advisor to the Pope.

You might not know that one of the two is advisor to the Pope.

This does not necessarily have to be the result of an evil intent, though in this case it can only be the result of decades long, criminal negligence and dereliction of duty. As Francis gradually became more and more secular, he has done nothing else than slowly, gradually “adapting” the Catholic thinking he knew, bending it to the new priority: the social Gospel and the total submission to the worldly values of social justice, idolatry of poverty, and the like. This is a rather common phenomenon, as few people have the courage to look at the reality in the face and see that they have changed. Most people will, on the contrary, seek to validate the new ideas by bending their old ones, in order to persuade themselves that they are evolving or deepening – rather than gradually abandoning – their old thinking.

And there you have it all, as clear as the sun: all the heretical stunts popping out, with Francis not even able to realise what kind of troubles he is putting himself in. He authorised an astonishingly heretical interview that was taken down in shame from the Vatican site several weeks after publication, and with the man clearly unable to even see what kind of problems he was putting himself in, much less able to admit he has them in the first place. What better evidence so you want that Catholicism has – in the charitable hypothesis – simply slipped away from this man? Wouldn’t you call your parish priest, if he were to say exactly the same things – nay: one fifth of them! – utterly confused?

This, assuming that Francis is, in a way, in good faith. That he is, in other words, culpable of negligence, ignorance and arrogance, but not of evil intent. I want to believe that this is the case, but to be frank the facts speak in equal measure for the one or the other side, and I cannot detect what Francis would, if he were moved by an evil intent, actually do differently. It is hard to imagine this work of confusion being pushed by anyone positively intent to cause harm to 2,000 years of Catholic tradition with any more insistence or determination. 

One thing is certain: this man must be kept in check by the smartest and most orthodox – or least heterodox – of the people around him. He is a maverick, unable (if we are charitable) to even understand how distant he is from proper Catholicism. He is one that can give you to understand that Jesus used deceptive behaviour without batting an eye, and to say to you in a sermon that Jesus never got angry and keep a straight face.

One truly wonders whether he has ever read the Gospel after, say, 1962. 

What we have here, is the “Pope on the bus”.


Posted on December 3, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 23 Comments.

  1. Francis has also inadvertently displayed his inner mind in showing that he believes it is not only acceptable to “pretend”, but it’s also a good strategy to use in order to achieve a desired goal. In other words, Francis has told us that he is a liar.

    Over time, he will unwittingly reveal himself more and more – unless he hires a minder (like a lawyer) to be at his side constantly.

  2. Please, no ghetto-speak. That’s only putting a stamp of approval on the trash that is popular culture.

  3. M, do you think the cardinals who voted for him knew what they were letting themselves in for?

    I would really like to think they didn’t.

    But is it even likely they had no idea what was coming?

    • No.

      As in almost all revolutions I think they were hoping to get a convenient half-mess, and they got an entire one.


    • trof4st, Mundabor,
      I’m pretty sure they knew what they were doing. Bergoglio was Archbishop for many, many years. His antics were well known in Latin America. He had, so to speak, a public record. Everybody with eyes to see and ears to hear (and just a little Spanish) could have easily found out what this man thought and wanted, before the conclave ever began. You would not make someone Pope unless you had vetted him a little, would you?

      At the “habemus papam”, I already knew enough about this man to know pretty well what kind of Pope he would be – not because I had researched him extensively, but just because he was one of the ten to twenty people who I thought could conceivably be elected so that I looked him up on the internet for about half an hour, as I did with the other “candidates”. I got his “clown masses”, his socialist/liberationist tendencies, his extreme ecumenism, his disregard for the Tridentine Mass, his near silence on so-called social issues, his infatuation with the theology of Walter Kasper and more. All this was public knowledge before the conclave, not hidden in any way. I do not even read Spanish fluently, and I did not have any prior knowledge of the Latin American Church. All it took was thirty minutes and an old computer with a slow internet connection. And I’m no research wizard either.

      Bergoglio came in second behind Ratzinger in 2005 (also public knowledge, and half the Cardinals participated in the 2005 conclave). Which Cardinal taking his responsibilities seriously, could not have read at least a dossier about this man before even considering voting for him? Either they knew what to expect of him and approved of it, or they (all of them) were criminally negligent and forgetful of their sacred duties. Take your pick.

    • I knew all those you knew some three days later. And I still thought the Pope would have been different from the Cardinal, for obvious reasons.
      The man seems not to realise that being the Pope is serious business.
      Or again, he does.

  4. I respectfully beg to differ. Given the current makeup of the conclave that elected him, I believe they got precisely what they were hoping for and looking for. Furthermore, given the direction the church is headed for or mired in, does anyone realistically believe there will be or can be, any turning back the clock? We are in the prophesied end game, IMO.

  5. Kyrie eleison, Franciscus needs to be kept in check….or rather…deposed

    • I don’t think there is any legal mechanism for the deposition of a Pope. Even if the See were to be declared vacant by the right people, I take it we would simply wait that the Lord frees us from him.


  6. 50 years since my last Latin lesson and I looked at the first comment and thought, ‘No, no something wrong there, surely that should be ‘potest’ ‘. Wow, you have restored an old man’s confidence in his Latin.

  7. When Benedict was pope I told friends that his influence would echo down the centuries as the man who saved Western civilization. My irreligious friends thought I was smoking dope, but I was firm in this belief and I still am. To borrow from Father Z.–“Save the Liturgy, Save the World”. Because Benedict restored the TLM, a remnant of faithful Catholics will remain and eventually, amid the social, economic,and cultural degradation of the planet restore, by true evangelization, men and women to true freedom to worship God the rightful way, thereby ordering their lives and society accordingly. This will take at least 400 years, however as the rot is deep.

    • Love your optimism.
      To me Benedict is the one who appointed half the Cardinals of the last conclave, and on average bad to horrible bishops. I haven’t forgotten Assisi III, either.
      He gave us SP, but it’s not that he resuscitated the Tridentine Mass. There were in fact not many less Indult Masses in 2007 than there are SP masses now, more than 6 years later.
      In your perspective, the Indult of JP II is almost as important as SP.
      The great thing of SP is that Benedict said the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated, nor could it. Practical effects are, up to now, not mind-boggling.


    • I’d tend to agree, because ED wasn’t even being followed by the Bishops’ the step around through SP is very important for the Latin Rite.

    • It is, by are the masses according to SP so many compared to the indult ones? I can’t see a big difference. In twenty years perhaps, but at least in my neck of the wood we are at Indult level.

    • I will forever be grateful to Pope Benedict. A parish 10 miles from my home started celebrating the TLM the Sunday after SP was promulgated. It cut my driving time from the indult which was 45 minutes to only 15 minutes. The half hour makes a big difference, as I am disabled.

    • Good for you!
      I wish there were more example like yours.
      My driving time has been cut exactly zero minutes, and it is six and a half years now; and I am talking of England, not Zimbabwe.


  8. At least Assisi III didn’t have Koran kissing, or even the Pope publicly praying with heretics (Still not a fan of the Assisi meetings in general, but for the most part the indifferentism that was Assisi I and II was avoided IMO)…The mechanism for deposing a Pope would be for the cardinals to get together and elect a new Pope then declare Franciscus an anti-Pope. The last council to elect an anti-Pope at least officially, it’s been a while, I need to dig up my Church History books….but alas zee Cardinals have no spine to do such, I have thought to do an entry on how we could have possibly gotten Franciscus using the papal voters list and their tendencies….to figure who exactly would be at “fault” in theory…

  1. Pingback: All Francis Friday | True Restoration

%d bloggers like this: