Pope Marcellin(i)us was famously asked to sacrifice to Pagan gods or die, and decided for the former. He was accused of blatant violation of the First Commandment, and his own bishops put him on trial, famously asking him to “judge thyself “.

To my knowledge, no one went to analyse the subtle dealings of the man. No one looked for expressions of irony as he was making his sacrifice, and then said “good old Marcellinus! As always, in his very intelligent and sophisticated way he let us know how much he disapproves of pagan gods “. Similarly, no one said “Marcellinus had to do it. He was held prisoner!” This even if, in fact, his accusers knew for a fact, and not out of their fantasies that in case of refusal Marcellinus would have been executed alright. Moreover, there were no strange theories alleging that Marcellinus sacrificed to Pagan gods in order to protect the Church, or to avoid schism.

As you can see, people were not blabbering around their conspiracy theories back then, nor were they willing to fabricate excuses out of, basically, thin air just in order to avoid admitting that a Pope has betrayed. Nor did they care that the man would have died. A Pope or bishop is required to die for Christ more than anyone else, end of story.

Fast forward some seventeen centuries, and the bar previously requiring to die has been lowered below a Pope’s ankle. It is not only that an awful lot of people are ready to even consider justifying a Pope who, they think, was forced to resign, and consider absolutely idiotic excuses – like the ones mentioned above – reason to exculpate the man for what they themselves say he has done. It is much worse than that.

The effort to protect Benedict from his many sins and open betrayals has now degenerated into pure fantasy thinking. I have read around that Benedict would not have endorsed Francis because… he criticised a theologian who criticised him because of his interpretation of a Papal document. Seriously, it does not get more deluded than this, and we are at a level of fanatic blindness that would cause the bishops who indicted Marcellinus to wonder whether any notion of Christianity – or, indeed, of sanity – has remained in us.

Benedict has endorsed Francis’ pontificate with his own clear words, multiple times. This is the end of it. His private peeves against theologians worse than him are neither here nor there. His defence of Catholic orthodoxy in one single matter fades into virtual non-existence when compared with the monstrous public endorsement o a monstrous Pope, and who believes that Marcellinus was not extremely orthodox – way more than Enedict, in fact – himself?

This is fantasyland. Turbocharged Pollyannism. Benedictolatry.

Benedict is required to die rather than saying one single syllable in favour of Francis. Actually, he is required to openly denounce Francis no matter whether this costs him, how much, 40 months of life?

We need to call a spade a spade and a Quisling a Quisling.

Enough with making excuses for endorsement of heresy.


Posted on March 23, 2018, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. I wouldn’t call him a quisling. I would call him very wrong about some fundamentally important things. I suppose that wrongness may be mixed up with vanity or cowardliness or stubbornness or whatever, as it can be for all of us, but that doesn’t change my gut-feeling about him.

    On the other hand, as Hilary White and others have conclusively shown, he’s always been a sort of a Modernist, as he himself has pretty much admitted many times, though with different words. That he was seen by some as a a traditionalist had as much to do with style (as he himself states in that very letter) than anything else.

    To me, he appears to be, like so many good men, as much of a victim of Modernism as a collaborator.

    It really grieves me to see good Catholics and good friends coming to blows over this. It strikes me that the facts – from what Benedict said in that letter to his record, containing both good and bad, but bad in this context, going all the way back to, most significantly, Vatican II – are just not in dispute. But among the “anti-Benedict” people I don’t see the animus about the man itself, that the “pro-Benedict” people seem to see, though “quisling” does seem a bit harsh.

    We all want a savior, and so we pin that label on others. And then we arguably overreact when they “let us down.” But there may just not be any saviors in the immediate post-Vatican II generation. The whole thing was so bad it infected virtually everybody.

    • I don’t think Quisling is harsh at all. I’d say it’s fair and balanced. Benedict is, as you say, a Modernist is his forma mentis. However, he is certainly a very moderate modernist compared to the likes of Francis. Still, he simply has no balls to oppose them and prefers to be their accomplice, provided he is seen as being somewhat different from them. He is, in fact, a collaborator in beautiful red shoes.

  2. Oh my gosh, can I come live on your planet? I’m so tired of this one that’s filled with my fellow Catholics who are hanging on like grim death to this tiny string of hope. I don’t know, should they be left there out of kindness? After all, if the Titanic is going down, must the passengers all be told? They’ll figure it out at some point, won’t they?
    Bergolio is every bit the destroyer, but not just of Catholicism. The destruction of Christendom and even the West. He’s not totally responsible of course, but he helped greatly.
    God surely has a plan, and I haven’t the foggiest idea of what it could be. I can’t imagine how this hideous situation can be corrected. Benedict holds absolutely no charm for me at all. Hilary White got this 100% correct, we should now take him at his word. You are also 100% correct, he has not only failed to call Bergolio out, he has approved of him publicly. I believe he does approve of him! He categorically approves of him. We have put ourselves into absurd contortions to play a big game of let’s pretend. Ugh. I’m done. Pretense over.

  3. The Church is collapsing.

  4. No, I know. My purpose wasn’t to hit you for the term, but partly to suggest that it’s not inconsistent to come to realize that Benedict was a sort of Modernist while still retaining some love, affection and personal loyalty for the man. (That’s one of the reasons that feelings on this run so high.) So I don’t think it’s cowardice or collaboration so much as (as bad as this sounds) general agreement. Benedict really does believe that there is “inner continuity” between the two pontificates. And the thing is, he’s sort of right.

    He won’t save us. Someone will, of course, if our Faith is true. The only question is when.

  5. “We all want a savior, and so we pin that label on others. And then we arguably overreact when they “let us down.” But there may just not be any saviors in the immediate post-Vatican II generation. The whole thing was so bad it infected virtually everybody.”

    We already have a Savior: His name is Jesus Christ. Putting any Pope — indeed, any political figure — into that role is self-deceiving.

  6. Sometimes I am tempted to say, I am going fishing,but then, who is that standing at the shore?
    When Pope Benedict was elected I hoped and prayed that he would stop the Assisi, ecumenical nonsense. He didn’t! I prayed that he would give tne SSPX just canonical jurisdiction. He didn’t; though he did lift the “excommunications”. I also prayed that he would free the Old Mass. He did but never celebrated it himself, as far as I am aware. I pray now, that he will come to the aid of faithful Catholics and defend the teaching of the Church; and then die in a state of grace.

%d bloggers like this: