“Papalotry” finding strange new converts September 29, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, Papa, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Cardinal Daneels, Msgr. Pinto, Cardinal Kasper, and others who so stridently opposed the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, even at times rejecting his Magisterial statements (or at least casting doubt on them), are suddenly emerging as great proponents of total, absolute obedience to the Holy See. Father John Hunwicke notes the dichotomy and, even more, the estrangement of hyper-montanism from the right practice of the Faith:
One Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, has apparently claimed that “The Jubilee Year of Mercy expects this sign of humble obedience (on the part of the Church’s shepherds) to the Spirit who speaks to them through Francis”.
Oh dear. Here we go again. That dreadful old 1860s and 1960s-style maximalising view of the Papacy once more … against which both Newman and Ratzinger in turn, in their respective contexts, wrote so sensibly……..
I find it hard to reconcile Pinto’s idiotic teaching with the wise words of the First Vatican Council, which so admirably limited the role of the Roman Pontiff thus: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter so that by His revelation they might make new teaching public, but so that, by His assistence, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles; i.e. the Deposit of Faith”.
Believe it or not, I first formally subscribed the dogmas of Vatican I half a century ago, when I was an uppity little fellow in my mid-teens, barely out of short trousers. I have no intention of abandoning those sound teachings now, and least of all at the behest of some canonist of whom (happily) I know nothing. Indeed, a life-time of living with this subject has left me never more convinced of the correctness of Pastor aeternus than I am now. What a shame that it is now so unfashionable in the upper echelons of the Vatican itself.
Vox Cantoris has more:
Why do people continue to ascribe more power to the Pope and more authority than he has?……
The First Vatican Council prescribed the Infallibility of the Pope. We can’t tell Protestants what to think but for heaven’s sake, can Catholics at least come to understand that the Infallibility of the Pope is a control on his power not an absolute grant of it?
“The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.”
Our dear Benedict XVI said the above during his homily as he took the Chair at the Lateran as Bishop of Rome. He also said in response on Bavarian television that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope:
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!“
Indeed, if the Holy Spirit “picks” the Pope, then free will is something that can be conditionally lifted? I think a knowledge of the history of the papacy is the strongest argument against both the idea that the Holy Spirit somehow invades the minds and souls of the cardinal-electors and guides their hands to arrive at a certain, pre-determined choice. I think the above can occur, if there happens to be a particularly holy group of cardinals who cooperate with grace, but God doesn’t force their hand. Sometimes, there can be extraordinary interventions, such as that by Emperor Franz Josef of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the conclave of 1903 that resulted in the election of Pope St. Pius X that could be interpreted as acts of God, too. But again, just because something can happen, doesn’t mean it always does.
I was kind of shocked in the wake of the election of Pope Francis when a traditional priest or two opined that his election was a clear expression of the Holy Ghost and we had better just go along with this revelation. I actually asked one of them whether and how free will gets trumped in such cases and I got no response.
I personally think – and I hope this isn’t some latent protestantism talking – that the tendency towards ultramontanism run amok is one of the most serious problems that has faced the Church in the past century-plus. I think it’s unbalanced the Church and led to these wild swings from one pontificate to the next. But the danger in that is arrogating to ourselves who meets sufficient standard of adherence to that Doctrine. Even though I recognize the danger, I feel compelled to judge a pontiff’s actions by that standard, and pray fervently that I am doing so not in accordance with my own will, but in accord with revelation as I best understand it.
Of course, the signal achievement of the modernists is the mass experience of exactly this kind of mass confusion and division. The devil works in the gray areas, and all of that.