Never before has a Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bowdlerise the text of Holy Scripture so as to make it fit his own ideas.
The game is made even nastier when the monstrously mendacious claim is advanced that this is just a matter of 'correcting the translation'.
And there are, surely, ecumenical considerations. PF has recently been to Greece and Cyprus; at least in the latter of these two countries, he once again spoke about "complete Unity". But what on earth can he mean by this? If he has in mind such a unity as will enable a Pope to change Scripture ... not to mention trying to sweep away (simply by a signature) ... entire ancient liturgical traditions ... I find it hard to believe that many Orthodox would be prepared to swallow such a toxic pill. Indeed, I pray that they would not. If, on the other hand, his hopes are that union would leave the Byzantine Churches free from hyperpapalist agressions, while the worst excesses of that disorder would continue to be visited upon Western Christians, one can only ask why unfortunate Westerners should continue to be the subjects and victims of this tyranny.
For me, matters are even closer to home.
When I was an Anglican, keen to do whatever I could to bring about the healing of the schism of 1559/1560, I kept a close eye on the proceedings of ARCIC and its successive reports.
I cannot remember any point at which any ARCIC document ever claimed for the Roman Pontiff the right to change the texts of what Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel record, actually said, in order to make them prop up what an all-wise Pope now thinks He ought to have said.
Had ARCIC proposed any such ultrahyperpapalist notion .... or do I mean superueberpapalist ... I suspect that Partners In Dialogue, not least the Evangelical ones, would very quickly have made clear that this was not a sort of Papacy on board which they had any desire whatsoever to clamber. I suspect I might even have joined them.
Indeed, it's not the sort of papacy I have ever advocated. I have spent a lot energy over the decades of my life as an Anglican Papalist in explaining that this is very precisely not how the papacy was defined by Vatican I. It is not the Papacy which S John Henry was so relieved to recognise in the Vatican I definition.
I feel let down
I feel that we who entered into Full Communion under Benedict XVI have, under his self-aggrandising successor, been made fools of.
I wonder what S John Henry Newman would have made of this unscrupulous perversion of Catholic Doctrine; this gross over-magnification of the munus Petrinum.
In stead of sitting here complaining, why don't you go to Rome and have it out with Pope Francis and talk to him man to man? And bring someone with you whom he holds in high regard so you have someone to back you up. Isn't this what it says to do in Matthew 18:16?
ReplyDeleteI feel let down
ReplyDeleteJesus experienced the same when His own turned against Him.
I feel that we who entered into Full Communion under Benedict XVI have, under his self-aggrandising successor, been made fools of.
You have not been made a fool. We both know who the fool is. You are in a war for the Faith and those warriors on the side of Faith and Tradition are not fools. They are saints.
Maybe we should not have been so "in awe" of all things Roman ; doctrinally or liturgically.
ReplyDeleteJ.Wickham Legg wrote words to this effect. As an Anglican, for some of my life, as a Catholic League member,I was usually keen to follow "Rome" whatever Rome did or said.
It was only when I joined The Anglican Society, The Anglican Association (now both defunct) and The Prayer Book Society, that I really started to appreciate the heritage of the "Prayer Book High" tradition..................but then.............[I am sure you can complete the sentence]
In his 14 April 2012 letter to the German bishops, Benedict asked for catechesis about the change from “all” to “many” and pointed out that the Gospels differ on what Jesus said
ReplyDeleteThe first element in such catechesis would have to be a brief explanation as to why the word “many” was rendered as “all” in the translation of the Missal prepared after the Council: in order to express unequivocally, in the sense willed by Jesus, the universality of the salvation that he brought. The question immediately arises: if Jesus died for all, then why did he say “for many” at the Last Supper? And why do we retain these words of Jesus for the institution? Here it must be added straight away that according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus said “for many”, while according to Luke and Paul he said “for you”, which seems to narrow the focus even further…. the Roman Canon combined the two biblical formulae, and so it says “for you and for many”.
You and your confreres haven't been made fools of. You have simply fallen under the same affliction that troubles all Catholics: an objectively wicked Pope, a typical cleric of his generation that came of age during the heyday of Vatican II. Once we raised up this generation of enemies in our midst, it was only a question of time before one of them made it onto the Chair of Peter. Thus the chastisement that we have been suffering under since the '60s comes to its head at last. No longer is it possible for us to delude ourselves that embracing modernity was an okay thing to do. In that at least, an objectively bad Pope succeeds where decent men have fallen short.
ReplyDeleteKeep your chin up, Pater. I feel the lashes too, but thankfully, individual Popes are only temporary. I am very glad you have entered the fold. You are the man who introduced me to the Athanasian Creed, which twelve years of Catholic school failed to do, so even though we have never met I owe you a debt of gratitude.
It appears that the American President is of the same mind as the Roman Pontiff. The president has bowdlerised the text of the Declaration of Independence so as to make it fit his own idea of inclusive language. As he cites it, the Declaration now reads:
ReplyDelete"We say, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all women and men are created equal'".
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-adds-words-declaration-of-independence-democracy-summit-world-leaders
My dear Tom
ReplyDeleteYou sound a really lovely bloke. But how, in the real world, do you suppose I could persuade PF to see me? Four Cardinals (who have, technically, a right to receive an audience when they seek it) were ignored ... indeed, PF later mendaciously claimed that they had never sent their Dubia to him!
I, and a small number of colleagues, put together the Correctio Filialis. We took steps to be certain that its text did reach PF. But he has never replied.
So what would you ... in your immense wisdom ...do?
Stay as you are! Continue your ministry to your readers. I wish I could attend The Ordinariate's celebration of the Sacrifice of The Mass.
DeletePray. And let God reign.
DeleteAnyone who believes that meeting with Pope Bergoglio will change anything for the better either lives with Alice in Wonderland or is of the same perfidious team as Bergoglio. No other options seem possible at this point of almost total and brazen ecclesial destruction done in the name of "the new springtime" by very wicked men indeed.
ReplyDeleteIt is usually the case that we read and acknowledge only those sources and commentators who agree with our opinions. Readers of this blog will most likely be readers of other blogs with a similar view of things. That is a problem when things don't work out the way in which we expect them to work out, and which our slim selection of authorities expect them work out.
ReplyDeleteNewman was more or less a lone voice in his moderate interpretation of the Papal claims of Vatican I. Much more widespread interpretation was that of Manning and the ultras, hypers and ubers; clearly amongst themselves, amongst Protestant critics, amongst Old Catholics, amongst Orthodox onlookers, amongst Pio IX and his Curia, and so forth. They all held the ultra interpretation of things was the intended one, whether they approved of it or not.
Why should Newman be right and Manning and all these others be wrong, just because the former suits our needs under PF?
You know, hard pill that it is to swallow, perhaps the 99% were right after all, and Newman and those who follow his liberal line in this matter, wrong. And perhaps then, we have been shown to be fools indeed, by backing a horse that simply will not run (pace JHN).
I suppose we are privileged to be Catholics in these unprecedentedly wicked papal times. But I confess that the Pope's recent in-flight cynical downgrading of the 'sins of the flesh' leaves me almost speechless. The intellectual arrogance of a pigmy - if crafty - mind. One has to ask: if the Pope were demonically possessed, how, exactly, would he be behaving any differently?
ReplyDeleteBut there is nowhere else for us to go. We may be in the shadows but outside the Church all is dark and we are lost.
I think Father it was you who once said that, in the Church, we are at least fighting the right battles on the right territory.
Don't be discouraged Father, as I once was when I met you in Oxford and you lifted me up. I sense that perhaps for the first time on this blog you are approaching despair. But hold fast and rise to this dreadful challenge.
Remember Christ's cry on the cross.
He has been there before and He is with us there now. Father John, we need you now more than ever!
Dear Father,
ReplyDeleteI understand very well your feelings as I reverted around the time of your conversion.
Maybe we are fools, but, if so, may we be fools for Christ.
As to what we do next, it seems we must suffer. It seems endless and hopeless. What helps is knowing that despair is a sin, but there really is little joy to be had.
I thought before that the Jacobites and the White Russian emigres sounded romantic but in fact I see now what bitterness they must have felt.
And yet, if there is hope to be had, it must be in knowing that I want to run the race until the end.
"Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani".
Mystici Corporis teaches # 22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
ReplyDeleteDear Father. Do you and Bergoglio possess the same Faith? I don't think he shares the same Faith I have or the previous 255 Popes had.
Every pope has a Boss to whom he must eventually report.
ReplyDeleteAnd I suspect that God reserves the Right to Smite. But I hope He will send wisdom and a change of heart instead.
Dear Father, I am so grateful that you joined the fold. Your wise words give me comfort during this papacy. Cradle Catholics such as myself have much to learn from you. You and the Ordinariate are a gift to the whole Church. Thank you for sticking with us, warts and all
ReplyDeleteI just enjoy the irony that in the 90's I was an Anglican who held the Pope in high regard, and now in the 20's I am a Catholic who holds the Pope in low regard.
ReplyDeleteDear Reverend Fr. Hunwicke.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, every Catholic that I know has the greatest admiration and gratitude towards you and your erudite, Catholic, defence of The Church. So a huge “Thank You” to you.
Secondly, @coradcorloquitur says: “. . . lives with Alice in Wonderland . . .”
I have a sneaking feeling that I know where “Alice in Wonderland” currently resides.
There's precedent for the lone voice being right and the 99% wrong. Athanasius contra mundum.
ReplyDeleteIn these difficult times for the faithful I often reflect on what things must have been like during the Great Western Schism. There were multiple ‘Popes’ or ‘anti-Popes’ in Rome or Avignon. Who was the real Pope – Urban VI or Boniface IX? And what about the successors of each for the next 40 years?
ReplyDeleteWhat was a rustic Christian to think? Of course, lacking the Internet and Social Media, the rustic was most likely oblivious to the machination of ‘the great and the good’ – and probably a good thing too! He went to church, said his prayers, made his confession and eked out his salvation despite papal intrigues.
And I think that is where many find themselves today. Popes come and go, but the Faith endures forever. It would be nice if Popes helped us to get to heaven but if they don’t it is not an excuse to lose the Faith.
Thank you frjustin. The present papacy surely proves the extreme position wrong, however many have held it, and the vindication of JHN's position will surely be its fruit. Put it this way, would Manning and company have found such a papacy as this conceivable in the slightest?
ReplyDeleteMy dearest Fr. Hunwick,
ReplyDeleteI can understand your frustrations. So what would I do? Well, based on your description of his reactions to your feedback to him, it sounds like Pope Francis is not a very open-minded sort of fellow. So, you will have to execute a sneak attack. Do you know someone who--for lack of a better word--hangs out with him on a regular basis? Or do you know someone who knows someone who hangs out with him on a regular basis? When I say hang out, I mean that they have lunch with him, play cards with him, or whatever else the Pope likes to do. So, what I would do is see if they can sneak you in to whatever gather it is (lunch, the opera, etc.) and have it appear as a casual introduction. Then you can engage him in conversation. What do you think of my idea?
Tom
Tom Broughton, your suggestion made me wonder what it would be like, were I to wrangle an invitation to Pope Francis' poker night. Of course, as in the movies, I would wear a wire and be in contact with my accomplice sitting in a van parked across the road.
ReplyDeleteMe: This is it! I'm sitting at the kitchen table directly opposite the pontiff.
Accomplice: Great! Now, resist him to his face.
Me: How do I do that, exactly?
Accomplice: I don't know! You work it out, Einstein!
Me: Maybe I should clean him out at cards first, like in Casino Royale or The Sting.
Accomplice: Have you played poker before?
Me: Never.
Accomplice: Then better not.
Me: (to pontiff) Holiness, I'd like your opinion about a certain situation.
Pontiff: Yes?
Me: Well, in my country, there's a umm, shepherd.. with sheep...with a lot of sheep. But one day, he started behaving very strangely for a shepherd...
(20 minutes later)
...and to crown it all, he forbade the sheep to ...err.. (desperately trying to sustain the metaphor)...to eat...traditional grass!
Pontiff: Traditional grass?
Me: Yes! Instead he made them eat some banal, artificial, on-the-spot concoction called, err Ovis Nordo, manufactured by, err, the Tatican Voo Company.
Pontiff: This Tatican Voo Company sounds really bad.
Me: YOU are Tatican Voo!
Pontiff: (Peronistically) You're quite right.
(To his colleagues) He's quite wrong.
Me: (to accomplice) Hear that? He admits it! Did you save the recording?
Accomplice: What recording?