Francis
has named to the College of Cardinals men who are not known for their loyalty
to the Doctrine of the Faith. Some folk have asked troubling questions about
Francis; others are just severely
critical. I have always tried to respond in defence of Francis, but folk now
ask such serious questions as:
[1]
Is this a deliberate stacking the cards in favour of a Church where the Doctrine
is abandoned in practice?
[2]
Is such a stacking of the cards an abuse of papal power?
[3]
If Francis is changing pastoral practice so that it no longer fits with the
doctrine, is he not a subversive; a ‘quisling’?
It
is difficult to know how to answer these questions, but we must try.
[1]
If Francis is stacking the college without
a deliberate intention to favour a private opinion, then he simply needs
our prayers to make better choices so that the Deposit of Faith given us by
Christ may be protected and promoted not only in word but in application to
life (pastoral care). We cannot state definitively that Francis is deliberately stacking the cards since some of his appointments to the College of Cardinals have been O.K., but there are many folk who would add up the good and the bad and decide that Francis is weighting the College in the direction of Francisism rather than Catholicism.
[2]
If it could be proved that any pope
was ‘stacking the cards’ (deliberately constructing a college whose members are known to disregard The Deposit of
Faith) it would be a serious abuse of
papal power, and a treachery worthy of the devil himself.
[3]
Such a Pope could not avoid being called a subversive, since rather than defend
Christ’s Deposit he would be setting himself (and the Church) against it -and
therefore setting himself against Christ.
It
cannot be a surprise -even to those who think Francis is wonderful- that in the
wake of Amoris Latitiae he is seen by
many as someone who has no regard for the Deposit of Faith in application to
pastoral care. Francis cannot be
surprised if he is thus accused of throwing out Catholicism in favour of Francisism (or Bergoglianism).
The
problems in today’s Church run very deep but in truth, responsibility for the
problem does not lie with so much with Francis but with the Bishops. How so?
Well, few Bishops have followed the example of St Paul who tells us: “When
Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done
wrong” (Gal.2v11). While Protestants have long pointed to this verse as showing
the Apostolic Church did not believe in Papal Infallibility, Catholics have
always pointed out that what Peter was confronted about was not denying The
Faith but failing to live by it. Isn’t
this exactly what Francis is saying the Church should do in Amoris Laetitia?
Sadly,
too many Bishops and priests are of the same mind as Francis and therefore failing
to imitate St Paul, and Francis could not act if the Bishops resisted -and
resist they should, because what Francis is proposing is in conflict with the
entire pastoral history of the Church. Pastoral care is not an invention of the
Church post Vatican II. (A number of the Bishops and Cardinals have sort to
correct what Francis says in A.L., but they are in a minority as yet).
Scripture
warns us, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be
carried away by all kinds of strange doctrines”. Hebrews 13v8-9. Many of the
Bishops are carried away with the alien
doctrines of the world, and are seeking to placate the world by trying to fit
in with its morality (perhaps in order to look intellectually enlightened or
pastorally caring)?
We
need to pray for our Bishops and for the world around us; pray that they see
the beauty of Truth, seek it out, and live by it, so that they may be one with
Christ “The Way (to live), The Truth (to be believed) and The Life (to inherit)”
(Jn.14v6). Above all we must pray especially for Francis, who is to lead the
Bishops in The Truth which, coming from God, is never opposed to Charity
(Caritas/love): for God IS Truth (Jn.14v6) and God IS Charity (1.Jn.4v8). To think
of pastoral care as not applying the Truth on marriage, sexuality and human
life (while claiming that those who apply Doctrine and Canon Law are
Pharisees), is to put God is in
opposition to Himself, wherein His Truth and His Charity are in conflict with
one another. Yet following the Gospel correctly means to do the Truth in Charity (Eph.4v15). If we
are not applying the Truth to daily living we are not applying charity either; we
are not acting according to the mind and nature of God. And if we are not
acting in accord with the mind of God, we are endangering souls.
I have recently opined to my local ordinary, he not being amused, that 'little did we know when the vernacular was introduced into the liturgy that we were 'cutting the first sod in the construction of national (catholic) churches'. Which would create a mirror image of Anglicanism - where faith is decided by synods, but what is taught varies from diocese, parish and individual clergy to their own prevailing tastes. My own ordinary, in the light of a priest shortage, is bent upon creating laity-led parishes, with priests de facto subservient to the ruling (clique) committee of the said parish. [leaving aside the coming issues of married clergy and, potentially, female clergy of sorts. Francisism is and will be lapped-up within such a framework.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sixupman.
DeleteIndeed, Francis seems to think the Anglicans have it right -which might mean he is an Anglican in mind and at heart.
I agree completely that the introduction of the vernacular was the first step in creating nation Churches; International Masses now resemble gatherings at the Tower of Babel, with the Gospel read in several languages to the boredom of the congregation. One Lord, One Church, One Worship, One language. Striking at the unity of the One Church by dividing her into language groups and their cultures was a master stroke of the devil.
God Bless.
God Bless.
"A number of the Bishops and Cardinals have sort to correct what Francis says in A.M., but they are in a minority as yet"
ReplyDeleteAM? Would that be Amoris Mortitia, Fr., or am I assuming a Freudian slip?
I do agree, though, that the bishops have failed in their duty to protect the Faith since the Synods. Apart from a few faithful souls who stand out it seems like the rest either agree with Francisism or are just too timid to stand up for the Truth. It is all too reminiscent of the majority of bishops falling into the errors of Arianism - this will only be sorted out from the bottom up with the grace of Christ.
D.A.,
DeleteOops -error corrected, thank you!
many Bishops are failing. Some are doing well under difficult circumstances, but those with weak faith or non-Catholic beliefs are in the ascendancy right now. Not for ever: God is not mocked (Gal.6v7). They need our prayers, for sincere hearts are leading them down the broad road of relativism.
God Bless.
I have asked my bishop (Marcus Stock) to clarify Amoris Laetitia. He will not. He skirts around the issue. Very sad.
ReplyDeleteSad, but understandable. To clarify it in a Catholic manner is not easy.
DeleteGod Bless.
Refreshing to hear a priest speak the truth (respectfully). As to your remarks about international gatherings and Gospels being read in various languages, where is the logic of reading the Epistles and Gospels in Latin? Although I attend only a Tridentine Mass when possible, I do not suffer from "latinitis". It seems perfectly right and logical that, when the priest is addressing God (or quoting Him at the Consecration) the Universal Language should be used. But as the Epistles and Gospels are meant for the Faithful, why recite them in a dead language?
ReplyDeleteAT
Thank you, AT.
DeleteI have to agree that the reading of the Epistle and Gospel in Latin makes no sense to those who do not know the language, but neither is there much benefit to reading them in half a dozen languages or more at international Masses where those languages are not understood. In that most people have access to translations on leaflets or in books, many languages makes no sense: one strange language will do -and remember, when Latin was in everyday use most Catholics learned enough Latin at school to grasp which piece of scripture was being proclaimed.The problem of not understanding occurs only today when Latin is no longer taught in our schools (except in some expensive private schools) and even goes untaught in some seminaries. Not understanding Latin is thus a manufactured problem; manufactured after Vatican II.
God Bless.
When i read pope benedicts final address it struck me that with the right kind of eyes and the right kind of ears one could read he never abdicated. "Does not revoke this" and "i remain in the enclosure of st peter" arbitary enough to be dismissed but profound enough to be questioned.
ReplyDeleteThen francis de emphesising the papal titles using the name jorge keeping his passport in his birth name not living in the papal quarters and having his official papal name in italian instead of in the offical latin... it was almost as if with the right kind of eyes and the right kind of ears one could say perhaps francis was informing the faithful he was not pope. Arbitary enough to be passed off as humility profound enough to be questioned.
Then archbishop gansweins "expanded papacy nonsense came out" and it left no doubt in my mind.
Francis will never destroy the church because he is not leading the church. He is the head of a counterfeit church
Now is this due to a coup or is it a protective measure against the ever more apparent coming persecution...who knows
Either way it matters not as either way it is a religious deception and francis is leading the faithful towards biggest schsim from the true faith in history a total apostacy.
The only thing along with prayer is to resist and warn others.
Thank you, David.
DeleteI think Francis is leading the Church, but into confusion and division. There is disagreement on what he means when he speaks, and there division not just over his teaching but over Francis himself. What remains true today -pand was true even when Archbishop Lefebvre said it -is that we have 2000 years of history behind us. As Depiante said, '"What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong. We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now"(Thanks to Mundabor for keeping this great text in our view).
God Bless.
Whilst hearing & agreeing with what you are saying Fr Gary, do we not have to remember that the Holy Ghost guides the selection of the Pope & that Christ said "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church"? Or am I being more naive than usual?
ReplyDeleteThanks David.
DeleteWe usually say that "God works with the Pope we give Him", not that he gives us a certain Pope. The Holy Ghost may guide the selection but does not force it, so to speak.
God Bless.
I don't believe it is correct to say that the Holy Ghost guides the selection of the Pope, as if it were a fait accompli that all popes are chosen by the Holy Ghost. He guides; He does not force us to follow His guidance. That is my understanding.
ReplyDeletePatricia
Thank you Patricia.
DeleteI think you are right.
Indeed, the Holy Ghost may, as I said to David, 'guide' the Cardinals, but that does not mean He determines the outcome. Providing guidance does not mean directing or determining the outcome. As I say, "the Holy Ghost works with the Pope we give Him"; He does not manipulate the concave.
God Bless.
Thank you for clarifying that very important point, Father. So many Catholics are confused about this, and it causes great scandal when a Pope acts in contradiction of Catholic Tradition because they think this must be what the Holy Ghost wants. God always allows us to follow our free will, and sadly we can - and often do - ignore His guidance.
DeleteGod bless you too, and your wonderful example. We so need priests of your calibre, and I pray that you will be with us for many years to come - hopefully to see a renewal of our wonderful Church.
Patricia
Amoris Laetitia is modernism not Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteThank you, RC.
DeleteThere is much in it that previous popes would have denounced. It certainly does not sit well with all that has gone before. The man means well but is teaching from the point of view of Situation Ethics, which has already been rejected by Holy Mother Church.
God Bless.
Thank you Father Dickson for your very respectful and loving article. I, like you, have sought and worked very hard to defend my Pope. I have used several quotes from St. Catherine of Siena to do this. I think the problem is that, while there does need to be clarification about AL, it seems from the verse of St. Paul, that those Cardinals and Bishops who seek clarification must do so "to his face," meaning, it seems to me, behind closed doors, not publicly, not for all the media around the world to print and misunderstand. It seems that public chastising is very important for the sake of the esteem and respect/reverence we should hold for the holy office of Pope that our Pope Francis holds. God Bless you
ReplyDeleteThank you, Jane.
DeleteI too think the best way forward is face to face, but I hesitate about being so literal about the scripture verse: i think it can also mean 'directly', which the cardinals did. They seem to judge that the issue is so important (and who can blame them for that?) that the lack of response from Francis has required them to go public for the sake of the faithful. I dont think many can criticise them for that.
God Bless.