13 September 2019

He's right!

PF has recently made some interesting remarks.

He acknowledges that those who criticise him openly are preferable to those, even in the Curia, who complain about him covertly. It is an advance in understanding on his part that he knows how widespread are the criticisms of those who murmur them while keeping their heads beneath the parapet.

His remarks about the "Old Catholics" are historically a bit off the mark; that particular sect existed before Vatican I. But his observation that their schismatic mentality led to heterodoxy and heteropraxy ... "Now they even ordain women!" ...  is well made.

Leaving the Unity of the One Church so as to be uncontaminated outside it is no solution to anything. The only "Resistance" worth anything is the Resistance of those who are faithful to the Truth we have been given, while remaining in full communion with the Church of S Peter.

Incidentally, I find it encouraging that PF's tone-of-voice implies that he regards the 'ordination' of women to sacerdotal ministries to be beyond the pale.

But I would add that the first major departure from the disciplines of the Latin Church made by the "Old Catholics" after Vatican I was their abolition of mandatory celibacy.

That ... I think you will agree ... is worth thinking about.


Dan Hayes said...

Unfortunately as is his wont, PF will say all the opposite in the very new future! His oft-times contradictory statements are either Jesuitical craftiness or delusional. Take your pick, I'll take the former!

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Father. Well, ordaining women is beyond the pale (in Ireland) but perhaps not so in The Amazon

coradcorloquitur said...

With Dan Hayes, I side with the "Jesuitical craftiness" interpretation. Pope Francis, however, seems to have forgotten that the Old Catholics's main "beef" was the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility, which he abuses at every step to mean the pope is infallible in every decision---whether administrative, liturgical, or doctrinal---without bothering with pesky universal and formally binding definitions. Is he in a round-about way confirming the worst fears of the schismatics of Utrecht? I think, rather, he is confirming the great Newman's fears of abuses of the dogma when he found himself among the "Inopportunists" against the definition (but not the dogma) at Vatican I. The Franciscanesque Modus Operandi is clear now: change the praxis, use insult and sweeping calumnies against those who still cling to the Catholic Faith of always, and proceed with typical leftist strategy---one deadly step at a time, beginning with the least likely controversial issues, until the cake is all ready. Then, presto, a new religion is ready for the feast, fervently defended as Catholic by the papolators, the cynical company men who do know better, and the indolent/ignorant who can't be bothered with the minutia of defined dogma or God's immutable Truth. Saul Alinsky, may he rest in the peace of his beloved Master to whom he dedicated "Rules for Radicals," would be proud of such a monumental accomplishment. I guess Paul VI learned his lessons quickly in the brief meetings they had.