11 November 2021

Which is the real Bergoglio??

 Not exactly for the first time in this pontificate, PF, in September, talked about how concern for Law can so easily "lead to a rigid religiosity".

In fact, he went a bit further this time. He assured his suffering and bewildered flock that "Rigidity is a sin against the patience of God".

In the light of that, I have had another look at the text of Traditionis custodes.

I simply adore the penultimate bit: "Previous norms, instructions, permissions and customs that do not conform to the present Motu proprio are abrogated."

You see, I love the formulaic rigidities and the desire to be absolutely clear and complete about what is being enacted or prohibited, which we find both in British statute law, and in Vatican enactments.

But the final paragraph gets even better: "Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in 'L'Osservatore Romano', entering immediately into force ...". 

But, er, isn't this a bit legal? Isn't it ... well ... rigid? Putting things the other way round, how could it have been any more rigid? 

Then there are all those provisions which limit the freedom of bishops ... despite the strange claim (a few lines above) that he is re-establishing the authority of bishops. 

Then there are the bits about what newly ordained priests can't do ... about places and times where the Authentic Roman Rite may not be celebrated ... all the other things bishops are now prohibited from doing in their own dioceses ...

Well, all this looks like "Law" to me. It looks pretty "rigid" to me. Whenever I see words like "notwithstanding", I start getting nightmares about horse-hair wigs, and memories flood back of that big painting in the King's Inn in Dublin showing the trial of Sir Roger Casement.

Will the real Bergoglio please stand up? Is he the rigid and draconian legislator who is ferociously keen to block up any possible legal loopholes? Or is he the Bergoglio who is suspicious of all Law and hates, above everything else, Rigidity? The Fay ce que tu voudras Bergoglio?

Of course, we all know what is really going on. PF wants to encourage people to take very lightly laws he doesn't himself much like. Make a Mess! Parrhesia!!! At the same time, he demands the most scrupulous and rigid observance of his own rigid enactments in pursuit of his own personal and visceral detestation of the Great Tradition, and his rigid loathing of any who are so off-message as not to share his own feverish bigotries. 

Jolly jolly good old-fashioned hypocrisy, in other words.

These elegant contradictions, according to his lights, are perfectly logical. I suspect that his Nanny smacked him too much when he was tiny. Or else not enough.

My sympathy lies ... not so much with laics and clerics who, as far as I can make out, view TC with amused contempt ... but with Diocesan Bishops and their Chancellors, who are having to draft, confect, print, sign, seal, issue and entrust to the GPO pompous-looking documents giving presbyters 'permissions' to do simple ordinary everyday presbyteral things which, as Pope Benedict made clear, they need absolutely no 'permission' whatsoever from anyone to do.

A thought, too, and a prayer, for the SSPX who are naturally wondering if they have enough clergy and sufficient resources to meet contingencies which are already arising in some regions. What a good thing they have retained their canonical freedom, so that the Bergoglians won't be able to get their greedy hands on money or property! But will the Society not soon have to face up to the question of new episcopal Consecrations? Is that pencilled in for the start of the next pontificate? May God give them prudence and courage. 

How can I get an invitation?


kedwardrobinson said...

It is such egregious contradictions as this, which are so counter to the Petrine Commission, which have totally undermined his authority. You mention the nanny, but can a nanny really do this much damage to a man? And will none of the sycophants point out how he constantly shoots himself in the foot?


David O'Neill said...

An excellent expose of His Holiness!! Do as I SAY!!!!!!

Unknown said...

How many of us responded, on first hearing of HF PF's in-patient admittance for a bowel obstruction, with the quaint little expression "Well, that explains a lot of things, doesn't it?" One wonders if the surgical removal of a semicolon was followed by the prosthetic inverted exclamation point. Would certainly explain the patient's increased rigidity... David.

Gillineau said...

I have in the l’eau the Oxford Dictionary of Popes by one Kelly, issued in 1986. It has cured me of sedevacanti temptations. They’re a rum bunch, those pontiffs. I wouldn’t trust most of them with my tuck money, let alone my soul. ‘What!?’ we all squeal. ‘An Italian Pope being spiteful, melodramatic and corrupt! Never!’ It was ever thus and it will ever be so.

A question my good ma asked, when in March 2020 the Church of Accompaniment became the Church of Abandonment, was ‘Well are you a Jesus Catholic or a Church Catholic?’ I hummed and ha’d and gave it all the ‘It’s a bit more complicated than that’, proper to university-educated prigs. But I’m not sure it is.

Ryan Carey said...

The SSPX sadly does not have enough clergy to cover all their needs as you mentioned. But they did have an enormous entrance class in the USA. And I was told that they will consecrate bishops when they feel the need, after they go through negotiations with the Pope as they did the first time in 1988. Maybe the Pope will give them a deal, just like the one he gave to the CCP, to appoint their own bishops? This time they will need more than 4 bishops because their apostolate has grown so much. They may need a bishop for each of the large countries.

armyarty said...

PF is such a bore at this point. He has gone to the point of self
parody, coupled with an obvious attempt to confuse.

PM said...

I know what one admirable bishop would say in response to Gillineau's question. In response to yet another tedious expression of the progressivist demand to replace the teaching of Scripture, Tradition and the Lord himself on anthropology and sex with the usual blancmange of Freud, Jung, Foucault, Carl Rogers and the Kinseys, he simply said 'it is the Church of Jesus Christ or it is nothing'.

Ivanmijeime said...

"Will the real Bergoglio please stand up?"

I declare this a million dollar question of the century!


coradcorloquitur said...

The "real" Bergoglio has been amply known by many in his country and in the Church, as when a notable Argentinian public figure exclaimed at his election to the Chair of Peter: "The horror!" Or as Monsieur Sire has richly and depressingly documented in his Bergoglian biography. Or as the Jesuit General (Father Kolvenbach) in the John Paul II years reported in the now-not-so-strangely-missing caveat from the Black Pope to the reigning Pontiff not to consecrate Bergoglio bishop as he was unstable and a problematic personality. No, we do know the real Jorge Mario Bergoglio, from his records and from his own words and actions---and so should have known Pope Benedict XVI when, fatefully, he did not accept his required resignation as Archbishop of Buenos Aires at the age of 75, thus placing him (along with JPII's raising him to the rank of cardinal) on a possible path to the papacy and all the destruction we are witnessing. Is this assigning blame? Most assuredly.

Jonsgold said...


Anita Moore said...

In a recent interview on the SSPX podcast Crisis in the Church series, Bishop Fellay said that when the same conditions exist that necessitated the consecrations in 1988, including negotiations with Rome, they would consecrate more bishops. Here is the link: https://youtu.be/bmcIGIPrFd4

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

In the 1960s America possessed such technical sophistication and intellectual acuity that it could convincingly fake a moon landing but not one of those scientific experts will even try to explain why Arnold Dorsey changed his name to Englebert Humperdinck and so it is prolly safe to assume that the most entertaining explanation of who Bergoglio is would come from himself in response to a question during an In-flight interview.

Frere Amadee said...

This is one of the most uncharitable and vicious blogs making a claim to be Christian that I have ever seen. Your disdain for the Holy Father is horrible. Is that heretic Martin Luther your role model? You are very disrespectful to call the Holy Father by his surname or use initials; shame on you. If there is so much about the Holy Church of Rome which displeases you, may I suggest you start your own church, and then you can appoint yourself the Pope of that group, and then you can make up all the rules you want? I feel sorry for any souls under your direction because I see very little of the Holy Spirit in you and a lot of satanic influence. If you a real man, and not just some unmanly, prissy little curate who loves to dress up in liturgical drag, why don't you write directly to the Holy Father and express your views, instead of ranting and raving on an obscure blog? What cowardice! I pray daily to our Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, Protector of the Church, and all the Angels and Saints to protect the Holy Father and the Church against all those who wish us ill. The Popes have survived attacks from the Roman Empire, the Germanic barbarians, the Hohenstaufens, the Ottoman Turks, the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs, the Bourbons, Napoleon, Bismarck, Hitler, Mao, Enver Hoxha, and Pol Pot: the Pope will survive your petty, whiny attacks, also. Your hatred of the Holy Father is so venomous it must come from satan. You need conversion badly or otherwise you are headed straight for hell. You are pitiful and in great need of God's Mercy, as am I, and all of us here on earth who are such sinners. You are causing Our Lord to shed tears: why would you want to hurt him, the sweetest and most loving man who ever lived?

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Frere. I don't know why you are undermining Bergoglio by describing Martin Luther as a heretic. Bergoglio has made it clear he is a man to admire:


On his flight back to Rome from Armenia, the pope told reporters: "The church was not a role model, there was corruption, there was worldliness, there was greed, and lust for power. He protested against this. And he was an intelligent man."

... A year ago, visiting the Lutheran church in Rome, Pope Francis opened the door slightly. He suggested to a Lutheran woman married to a Catholic man that perhaps, if her conscience permitted, she could receive communion in her husband's church.'


Maybe it is just me but it appears Bergoglio is more compassionate than you are when it comes to the great Heresiarch.

coradcorloquitur said...

Rather, the heretic Martin Luther seems to be the role model for Pope Francis, who honored a statue of the arch-heretic in the Vatican basilica, not to mention a Vatican stamp replacing the Blessed Mother and St. John at the foot of the Cross with arch-heretics. Oh, and another role model for Francis, on offer to the whole world for emulation, seems to be the Pachamama---a pagan idol blasphemously and openly honored in the Mother Church of Christendom.

Alan Sexton said...

Hands down this is among the most spiritually beneficial and encouraging reads regarding the brutal TC! Pope Francis has willfully placed tradition-supporting Bishops in an untenable position - courageously defend and promote what is sacred (and likely to be sacked by a vengeful Pope and replaced with a lock-step modernist), or comply and harm the faithful. Bravo, thank you, and may God bless you Fr Hunwicke

Gilfy said...

Frere, if you think this blog is the worst example you've ever seen of satanic hatred posing as Christian, you REALLY don't get around much.

Wynn said...

Dear Frere Amadee

You ask our host, "why don't you write directly to the Holy Father and express your views[?]". He has. Please see https://www.correctiofilialis.org . (Do all your accusations against Fr Hunwicke extend also to all the other signatories of that document?)

As for being "uncharitable" – well, maybe that is in the eye of the beholder. I find no lack of charity in this blog, unless it be uncharitable to pursue truth (and expose lies, no matter from whom). Your own comment, however, seems to me both "uncharitable" and "vicious". No doubt it doesn’t appear so to you – or else you perhaps think it is justified; others of us, who value Fr Hunwicke’s comments and analysis (and humour – another thing which is probably in the eye of the beholder) may think otherwise.

Jewel said...

The same paragraph stands out for me, as well, Father. Specifically, the word 'abrogated'. This is a Mohammedan way of thinking. When the peaceful parts of the Koran, for example, we're not persuading the filthy infidel to convert, Mohammed simply abrogated those Surahs to...you know...update the new mindset.
Which is not Catholic, by the way.

Veredictum said...

To Frere Amadee - the Pope's role is to uphold Doctrine (as defined by dogmatic Councils). The/a Pope is not to be blindly "obeyed" when he himself is leading souls to hell. That would become "papal-idolatry" - putting the papacy above scripture and God's laws. Historically there have been popes who had mistresses, illegitimate children, put family members as bishops, etc. You think all this is above criticism, just because he wears a white zuchetto?

Matthew 18:6 - "But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." Now let's see - not even bothering to check, just off-the-cuff - Pachamama idol in Vatican Gardens and transported INSIDE a major church, some demonic flower placed on Altar. Praising homo-heretic James Martin. Promoting Tobin, Cupich, Wilson Gregory. Refusing to "counsel" far less criticise Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi regarding sacriligious communion (1 Cor 11:27 - unworthy communion = condemnation; please read your bible). Loopholes, obfuscation regarding communion for the divorced, or non-Catholics. Not a single squeak when German bishops & priests "blessed" gay couples openly & publicly. Praising some Italian woman (I forget her name) who is a long term pro-abortion activist. "Synods" on Family and Youth - with pre-written summaries that didn't include what participants discussed. Repeated interviews with some atheist writer, who then says something outrages "the pope says...", which is neither affirmed nor denied, confusing the public, and then spokesperson has to say "but Scalfari doesn't take notes" implying he is mistaken, yet zero clarification. And on and on it goes, it's book length.

"Let your yes mean yes, and no mean no. All else is from the devil". What we get here is obfuscation, double-speak, forked tongue, termite-ing of doctrine, contradicting 10 maybe 20 other popes. Frere - replace the papal idol with Bible and Catechism.