I came across this on Twitter the other day and thought it was extraordinary on reflection.
Back on the day when Pope Francis was elected, a lot of Catholics I know reported a feeling of dread, fear, or revulsion. On that day, Rorate Caeli posted this short article by an Argentine conservative only hours after his election. It seems incredible looking back that everything, every single word that man wrote was absolutely correct.
The image is so appropriate on its own. How many times have we seen the Pope behave in this way since his election? It seeks to send a very public message of humility, but how can in not also transmit a message that all religions have equal validity?
Faith and morals mean nothing to Bergoglio - he has a long standing hatred of the Traditional Mass. Perhaps born of
the negative experiences he has recounted of being an altar server? Also we see the ridicule he has displayed a pope for traditionalist clergy, any preference for more traditional dress and his distain for Pope Benedict XVI's
Summorum Pontificum.
Also what is clear from this report is the ambiguity that has been, at least in my opinion, the hallmark of the papacy. Francis is the pope of confusion, and the RC article, before this disastrous papacy had even begun, predicted exactly what we would see: What they had long seen from him in Argentina; not blatant heterodox teaching, but rather, ambiguity, a lack of any teaching one can get a grip on and a completely confusing narrative.
A further prediction here is the way the pope has surrounded himself with villains. I have been stunned and surprised that he has been able to easily identify the villains and, without fail, promote them to high office.
His inter-religious-ness is highlighted as well, perhaps most clearly seen during the papacy in his engagement with
Pachamamma, his recent
trip to Canada (which many considered to be the worst example of this, although it seems we have all become so acclimatised and accustomed, no one was particularly outraged by it) and his
visit to the UAE where he signed a document which teaches that religious plurality is willed by God.
It was all there, right at the beginning and has unfolded just as those who knew him knew it would. Did the Cardinals know his provenance and quality before the conclave?
I had heard of his behavior in Argentina some time before his 'election' and knew pretty much from the start that he was bad news. And now he promotes more unworthy prelates.
ReplyDeleteCardinal Raniero Cantamalessa is beside him (the senior charismatic speaker)! This is not a negative statement on charismatics in general. I have good charismatic friends, and I have attended charismatic events. I even had a healing at a conference once, though I believe other aspects to be false. I have observed praying on tongues being 'seemingly' forced on people.
ReplyDeleteMy move to tradition was primarily as a result of being told that the CCR had all the answers, but soon I observed very bad behaviour in certain members of their community, who were raised up by others as paragons of virtue. I soon worked out that CCR did not have all the answers. Far from it!
It is a long story, but some of the original 1970's charismatics reel at the 'ecumenism gone mad' that has taken hold of some of the CCR (and the drum Masses). In fact, a good number removed themselves from it and became contemplatives, and even formed contemplative networks.
One figure who needs greater attention is Cardinal Suenens. He not only is associated with integrating charismatic renewal into the Church, but is specifically associated with bringing in Communion in the hand. He is associated with other negative aspects.
I don't quite know what I am trying to say here, but something just doesn't add up with charismatic renewal. It gives people a licence to run rough shod over tradition. The picture indeed shows the future Pope receiving a blessing from a protestant, but look who is beside him. This is the sort of thing that that certain people in CCR promote, and the Vatican's No. 1 charismatic is also in the picture. The damage being done in the Church is often being done in the name of ecumenism, but abuses at Mass are particularly rife in CCR.
If we consider Marian Aparitions, the Church takes a long time to decide if it is real or not. What we are really talking about with CCR is the numerous 'apparitions' (they can't see Him, but feel His presence) of the Holy Spirit. The Church never investigated these 'apparitions' (so to speak), but CCR was ushered in through the door without any questions being asked.
In short, your post has more to say about CCR, than the future pope.
I remember that article in "Panorama Catolico", an excellent page.
ReplyDeleteI feel that they have preserved a humble chivalry by limiting themselves in their description of the scoundrel and heterodox Cardinal Bergoglio.
Another Argentine scholar, Professor Antonio Caponnetto, who had known Bergoglio in the 90s, and had been warning since those years about the one who is now Pope, to our sadness.
A few years ago he published a book entitled "I don't know him: from iscariotism to apostasy." In allusion to the denial of Saint Peter and the abominable betrayal of Judas.
If you want to see the book presentation conference, here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvfbcC0llfc
It's in Spanish, but I think it has the option to subtitle in English. This conference is not wasted.