Writing about the dogma of Papal Infallibilty, Dr Fortescue explained that
"It does not mean any sort of inspiration given to the Pope. It does not mean that he will always know or understand more about our religion than anyone else. A Pope might be quite ignorant and a very poor theologian. He may make a mistake as private theologian; only God will take care that he does not commit the whole Church to it. Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all. It does not mean that the Pope will always give the wisest or best decision, or that what he says will always be well-advised or opportune. He may not speak at all; he may preserve a regrettable silence, just when it would be greatly to the good of the Church if he did speak. But if he does speak, and if he speaks in such a way as to commit the Church, then what he says will not be false. It may be inadequate."
Fortescue is speaking about the actual exercise of the ex cathedra Infallibility; obviously, papal interventions at a lesser level than the formally infallible will be as liable, or more liable, to the failings Fr Adrian so deftly itemises!
My own humble opinion is that the arrogance which lies at the heart of Bergoglianity is one of the factors which set a question mark against the legislative, and other major, intrusions of PF within the life of the Church. Fuelled by the confidence that he is the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, it is hardly surprising that he is of the opinion that it lies within his competence to 'abrogate' ... with the arrival on your doorstep of tomorrow's edition of Osservatore Romano ... a liturgical tradition which stretches back more than 1500 years.
I do not believe that PF's inflated notion of his powers can place obligation upon the consciences of priests and people. Still less can it bind Bishops, who are Successors of the Apostles. Right Reverend gentlemen surely have better ways of spending their time than scurrying round their dioceses with PF's "little list" in their hands. (For example: the Catholic bishop of Plymouth looks after an area in which there are no fewer than six Anglican bishops.)
Mind you, if I were a bishop, I would use PF's words about doing the Novus Ordo correctly, as a pretext to have a real liturgical Go at 'liberal' clergy. I would ...
No, I wouldn't. That's not what episkope is about, is it? I wish someone would explain to PF what it is about.
3 comments:
Henry Hazlitt once said: The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others . . . . This basic hatred is the heart of Marxism.
Applying this principle to the new theologians/revolutionaires we can see that those who hated/hate The Real Mass and worked/work diligently to destroy it have nothing good to say about the Good, the True and The Beautiful Roman Rite.
One can simply find an old Roman Missal and read for themselves what the Real Mass consists of and then compare it to the Lil' Licit Liturgy and if one prefers the Real Mass and can clearly see it is a superior Rite one will likely find they are considered merely captives of a cultural phenomenon, a slave to an out-of-date-fashion, one who is merely pining for a past that can not be restored; a man riven with nostalgia- an emotionally wrought creature who can not stand change.
When that happens, understand your critics are engaged in psychological projection. It is they who are emotionally attached to the very things they falsely criticise you of being attached to.
There is something very sad about men who can find nothing good to say about The Real Mass. They are hollow men, men without chests as C.S. Lewis described them.
If these modern theologians would read wisdom chapter one they could perhaps understand why they do not have, or lost the presence of the Holy Ghost, the divine eternal spirit of supernatural love and sanctifying grace, the spirit of discipline in them. Bully is a sin and thrusting pachamama false idols into the sacrifice is very serious indeed.
Father, I saw a post on social media which made me think of you and your opinions on the use of the EF of the Mass. It pointed out that 1970 until 2022 is the same length of time as 1918 until 1970. I think you (and I) appreciate this rather more than "modernising" clergy.
Post a Comment