Tags
#fakenarratives, #fakenews, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Dr. Curt Doolittle, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, FrancisChurch - In Liquidation, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Jozef Pilsudski, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Miracle on the Vistula, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Polish Bolshevik War 1920, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, r/K Selection Theory, Raymond Burke, Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "c"atholicZombie, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s Ann Corcoran, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Bio-History, s Boris Johnson, s BREXIT, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Catholic Church, s Chapel of the Holy Trinity, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, sCatholic Church in Poland, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, Zombie, ZombieBishop, ZombieChurch
God, where do I begin?
As most of my dear and loyal readers know, a letter appeared that was “written” (it was typed in fact, as opposed to the usual handwritten notes in distinctive diminutive form) by Pope Benedict XVI.
This letter was recognized by ALL to be completely NOT of the style NOR the form of His Holiness Benedict XVI. What’s worse, it was misrepresented by the FrancisChurch minions in such a way that it initially appeared to “endorse” the notion (#fakenews) that Francis, the bishop of Rome is “theologically profound” and that that which he “teaches” is in “internal continuity” with that of the post-conciliar church, as taught by JPII “the great” and His Holiness himself.
And as you dear readers also know, a HUMONGOUS SHIT STORM has ensued.
So today, your humble blogger takes a look at the bigger WHY.
What’s interesting to note, is that this OCCURRENCE has, on a very profound psychological level, allowed those frustrated by the current state of the post-conciliar church, to lash out at His Holiness. Yet by this emotional “lashing out” they are missing the bigger point, i.e. looking at the shiny object.
This hyper-emotionalist lashing out at His Holiness, is due to his allowing the Institutional Church on which the post-conciliar church subsists (as in: Jane subsists on welfare and casual labor), to reach this calamitous state.
Specifically, for allowing the Francis bishopric of Rome to come into existence.
Nota bene: Notice how DEFINITIONS are of the utmost importance, and how the referencing to the proper sub-definition can allow one to properly identify the problem and then to frame the proper argument? So yes Virginia, one needs to distinguish between the neo-Modernists like His Holiness and the post-Modernists like Francis. Otherwise, you get something like this emotional mish-mash here. And I don’t mean to pick on anyone here in particular.
Back to the subject at hand…
So given that this LETTER has created the above mentioned SHIT STORM, lets critically examine this LETTER and try to place it into its proper CONTEXT. Here is the translation and my comments: (see here)
I thank you for your courteous letter of January 12 and for the attached gift of the eleven small volumes edited by Roberto Repole.
This opening sentence has to do with a “theological work”, which was produced to provide “external credibility” (propositional fallacy: profound theologians and philosophers write multi-volume works, Francis “writes” multi-volume work, therefore Francis is a profound theologian and philosopher) in order to justify that all the homilies, speeches and musings coming out of the Domus Sanctae Martae daily (i.e. Francis “magisterium”), are just the next step in the logical “progression” between the theology of His Holiness and Francis, this ‘theological work” is described by His Holiness as… wait for it… “eleven small volumes”.
And then he goes on to explicitly mention that the “eleven small volumes” he received were “edited”, i.e. prepared (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it. In other words, a compilation is not even an “original work” produced by the hand of Francis.
The irony is obvious, especially coming from an authentic and widely recognized theological and intellectual GIANT. Further, the implicit contempt lodged in those three short words used to describe that which is being billed as Francis’ life’s “theological and philosophical” work, just oozes out!
All in all, this first sentence is downright Nietzschean.
I applaud this initiative which is intended to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice according to which Pope Francis would be only a practical man devoid of particular theological or philosophical formation, while I would be solely a theoretician of theology who could understand little of the concrete life of a Christian today.
What’s important in this paragraph is that the “letter” to which His Holiness is responding writing his LETTER, was not written by Francis, but by an intermediary. As was the “initiative”.
Next, it would appear that there were some negotiations involved, since His Holiness uses a quite harsh description of Francis’ theological and philosophical formation, while implying it be non-existent (Francis is ‘a practical man devoid of particular…’). Yes, read in this proper CONTEXT, the denial is an affirmation.
And as to the purported views of Francis and himself, as per this paragraph, His Holiness describes these (2 views) as based on “foolish prejudice”. In other words, His Holiness is assigning a subjective source of “intent” to those who make not only the claim against Francis, but also against him, since he can’t objectify it. Hmmm….
Who is the owner of the intellectual property of the “initiative intended to react to the foolish prejudice…“? It’s definitely not His Holiness.
Hold that thought…
The next problem is that nobody, outside of Francis’ small circle of psychopaths and courtiers make this claim about Pope Benedict. This “claim about Pope Benedict” is not only a caricaturesque depiction of him, but also a logical straw-man. And this straw-man His Holiness turns around and lodges inside the paragraph with full premeditation, as if to undermine its worth. Talk about sticking a dead rat under Francis’ floorboards?
The little volumes demonstrate, rightly so, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help in seeing the interior continuity between the two pontificates, albeit with all the differences of style and temperament.
And again, the “little volumes”, for emphasis…
Using this “little volumes” descriptor for Francis’ life’s work, makes the first sentence a non-sequitur. “Little volumes” don’t lead to a claim of “profoundness”, if for no other reason than syntax. As to what in the wild, wild world of Benedictine put-downs “internal continuity” means, I refer you to the Non Veni Pace blog for the most excellent deconstruction of the essence of this phraseology.
Also notice that the “internal continuity” refers to the “two pontificates”, not to the “philosophical and theological” “little volumes” of Francis works themselves.
Nonetheless, I do not feel that I can write a brief and dense theological page about them because for my whole life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books that I had also truly read. Unfortunately, even if only for physical reasons, I am not able to read the eleven little volumes in the near future, all the more so in that I am under other obligations to which I have already agreed.
And after insulting Francis, in a not-so-cryptic, yet sublime manner, His Holiness drops the hand-grenade into the shitter. He has been asked through the initial letter to “write a brief and dense theological page” which clearly means a “theological endorsement”, i.e. the “external credibility” or in logical fallacy terms, the appeal to authority.
This His Holiness say he cannot do.
And the reasoning?
He then goes on to ridicule Francis’ edited “life’s work” by saying that he hasn’t even read them, and according to the chronology of the two letters, he’s had a month to read “eleven little volumes”.
He also takes another swipe at Francis by stating that “(I) express myself only on books that I had also truly read”. The key word here is “truly”. One way to understand this is that His Holiness is taking a back handed swipe at Francis for his in-coherency and confusion. This passage implies that that which Francis produces cannot be understood in a simple reading of the text. A mean person could make the claim that it is gobbledygook. Further, the implication is that he would need to take a red pen to these “eleven small volumes” if he was to “truly read” them.
But he can’t because: “if only for physical reasons”. But that’s not to say that this rejection is due to incapacity. This is clear in the last part of the sentence where he writes: “all the more so in that I am under other obligations.” What His Holiness is saying is that he will not rearrange his earlier obligations, even at the direct request of the… wait for it… the nominal “Roman Pontiff”.
In other words, go away, you bother me.
And His Holiness doesn’t even give Francis the courtesy of a personally written note, in his distinctive diminutive handwriting.
I am sure that you will understand, and I extend to you my cordial greeting.
Yours
Benedict XVI
Concluding, and what does this all mean?
What it means is that Francis has a credibility problem. This credibility problem has been caused in large part, if not in the largest part by his “Joy of Adultery” FrancisDocument.
The “Joy of Adultery” has created a crisis within the top leadership of the Vatican and it is an issue that just won’t go away. Francis has Faithful Catholics writing petitions, filial corrections and request for him to resign. He has his Cardinals writing Dubias.
The basis for all these documents is the claim that Francis is promulgating FORMAL HERESY.
So the clever FrancisTeam members thought that if they could get His Holiness, who is a respected and universally acclaimed authority to give the FrancisMagisterium, as represented by the proxy that are the “eleven little volumes”, his official seal of approval, this could be then spun as a counter argument against all the petitions, filial corrections, requests for him to resign and dubias.
Further, it wold appear that it was explicitly requested of His Holiness to mention “continuity”, which His Holiness consigned into the proverbial “long grass”. It also confirms the above assertion.
So His Holiness recognized the trap that he was being lured into. He didn’t read the “eleven little volumes” for the simple reason that he had been there, done that and had gotten that t-shirt. This “t-shirt” he had gotten was from the German Group compromise that he engineered between the homosexualist Card. Schönborn and the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (see here)
Nota bene: Post-Modernists don’t play by the rules because to a post-Modernist, there are no rules.
Now all of the above is fine and dandy, but one element still needs to be addressed. That element is the FRAUD that TeamFrancis allowed itself to perpetrate by providing a “doctored” photo of Pope Benedict’s letter into the public domain. This patent FRAUD, picked up and reported by the mainstream #fakenews media and real media is what gave this, what appeared at first to be just another example in a long line of FrancisVatican FRAUD, it’s critical mass to become the international SHITSTORM that it has become.
And the most likely explanation for why TeamFrancis engaged in this FRAUD and tried to promote it through the friendly #fakenews media was that they have a BIG problem.
If you dear readers recall, Francis has called a synod this year. That synod has an explicit agenda and a HIDDEN AGENDA.
The HIDDEN AGENDA is that same HIDDEN AGENDA that was present at the bi-Sexual Secret Synods on the “Family” in 2014 and 2015. The same individuals are running it and the script is likewise that same. The HIDDEN AGENDA was then, and will be now to remove the term “intrinsically disordered” from the Code of Canon Law and from the Catholic Catechism.
The strategy was first to undermine the MORAL THEOLOGY by drilling into the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. But they found very strong opposition to get the HIDDEN AGENDA through, so they settled for a half measure. The half measure was to allow for the admittance of serial adulterers to Holy Communion.
This loophole was nominally specific – serial adulterers, yet the ambiguity of the text (footnote) was such that is opened a BIG GAPING HOLE in Catholic Moral Teaching. Here is how Archbishop Fernandez explains this: (see here)
Amoris laetitia implies a paradigmatic shift in the way complex situations are treated, even if this does not involve the opening of all doors. It certainly goes beyond the possibility for some remarried divorcees to receive communion.
Now this BIG GAPING HOLE in Catholic Moral Teaching is to be used at this next Synod, the one where the promulgation of “identity group politics” will be used to expunge the “rigid” definition of “INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED” from Catholic Moral Teaching. The extras from central casting NUChurch peripheries, in the form of young people with sexual disorders, will be paraded as next in line victims of the neo-Palagians in order to receive FrancisMercy.
But this still isn’t the REAL AGENDA altogether. The REAL AGENDA is to make sexual disorder acceptable in Catholic Moral Teaching. The reason being that most of the people promoting the FrancisTheology and FrancisChurch suffer from this disorder themselves.
They lived in fear of Pope Benedict and his reforms that were designed to get rid of the “filth”. (see here) They got a reprieve under Francis, who needs them to manage the day to day operations of the Vatican. And after all, personnel is policy! Yet the FrancisChurch is disintegrating beneath their feet, and they are worried that the next Roman Pontiff will find himself in a situation where he will really need to clean house.
And it will be the end for them.
So they will do everything to secure their position. This includes working for a physical schism, but one in where they will be left with the tangible assets and bank accounts.
And to their good fortune, Francis’ Communist IDEOLOGY aligns quite nicely with theirs.
And just as a reminder, here is how the good Archbishop of Tibernia explains it:
These reforms are very important, but they are also the most “reversible”. Another Pope can come and create a huge Curia. In addition, the people who will be in these bodies will be decisive. But I believe that Francis was able to “de-idealize” the Vatican Curia – as well and forever, which should be seen only as an organization at service of the Pope, that does not replace the Pope or the bishops.
So what we see is the INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED within the post-conciliar church, have been hitched by fate to the FrancisHorse and are doing everything in their power to help the brother out. Simultaneously they are helping themselves out.
Their station in life depends on it!
Yet in the mean time, we Faithful Catholics are … hate to say it…
…following the shiny object.
Mark Wauck said:
Hey Sarmaticus, did you read Fr. Z’s blog about Fr. Philips at St. John Cantius?
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Yes, and I don’t buy it.
No heretic was ever removed on the basis of “allegations”…
You got a bishop in Chile who has more than “allegations” lodged against him, and he is still the ordinary…
So what we are seeing is a hit job. What’s happening is that the intrinsically disordered are trying to invert the VII vice of pedophilia and sexual misconduct onto the Traditional orders.
We seen this strategy post FFI, i.e. Bishops Finn, Oliveri and Livieres. And that’s just the bishops…
While +Barros is fine and dandy…
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
I have no opinion to offer regarding the truth or falsity of the allegations, since I have no knowledge beyond what I read at Fr. Z’s blog. However, you appear to believe that this is part of an attempt to “invert the VII vice of pedophilia and sexual misconduct onto the Traditional orders.” Fr. Z specifically states re Cupich’s letter that was read at all masses:
“In the letter that was read aloud it was clear that allegations against Fr. Phillips have nothing to do with minors! According to my interlocutor, Fr. Phillips has not been accused of breaking any civil laws. Instead, the allegation concerns an improper relationship with an adult male.”
So, “sexual misconduct” it may or may not be, but it appears that “pedophilia” or any sort of “sex-with-the-underage” seems to be expressly ruled out.
Whatever the truth of the matter, I’m skeptical that this is a “hit job” for a simple reason. I’m quite sure that Fr. Philips has never, ever, caused any problem for the Archdiocese. Moreover, the ministry at St. John Cantius has almost certainly been a source of steady income for the Archdiocese. Even a Cupich can’t afford to ignore those factors.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Well, as it just so happens, I know Fr. Phillips. I was one of the first to attend St. John Cantius after Fr Phillips introduced the TLM. This was circa 1989. I was one of the three regular High Mass attendees at that time.
Now, with respect to the charges. Fr. Phillips has been the pastor at SJC for 30+years. The charges appear to be no older than 5 years. How, Fr. P is an older gentleman, so why he would engage in something like this is quite unexplainable. Aside from the fact that the Canons maintain a proper religious prayer life (Daily Office etc.). They are also an oratory so they spend a lot of time on sacred music. I’m not sure where he would find the time…
Now, w/r/t why +Cupich would want to FFI the Canons. They didn’t use the modernist seminary in Mundelien IL. They sent their priesthood vocations to a more traditional seminary in the New England if I am not mistaken. They also have been known to as a rapid reaction force. There was an incident where they were called in to take over a convent/church in AL. Further, they have been given a parish by Bishop Popracki in Springfield diocese. Their Order is rapidly expanding and the last time I was at Mass there, it was packed. I would say the seating is for 750 to 1000 people.
As to +Cupich himself, he is known to have a fanatical dislike for Tradition. His coup de grace was to lock out Faithful parishoners during Holy Week when he was up in Rapid City South Dakota. He is also known to have destroyed the sanctuary at the Josephinium in Ohio.
Further, he has been holding up the ordinations of the Canons. The last one he force to be ordained at his cathedral instead of SJC. Not nice…
All in all, a nasty piece of post-Modernist work…
So give the above, I would not be surprised to find out that the allegations against Fr. Phillips turn out to be baseless.
Further, I would also not be surprised if a Vatican visitor comes to SJC and the Canons.
This is the logical next step and will be looking out for it…
And this is probably why Fr. Phillips was removed so suddenly and before an investigation could get started. Rome needs some time for the formalities to take hold…
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
I’ll follow it with interest. I hold no brief for Cupich. However, in this day and age, and especially in a country that still has some respect for the rule of law, I would think Cupich would be taking a very serious risk in publicly bringing false charges. Clergy can no longer rely on most favored treatment int he courts.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Yea, so tell me about Hillary again?
Same crowd…
LikeLike
Chris Benischek said:
Looking forward to your commentary onPart II of Pope Benedict’s letter lambasting the minor league—and apostate (my what a coincidence[!])—theologians who wrote the “Eleven Little Volumes.” Which itself echoes the Bros. Grimm fairytales—like The Man Who Slew Seven—with which any Good Bavarian Boy would be familiar, nay rather have absorbed with his mama’s milk.
Still in the Land of …
Viva Cristo Rey!
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Before commentary on second half of letter, a tangental piece on His Holiness Benedict XVI…
LikeLike
johnkg73 said:
BenedictXVI is a heretic, too, just not as blatant as Bergoglio.
LikeLike
Pingback: CATHOLIC HEADLINES 3.18.18 – The Stumbling Block
Mark Wauck said:
@ Michael Dowd, I share your sentiment re schism, but would like to offer a distinction.
In response to a tweet by VoxCantoris re the sad developments in the Polish church, Sarmaticus stated:
“The Church of Poland can survive without active cardinals. What they can’t survive is… that which Jordan Peterson calls “tearing the fabric of REALITY. The more they tear, the worse it becomes for them.”
This is true, but from an ecclesial standpoint they will need bishops “going forward,” since Bergoglio will undoubtedly attempt to appoint new bishops who will be compliant to his views. What is the solution? Schism?
Not necessarily.
The Poles, sadly, appear to be on the verge of buckling to the Argentine upstart. However, what I suggest is a variation on the Lefebvre option. A simple statement that in view of a state of necessity occasioned by the irregular factual situation in Rome, in which a bishop of Rome is propounding heresy, making episcopal appointments in line with his heretical views, and to the extent possible purging Church institutions of faithful Catholics, the church in [fill in the blank] will for the time being no longer accept episcopal candidates proposed by the bishop of Rome but will instead select and ordain bishops who will uphold the Apostolic Faith.
Would that be an act of schism? Bergoglio would undoubtedly say it is–but saying so doesn’t necessarily make it so. We are in a state of necessity (Can. 1323.4) and extraordinary action is required for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls, “which must always be the supreme law in the Church” (Can. 1752). So, not actually a schism. Bishops are successors of the Apostles, not just flunkies at the beck and call of the bishop of Rome. As such they have a responsibility to act for the greatest good of the Church.
I wish I could share Sarmaticus’ optimism, but I really don’t think it’s warranted. Some decisive action by some institutional entities (bishops conferences, etc.–there are other possibilities) is necessary.
LikeLike
Michael Dowd said:
Is it not remarkable that we hear nothing from our Cardinals and Bishops. Silence in this case is only golden here on earth. It is only good for buying a ticket to hell.
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
Ed Pentin is now reporting that the Polish bishops appear open to communion for adulterers.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/polish-bishops-leaning-towards-allowing-some-remarried-divorcees-holy-commu#When:2018-03-16
Of course, everyone knows that adultery is a total sideshow–what this is really all about is that other mortal sin: homosexual sodomy. If the Poles break, this will be a huge victory for Bergoglio and will guarantee full recognition of homosexuality, including openly “gay” priests. This, of course, is what the redefinition of marriage at V2 was all about. Bergoglio as the great champion of V2 is bringing it all to fruition. In a manner of speaking.
LikeLike
crouchbackblog said:
I like how Benedict ends his letter as “Benedict XVI” and not, as it begins, with “Emeritus.” Oversight?
As for the ‘continuity’ issue, I think it is truly significant that Benedict refers not to thought, nor to anything personal, but only to “pontificates.” To me, this is a real bomb. At best, we can say that the same mafia that got him out in the last pontificate are still in charge in the current pontificate . . . .
I do sympathize with White’s opinion of Benedict, however. And I find that many people answer her with the question, “But then why Summorum Pontificum?” I don’t know how she addresses this question, but unfortunately I think it can be answered by suggesting that Benedict is a V2 man with classical aesthetic sensibilities, whereas the others are V2 men with modern aesthetic sensibilities (pardon the oxymoron). I hope that this is not true, and I am certain we will not know in my lifetime. But I think it is very possible.I hope that the Armaticus theory reflects reality instead. But I am not sure how it will help us either way. The real, practical question we need to ask is about the endgame. If, as Armaticus thinks, as do I, that the current Sanctae Marthae gang are seeking to create a physical break in which they will retain the physical spaces and money, and become the world’s greatest UN organization, what are Catholic priests to do? There is no historical precedent for such an event, not even during the Arian crisis. It is easier for the laity. We go where there is Mass, we attend to our lives of devotion. But for priests and religious, a terrible choice is coming. I fear the worst is yet to come. Nonetheless, God will leave open a door. Maybe Francis’ own bizarre theology will be that door. His new conceptions of “conscience” as discernment quite clearly mean “whatever you think is best”, and can be used to walk away from him in good conscience(!)
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
crouchback, I think you’re quite right about Summorum Pontificum. Maintaining unity is part of the Teilhardian ideology, of the notion that “all will be saved.” This also explains Bergoglio’s push to get SSPX fully on board. Both of these guys have been lifelong Teilhardians–the record shows it. Summorum Pontificum allowed the Traditional Liturgy, but only as a c. 1962 museum piece, not as a truly living reality. The truth of the matter is that there WAS need for reform, but what we got was the Teilhardian ideology that lies behind the new “Eucharistic Prayers” (most explicitly, #3).
See my comment re the Poles. Yes, the worst is yet to come.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark Wauck said:
Nothing of what I wrote earlier, of course, is meant to detract from the tawdry exhibition of this episode. It certainly deserves derision, and is just as certainly a sign of increasing desperation. And why should want Ratzinger wish to lend support to a man he detests–beyond the basic honesty of noting the inner continuity of their thought. After all, Ratzinger knows as well as or better than anyone else that there is no lack of heretical Modernists out there to carry on that inner continuity, without the distracting annoyance of Bergoglio’s “style and temperament.” Ratzinger’s own star student, now turned flack for the Argentine upstart, the Graf von Schoenborn, comes to mind immediately as a leading German language candidate. A smooth operator if ever there was one, and dedicated to carrying on the continuity. Parolin, from Italy? Hardly likely to upset the apple cart of the hermeneutic of continuity. So Ratzinger can enjoy his final years watching Bergoglio stew in his own juices, safe in the knowledge that his hermeneutic will be in good hands, come what may.
Or at least that’s what I assume his frame of mind is these days.
LikeLike
ellen said:
I should have said “opening question” not “opening statement”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ellen said:
Are you addressing God in your opening statement?
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Yes I was, and I know…
It’s a plea for help…
LikeLike
Mark Wauck said:
IMO, you’ve spent too much time analyzing this letter and trying to make it a put down of Francis’ “thought.” In the process you’ve fallen into some inaccuracies. For example, you write: “He then goes on to ridicule Francis’ edited “life’s work” by saying that he hasn’t even read them,” The 11 volumes are NOT “Francis’ edited ‘life’s work’,” they’re simply 11 books about Bergoglio’s thinking. Why would Ratzinger want to read that stuff? He knows the man, he’s probably read the documents that Bergoglio has promulgated (even if he hasn’t actually written them) in his own name. I’m sure Ratzinger feels, even at his age, that there is nothing in those 11 volumes for him to learn about Bergoglio’s thinking. He almost certainly destests Bergoglio on a personal level–“differences of style and temperament” is distinctly euphemistic. But none of that means that he has any fundamental theological differences with Bergoglio. In fact we have every reason in the world to assume otherwise.
All of which makes the reference to “la continuità interiore tra i due pontificati” significant for those Neo-catholic V2 people who remain in denial about who Ratzinger is and always has been, and what his role in the Church since V2 has been. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Ratzinger is lying about their “inner” continuity of thought, which is to say, a real continuity and not a mere appearance of continuity. Ratzinger’s longtime personal secretary, Georg Gaenswein, a canon lawyer and theologian in his own right, has repeatedly affirmed this continuity and has even referred to those who seek to find some distance between the two, well, we’ll call them “popes”: “stupid people.” Ratzinger here adds his own voice, using similarly dismissive language: stolto pregiudizio. And there is no lack of independent confirmation of this fact of continuity, most notably in my view their shared enthusiasm for the Neo-Gnostic Teilhard de Chardin–a lifelong enthusiasm for both of them.
The sooner Neo-Caths get over their cherished illusions re Ratzinger, the better. As Hilary White has said, this may be the real merit of the Bergoglio regime in the Vatican–that it is resolutely smashing all those pathetic illusions. That in the process Bergoglio should also play off those same illusions, well, that’s just part of his “style and temperament.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Michael Dowd said:
Mark W. Agree. We must be wary when analysis borders on stultification. I agree with Hilary White that F1 and B16 are basically birds of a feather (of the vulture variety) and have created a de facto schism in the Church. An actual de jure schism would be preferable to our current situation in order to at least achieve clarity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Akita said:
Interesting. As always. Suggestion: Do not use the first name of our Blessed Mother in an example demonstrating moral dubiousness as in “Mary subsists on welfare”. In a hyper-Catholic blog this is jarring and unseemly. How about “Billy-Jean subsists on welfare” ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
Sorry and will correct…
LikeLike
C Benischek said:
No problem,SA. We didn’t take it ill. There certainly is no imputable bad intent.
Most McGuffey Readers and Primers used “Mary” all the time. In any case, the Blessed Mother was not actually called Mary. I always think of Maryam, the Hebraic, as the holiest form of the second most holy Name in man’s tongue.
Understand Akita’s concern nonetheless.
Greetings from Guadalajara. Where they say: Santa Maria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Akita said:
Oh, I know Sarm meant no disrespect. He loves our Lady. But for a fleeting nanosecond I thought he had something to say about the BVM…until I realized he was using the name Mary in an example.
LikeLike
blueskirtwaltz said:
Thank you, Akita. Our Lady is not one of the “folks” and should not be addressed as such.
LikeLike