Father Lombardi is going to retire (no link, because it is an evil site).
The candidates to the job appear to be:
- Father Antonio Spadaro, directly or indirectly involved in many of the Pope’s heresies. Editor of Civilta’ Cattolica, a clear hotbed of heresy. One of the devil throughout.
- Father Thomas Rosica, a well-known promoter of sexual perversion, and very possibly a pervert himself. One of the main actors in the shameless manipulation of both the 2014 and the 2015 Synod. A bully (see Vox Cantoris-gate) and outright faccia di tolla. Clearly, another one of Lucifer’s team.
In the Year of the Lord 2015, this is the way to make a career in the Vatican: heresy and confusion throughout, and it probably helps a lot to be a sodomite.
Pray for this Pontificate to end soon.
And it came to pass on the Day Of Infamy Eugenio Scalfari was among the invited; and, being now a close buddy with the Destroyer, had another substantial chat with him.
We aren't told whether recorders were there this time. They probably weren't, as a recorder would be extremely embarrassing not only for the Bishop of Rome, but for the Church. What transpires, though, is that Scalfari went away from his buddy persuaded he had material for another article; which means that he was authorised by Buddy to put the content of their own friendly chat in print.
Thankfully, the Fire Brigade – or if you prefer, the Dry Nurses – got wind or were informed about the matter, and promptly acted.
Yes, it's the Vatican Press Office here. Yes, it's about the conversation with the Holy Father. No, the printing of any article is not authorised. Yes, this is the last word. Yes, instruction from His Holiness. You're welcome. Good day.
(And it's sad a foreigner can't get the subtle, but very fine irony of the Italian article. But hey, someone must be a foreigner…).
We have come to the point that the nurses must run after Francis as if he were an unruly child making mischief everywhere. They must pay attention whom he talks to, because you never know what may come out of it. They must constantly entreat the child to please behave and stop making such a mess around him. They obviously know – from long-suffering experience – that the man cannot be relied upon one single interview, or even an “informal chat”, that does not give scandal. Therefore, when they can see beforehand what's happening – which is not the case when the man is alone with a telephone – they can at least implore and insist until Francis, always the Jesuit, yields for this time.
It is astonishing to think that only a few days after concubinegate, the man was already planning another urine pool, and it appears – I wasn't there, you know; I am not an abortionist atheist, so Francis' friendship with me is improbable – that only the prompt and decisive intervention of the Dry Nurses have avoided another huge mess.
Pray for the Dry Nurses. They truly need our help.
And pray Francis doesn't call Scalfari on the phone.
From today's Vatican press release.
Text in black. Meaning in red.
Telephone calls ” do not in any way form part of the Pope's public activity”.
The man is a maverick even when he speaks in public. Stop giving any importance to what he would have said in private. Whether true or not. No, really.
The “media amplifications” “cannot be confirmed as reliable”
Stop behaving like excited girlies everytime someone with an agenda says the Pope has now changed the rules to please her. Professional journalists who ride this every time chasing exciting news are particularly despicable.
… And are “source of misunderstanding and confusion”
We are fed up with this novelty frenzy everytime the old man has a chat on the phone. You are using the man to attack Catholicism. We know he is too vain or thick to understand it, but we are truly fed up with both him and the press.
“Consequences relating to the teaching of the church are not to be inferred from these occurrences”
Note for the “Daily Homograph”: Church teaching isn't changed via private phone calls. Not even if the one making the phone call is a raving Modernist.
Poor Father Federico Lombardi has tried to stem the mess as he can on Thursday evening. Unfortunately for him and for us not only what he can is very little, but he makes things worse.
The idea now seems to be to tell Catholics “don’t take him seriously”, whilst saying to the atheists and liberals “look how good he is”.
In short, Catholics are supposed to exercise themselves in a “new hermeneutic” whenever the Pope speaks like a drunken heretic; because hey, he’s not dangerous. He only wants to play. In what this new hermeneutic would consist it is clear enough: ignore what he says when his talk is heretical or simply stupid, praise him to the sky every time he says “amen”.
This new hermeneutic is nothing less than blindness in front of, and complicity in, Francis’ demolition work. It is being accessory to his sins.
Still, cue all the Neoconservatives now saying “let’s apply the new hermeneutic” every time Francis throws another bomb. What a disgrace this papacy is.
My suggestion is that the Pope only speaks Catholic, or shuts up. Neither he nor anyone else – and he less than anyone else – has the right to confuse the Catholics; be it with homilies, informal chats, formal interviews, or long letters.
“This isn’t Denzinger”, said a desperate Lombardi.
Yes, father. This most certainly isn’t.
And so it came to pass that Fox News informed us we might be “appeased” because Pope Francis visited the tomb of St. Pius X. Let me spend two words about it.
1. Traditionalist Catholics do not want to be “appeased”. They do not care for token gestures, at least the smart ones among them. What they want is that Tradition be upheld. I am afraid simply visiting a tomb is not going to wash.
2. Pope Francis did not explicitly, or so to say exclusively, visited St. Pius X's tomb. In fact, he visited three tombs, the other two being those of Blessed John XXIII and Blessed John Paul II. Neither, I am afraid, with the best credentials in the matter of fight against Modernism, and I am putting it mildly.
3. Pope Francis' visit of the tomb of St. Pius X poses, in fact, very interesting questions. Being in Paradise, that wonderful Pope can obviously not roll in his grave, but I am personally in no doubt he would if he could. Journalists writing of Traditionalists being “appeased” should rather wonder what Pope St. Pius X would have thought of a Pope celebrating Pinocchio Masses when he was Cardinal, washing the feet of women and Muslims at Maundy Thursday Mass, disregarding the Missal with the same levity with which he disregards the script of his homilies, doing all he can to undermine Papal authority, and in general being too humble by half. Methinks, if informed of the existence of such priests that saintly Pope would have had very interesting words, and would have written an encyclical letter called Pascendi Dominici gregis.
4. Besides all that, I can't avoid noticing the token gesture isn't even a token gesture. The simultaneous visit of the tomb of two Vatican II Popes sends, in fact, exactly the opposite signal. Look – the bishop of Rome seems to say – I am paying some sort of tribute to the pre-V II Church; but make no mistake, I am V II through and through. Nor can the objection be raised that we are reading too much into the Papal – or should I say, to please Francis, episcopal – tomb visits, because when the Vatican issues a press statement about it, it is obvious none of the tombs was visited by chance.
5. The “profound spiritual continuity” (Fr Lombardi) with past Popes would in my eyes have been stressed far more forcefully by dressing, celebrating Mass, and in general behaving like them. One can't be new and old at the same time, disregard what they did but stress how right they were, pay homage to an anti-Modernist Pope and lavish praises on Modernist theologians (de Lubac and Meisner only in the last weeks; I do not doubt Teilhard de Chardin and Rahner can't be far away); it's all so Vatican II…
6. Dulcis in fundo, let us talk about poverty, which the Vatican Press Office stresses as a main trait of St. Pius X's Papacy (basically ignoring all this Papacy was about). Yes, Pope Pius X was known for the extreme frugality of his life before and after becoming Pope; but he never made a show of it, and never tried to undermine the majesty of his role as Pontiff's in order to show how humble he was; and he did so, because he was humble of that humbleness that does not need to be put on show. Besides, it is very fair to say the saintly man would have been terrified at the amount of statism going on today, and would have called compulsory wealth redistribution socialism and an open attack to Christian charity. This, the Vatican press office conveniently ignored.
And so it came to pass that the half token tribute to a wonderful Pope of the past did not fool anyone of the intended addressees, and the Vatican press office will have to come out with some smarter ideas.
I have written only some days ago about the clumsy attempt at explanation given by Father Lombardi for the – it must be said – liturgical abuse committed by the Pontiff on Holy Thursday.
It is with great pleasure that I have noticed today that Edward Peters’ blog trashes Lombardi’s statement in a much better way that I ever could, but lamenting in part the same disregard of elementary logic: right or wrong doesn’t depend on whether you want to “include” someone, nor on the size of the congregation.
Ed Peters actually goes further than that, because he openly accuses the Press Office of being polluted by Antinomianism, which is a heretical doctrine.
The test of Edward Peter’s blog is reported below in its entirety, and I can hardly hide from you my satisfaction at seeing that the reaction to the shallowness and approximation of the present times – and much more so, of the last weeks – is also coming from blogs of professionals.
Before leaving the word to Mr Peters’ excellent considerations, I would only like to make two small observations of my own:
1. The Pope has committed a liturgical abuse as big as a house. This must be said loud and clear if we want this mess to stop. If the same feat had been committed by any one else, the Catholic blogosphere would have been aflame in no time, and the comments would have been, erm, somewhat less than moderate.
2. Father Lombardi, as so often, gives the idea he doesn’t know what he is talking about. But it would be a mistake to think he is the one who created the problem. Lombardi, himself a Jesuit, clearly understands zippo of proper and reverent liturgy, respect for the rules, and even orderly conduct at Mass. But I am not sure the bishop of Rome is any better than him.
If the Holy Father is smart, he will show true humility, keep Monsignor Marini near him and listen to every word he says.
Not four weeks into this Pontificate, and the “new spontaneity” is causing a mess of rare proportions. Perhaps it’s time to go back to reason before the entire planet laughs at the liturgical amateurishness (and offensiveness) of our humble clergy.
Some thoughts on the VPO statement regarding the Mandatum rite controversy
The background to this controversy is the antinomianism that prevails today.
The Church is passing through a period in which the relationship between ecclesiastical law and the life of faith is widely misunderstood and the very content of Church law is often poorly explained. My attempts to address this double problem include explaining how law is important to a faith community, but even more, I try to explain what the law is at present—for one can hardly debate how ecclesiastical law ought to read if one does not know what it already says.
The controversy over Pope Francis’ disregard of a liturgical law in the Mandatum rite exposes, I think, how many others in the Church misunderstand important aspects of ecclesiastical law and how a misguided attempt to explain Church law can actually provoke more issues for the faithful than it settles.
A Vatican Press Office statement asserts:
“One can easily understand that in a great celebration, men would be chosen for the foot washing because Jesus, himself wash[ed] the feet of the twelve apostles who were male. However the ritual of the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday evening in the Juvenile Detention Centre in Rome took place in a particular, small community that included young women.”
Such language, I fear, confuses matters.
The basic meaning of a rite, and certainly the interpretation to be given a rubric like this one, does not depend on the number of people attending the liturgy. No theory is offered to show that in large congregations Christ’s modeling of apostolic ministry is intended by the Mandatum, but in small congregations his modeling of love is intended. Asserting otherwise only sows confusion for other liturgical questions. Similarly, to say that the interpretation of this rubric turns on the presence of “young women” is to make effectively universal that odd interpretation (really: how many pastoral settings consist only of males?)
“To have excluded the young women from the ritual washing of feet on Holy Thursday night in this Roman prison, would have detracted our attention from the essence of the Holy Thursday Gospel…”
This unguarded language risks being understood as “following this Church law detracts attention from the essence of the Gospel”. I cannot imagine that this was really meant, but that is basically what is communicated. I do not think there is a conflict between Church law and the essence of the Gospel, notwithstanding that Church laws, from time to time, need to be reformed (as I have suggested the Mandatum rubric should be). In any case, this problematic language exemplifies why Vatican press statements are not vehicles of official legal interpretation in the Church. Canon law makes clear who has authority to authentically interpret Church laws (1983 CIC 16 § 1, ap. con. Pastor Bonus 154 ff., and certain congregations in regard to certain matters).
“… and the very beautiful and simple gesture of a father who desired to embrace those who were on the fringes of society; those who were not refined experts of liturgical rules.”
Again, this is unfortunate language.
The implication seems to be that rubrics are understandable by (and ultimately applicable only to) “refined experts of liturgical rules”. I disagree: many rubrics indeed reflect deep theological truths (and thus rubrics are often exercises in something more than legal positivism), but most rubrics are meant to be easily understandable by normal priests ministering in typical pastoral settings. It is a disservice to suggest that respect for Church law is primarily the concern of “refined experts” or that ecclesiastical law has little bearing on how believers should conduct their faith life.
“That the Holy Father, Francis, washed the feet of young men and women on his first Holy Thursday as Pope, should call our minds and hearts to the simple and spontaneous gesture of love, affection, forgiveness and mercy of the Bishop of Rome, more than to legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.”
I agree that Francis’ action achieved this good effect.
What I find distressing is the inability to recognize (or refusal to acknowledge) that this action also had other effects, effects that might not be so benign. I have argued that among those effects was the sowing of new confusion about the binding character of liturgical laws in general, about the influence of a pope on good order in the community, and so on. Now, to be sure, there are sound answers to these questions, but they are not easily offered in the middle of the Triduum and splashed across secular news stories and blogs. This whole matter should have been handled differently from the start.
Finally, this sort of language pits “love, affection, forgiveness and mercy” against “legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.” Thus accepted is the well-worn but false dichotomy between the spiritual goods of the Church and her legal traditions. Such a charge is often leveled against canon law today, but it was expressly rejected by Pope John Paul II when he wrote that Church law “is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace, and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it.” John Paul II, ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges (1983) 16.
Law in the Church—canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc.—is not an end in itself, but instead serves greater ends. Yet, precisely as law, it cannot serve these purposes if it is ignored and/or explained away, two fates often suffered by law in antinomian times.
Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap
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.
Beautiful blog post from the “Reluctant Sinner”.
Its author clearly does not put into question the orthodoxy of the Holy Father; nor does he believe that the Pontiff wanted to start a debate or change things in matters of contraception in any way. But he clearly points out to the fact that the words of “clarification” from the Pontiff (as reported by the never-so-very-safe Lombardi) add fuel to the controversy rather than putting an end to it.
The simple fact is that whilst even the new “explanations” as reported by Father Lombardi do not change anything in the Catholic teaching (or in the Pope’s thinking, come to that) about the matter, this bad habit of reporting single phrases without a context is not doing anyone (particularly the Holy Father, let alone the many confused Catholics) any favour.
The words were carelessly chosen first in the choice of the homosexual/condom scenario to explain that even an evil man can gradually, slowly develop first signs of moral awakening. Yes he can, but if the concept is expressed in this way it will be misunderstood. Then came the extraordinary initiative of the Osservatore Romano to break ranks and publish excerpts of the interview without context or comment, which made things much worse anyway and unleashed the mastiffs of the secular press. Thirdly came the “explanation”, which – whilst not unorthodox in the least – is still such that the untrained secular journalist could, perhaps even in good faith, think that the Holy Father really meant that the female prostitute is justified in using the condom.
It is now, I respectfully dare say, necessary that a carefully worded statement is issued – not by Lombardi but by the Pope himself – clearly saying what is what. This should be done not in order to explain to well-instructed Catholics what they already know, but in order to put some order among the ranks of the not-so-well informed Catholics (the vast majority, nowadays) who could easily be misled from what they think and read that he would have said.
The problem is, in its root, of Vatican making. No doubt about that.
Time to clear the mess once and for all, I think.
The Vatican spokesman has an obvious desire to feel beautiful and to let all the world see that he is.
In doing so, he
1) goes against 2000 years of Catholic teaching, and
2) contributes to the nonsense about the new and “improved humanity” so typical of the “Spirit of V-II” crowd.
Father Lombardi is not very shy. He tells us what he wants. Being Italian, he must know that the word “want” is more emotionally charged in Italian than in, say, English.
In Italy it is considered rather aggressive and in real life you do not use such words among adults because of his strong content. Even in Republican times, every child is taught that “l’erba voglio non cresce nemmeno nel giardino del Re” (or: “The “I Will”-grass doesn’t even grow in the King’s garden”).
But no, Father Lombardi doesn’t care of Catholic teaching or of “I Will”-grass. He simply wants. “Beata gioventu’ “, one would say if the chap were young and naively revolutionary. But he isn’t, so one doesn’t.
We have two phenomena here: the proclamation of “Humanity2.0″, obviously improved from the 1.0 version, and the reaction with the installation of Catholicism 2.0.
“I don’t want it in any country, in any of its forms, for any person or in any circumstance”, says our chap openly insulting the million of devout Catholics, certainly more orthodox than he himself is, at a stroke. But it is not only a matter of being rude.
This is in open contrast with the Church Teaching, the equivalent of telling oneself a pacifist in relation to the doctrine of war. This is in obvious contrast with centuries of tradition not only in all (as in: all) Christian countries, but even in the Pontifical State, who had and applied the death penalty with regularity. This was also, until 2000, official rule of the Vatican City, until an obviously senile JP II (desirous to make himself beautiful, no doubt) decided to abolish it.
Still, JP II’s decision might have had (though obviously wrong, because obviously sending the wrong signal) a practical justification. The Vatican City is rather not what you’d call a hotbed of criminality and when they renounced to exercise jurisdiction in the only case where it would have found application (Ali Agca, of course) it was obvious that the rule was meant never to be applied in practice anyway.
But this with Fr. Lombardi is different. This is at variance with the teaching of the Church. Lombardi calls this “a step further”. With this mentality, priestesses are “a step further” compared to male priesthood.
This nonsense comes from the usual mentality of the Sixties, that humanity be now oh so improved. Methinks, it is the same mentality which “helped” the one or other bishop to consider depraved priests as merely having a need for psychological treatment.
Already the CCC on the matter is extremely questionable, because – even without being openly heretical – it flirts with heresy to please the crowds (in pure JP II-style, must be said). But this is truly senseless.
And the man is not even King.
The address to which to send your protest is, as usual: