Amici,
Over at AKA Catholic,a good article to read is Are non-infallible doctrines trustworthy? It's a follow-on to this article about the knots many Traditional and Conservative Catholics tie
themselves into in trying to 'square the circle' that Jorge Bergoglio is
actually pope, yet obviously a wanton heretic who needs converted to
the True Faith or excommunicated (i.e. his own blatant
self-excommunication needs to be recognized).
I alluded to this cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-you-face conundrum (or one could call it
the "We must destroy the village in order to save it" syndrome) in recent comments about Dr. Peter Kwasniewski's efforts to defend the Vetus Ordo,
the Traditionalist Latin Mass. Efforts such as Prof K's are aiming
toward redefining the nature, office, and powers of the pope, rather
than asserting Bergoglio simply is NOT pope, for no actual pope would do
what Jorge Mario B. does on an hourly basis. OnePeterFive and other such
"mainstream Trad" sites are good exemplars of Prof K's thinking. They work
overtime at it, and while they generally have excellent arguments for
keeping the TLM, "Bergoglio as pope" is ultimately "a dog that won't
hunt".
As
I've written before: a pope has carte blanc powers, indeed, but they
are to only be used for defending and promoting the Deposit of Faith. No
pope can change or add to the Faith. Montini deeply wounded the Church
in attacking the TLM Vetus Ordo, but he wasn't teaching heresy per se
(though one could argue that point, I suppose). Bergoglio is trying to
absolutely, truly, and most sincerely cancel and repudiate and kill the TLM AS WELL AS teaching heresy daily. (Indeed, Bergoglio's evil henchman, Andrea Grillo, says the TLM is already abrogated completely!)
Having
the greatest respect for Prof K, and many of the others, I cannot go
down their road, and the papacy cannot be weakened with extreme dangers
to the Church. Trying to limit the papacy's powers in order to prevent Bergoglio's treachery leads to "rabbit hole" articles like this one. Such debates cause factions and perpetual adversaries.
We can clearly solve all this by insisting papal power only be used as intended. And that means, shove Bergoglio into an oubliette. I agree with
Louie at AKA Catholic and Ann Barnardt at her site that it is much, much saner,
simpler, and far more truthful, far more self-evident, to admit we have
not got a legitimate pope in "Bergi". Now, that would get me called a
Sedecavantist or a Benedicavantist label (like Ann B argues Ratzinger is
still legit pope, so she gets unfairly mocked as a "Benedicavantist").
Prof K and that crowd seem to think it absolutely verboten
to go Barnhardt's or AKA Catholic's way. It causes too many problems,
they maintain. Well, their position causes even MORE problems!
Insurmountable ones. Catholicism is not an intellectual suicide pact. And anyway, we've had eras in Church history when
we have had two concurrent popes, even three! (Great Western Schism,
1378 - 1417) And periods existed when a pope could not be elected for
various reasons. Pius VI died on August 29, 1799 and his successor, Pius
VII, was elected on March 14, 1800. That's six months.) And Pius had
been out of power for a couple of years before that! (Our old friend "Nappy" Napoleon occupied Rome in 1796 and poor Pius ended up in exile in France
for 18 months before his death.)
Some
die-hard sedevacantists say Pope John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli, was not a
valid pope, and none of the others after him. But it was only Montini,
Paul 6, who was a catastrophic disaster – and he holds no candle to Bergoglio,
who is in full Church-gutting-and-scalping mode, striding Godzilla-like
across the ecclesiastical landscape, smashing all before him and snorting radioactive fire.
It seems patently obvious that the logic is clear. AKA Catholic (Louie) writes in the first article linked above, in part about whether we should get rid of what the Church has always taught:
Not so. Let’s revisit the examples given. In each case one has a
choice to make, to either apply what the Church has always taught to explain the present situation, or to redefine (that is, to twist or reject) what the Church has always taught to fit the present situation.
- The organization presently in Rome claiming to be the Holy Catholic Church authoritatively teaches false doctrines.
TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught
about herself, the organization presently in Rome, since its doctrines
endanger the faithful, cannot be the one true Church.
TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: The organization presently in Rome is the one
true Church, despite what the Church has always taught about herself.
Yes, it teaches false doctrines, but not infallibly, and so we are
called to resist.
- Jorge Bergoglio fails to manifest the true faith; he actively opposes it.
TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught
about membership in the Church, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic of any
rank.
TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Jorge Bergoglio is a member of the Holy
Catholic Church, despite what the Church has always taught about visible
membership in her. What’s more, given that most everyone considers him
pope, we have no right say otherwise.
- “Francis” attacks the true faith but claims to be the Holy Roman Pontiff.
TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught
about the pope being our rule of faith, the Divine protection afforded
to the pope by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years,
Francis is obviously an anti-pope.
TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Francis is the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of
Christ, despite what the Church has always taught about the papacy, the
Divine protection afforded to it by Our Lord, and the witness of the
past nearly 2,000 years. Even though he is the pope, we cannot treat him
as our rule of faith, rather, we must defend ourselves against his
false doctrines!
AnP again.
Read
the whole article. Read both AKA Catholic articles. They are excellent, and I think
AKA Catholic and Ann Barnhardt carry the day, easily.
For
what it is worth. Who cares what I think? But personally, I think it
worth a lot to know the truth of things and not let oneself get tied
hopelessly into a Gordian knot. Speaking of which, another old-time
general friend of mine famously took care of that knotty issue in a
simple yet dramatic way.
No comments:
Post a Comment