5 November 2020


A good piece in Fr Zed, November 4, about the latest imperial Vatican powergrab to limit still further the authority of Diocesan Bishops.

Secular Media don't go for 'details' like this. They will, cretinously, continue under the impression that PF is 'liberal' and 'follows Vatican II'.

Whereabouts in the Vatican Gardens has PF buried "Subsidiarity'? Near the Pachamama tree?

We need a new term, Greek-based, an -archy or an  -ocracy, for "The Rule of the Bullies", wherewith to label this ever-more-gruesome pontificate.

Meanwhile, the Franciscans of the Immaculate can apply to enter The Guiness Book of Records as the religious institution the longest under 'special measures'.


Matthew Hazell said...

My suggestion is "pleiktocracy" (from πλήκτης) - which has the benefit of being biblical and related to Bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:7).

Stephen said...

I don't understand why you find this anything but acceptable for Roman Catholics. If the Pope has immediate, supreme and universal jurisdiction, is he not free to exercise this power? If any man not believe he has this power, is he not anathema?????

OreamnosAmericanus said...

If I may riff off my memories of Catholic grade school in New York (before The Most Wonderful Council Evah!), we have latria and dulia as possible matrices.

Is papalatria too strong?

Papadulia not strong enough?

How about, with apologies to the Theotokos, papahyperdulia?

Or, more mellifluously, hyperpapadulia?

Jack said...

Traditionalists want a Vatican I Pope under Vatican II terms, whereas Modernists want a Vatican II Pope under Vatican I terms.

John Patrick said...

Stephen, no Catholic would deny the Holy Father has the right to do this. Whether or not is wise is another question. The Church has long honored the principle of Subsidiarity. One suspects that as Father Z points out, most of the new vocations are among the more traditional orders. That is something not pleasing to the current crowd in the Vatican and I suspect they would rather see vocations shrink than new traditional orders spring up.

Victor said...

@Stephen There is a difference between legal, legitimate, licit, proper and decent. As far as I see it, the pope is acting well within the borders of his legal authority. However, it is certainly not decent or proper, and I even doubt it is legitimate.
To apply something I learned on this blog, an argumentum ad hominem: the Hole Father is constantly talking about subsidiarity and parrhesia, but by his actions, he betrays himself as being quite centralistic. This is, in my eyes, hypocritical.

Christophorus said...

What about 'pseftopallíkarchy' -- government by bullies.

Stephen v.B. said...

I had hoped to find an apt term for 'bully' somewhere in Theophrastus' Characters, but no such luck. Perhaps - assuming that we are looking for a word to indicate an arrogant disregard of (moral or institutional) boundaries - something along the lines of 'hybristocracy' would fit the bill?

(And regarding the comment of my namesake, earlier: the mere fact that an exercise of power is technically legitimate does not make it wise, reasonable or just.)

Patrick said...

Stephen, no one is arguing that what he did is illegal, just that it's hypocritical and counterproductive.

Matthew F Kluk said...

I have no Greek. But Kleptocracy? Rule by theft?

Wynn said...

Thank you, Stephen. The inexorable logic of your point may serve to remind some of us why (with apologies to G&S)
“In spite of all temptations
To join other denominations
He remains an Ang-li-can
He remains an Ang-li-can!”

Neill said...

Let's just stick with "Ultrasuperhyperueberpapalism"
It has an air of ridiculousness that is quite apt.

Anonymous said...


Grant Milburn said...

The Peronocracy?

Stephen said...

Victor, my point is, given the claims of Pastor Aeternus, Roman Catholics have absolutely no status, authority or capability to object in any way as to how that power is exercised. You may think that it may be "not decent or proper, and I even doubt it is legitimate"; but, once have given that power to the Pope, it is for him alone to interpret how that power is to be exercised, and nobody in the Church as the authority to claim anything differently. Pope Paul VI made this abundantly clear in his communiques with Arch. Lefebrve.

Fr John Hunwicke said...

No, Stephen, that will not do. Pastor Aeternus recognised certain powers in the Roman Pontiff, and described the limitations of those powers. The Bishop Secretary to the Synod had a lot tpo say about those limitations, so as to bring on-side those Conciliar Fathers who needed reassurance that the proposed definition was within Tradition.

And so it is NOT "for the Pope alone to interpret " how far his powers go.

Of course, it suits anti-Catholic controversialists to magnify out of all proportion what Pastor Aeternus clearly describes, because, if they make PA sound daft enough, simple souls may believe that the Petrine Ministry has been "disproved".

To take the present point: changing one paragraph in the Western Canon Law most certainly does not count as teachimg the entire Church ex cathedra what the Apostles handed down as the Deposit of Faith. Even PF would not claim that it did. But if some mad pope were to make such a claim, it would be ultra vires and null.

I have just concluded this particular discussion between the Stephens and the Victors!