Wednesday, February 19, 2014

"What if Francis is but Benedict with his Roman collar unbuttoned and a few glasses of wine in his belly?"

Elliot Bougis, "Beware sustained exposure to ambiguidium..." (FideCogitActio, February 17, 2014):
What if the most natural reading of Pope Francis really is “through Benedict”? What if Francis is but Benedict with his Roman collar unbuttoned and a few glasses of wine in his belly? To refuse to admit that Francis is very much cut from the same cloth as Benedict -- to ignore Benedict’s clay feet on account of his red loafers, as it were–, is but to foster under a different guise the dominant problem in the Church today: soft ultramontanism and clericalism. It is because Benedict was in many ways the best friend of tradition the papacy has enjoyed in several decades that I was sad to see him resign. And while he was given to the same ecumenical excesses and liturgical inconsistencies as characterized Vatican II, at least he was nowhere near as self-indulgent and crass as Francis is in the project of Catholic self-loathing, all of which makes me doubly nostalgic for Benedatzinger, warts and all.
[Hat tip to JM]


Ralph Roister-Doister said...

The problem today is not so much ultramontanism or clericalism. The problem is that contemporary clerics are lazy men with a big sweet tooth for secular cheesecake. V2 says we are all on our merry way to being saints. So leave it to enthusiasts: the lay ministers, whose Catholic formation may be no better than that of the tree stump in the churchyard. The duty of a conscientious archbishop these days is not to defend the Church against the secularists who attack it, and the crypto-secularists who call themselves Catholic and then betray it. The duty of an archbishop these days is to attend a-list events with these enemies of the Church and, frankly, kiss keister. After all, faith is faith, but a tax exemption you can take to the bank. To the pew warts they say, "you're all saints, folks, by virtue of that natural turn toward God that De Lubac peddled to the Jesuits. So waddya hanging around here for? Go out and minister something." This is the kind of pelagian message that warms Francis's pelagian-hating heart.

You want "signs of the times"? The modern Church has more signs than Burma Shave, and they all lead down the road of clerical self-abnegation.

Elizabeth Rose said...

What a refreshing point of view. Thank you. I am glad to stumble upon your blog.

JM said...

"you're all saints, folks, by virtue of that natural turn toward God that De Lubac peddled to the Jesuits."

That right there is the central canard that leaves most everything in the contemporary interpretation of orthodox Catholic doctrine sounding technically healthy but proving pastorally impotent. DeLubac deserved to be condemned, and the Popes that rehabilitated him brought on the quagmire we find ourselves slogging through. "The Common Destiny of Man"... No, no, what Universalism!??!! The doctrinal duplicity is jaw-dropping if you can get the necessary distance to see if for what it is.

Last night I was reading Danilou's "Why the Church?", recommended as a trenchant championing of Tradition. Even published by Franciscan Herald. Right away he is lauding who as our new theological lodestar? De Chardin! The Church may be the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, but that is only by power of attorney granted by God. Apparently there is little accompanying gifting of the ability to articulate or explain the Deposit rightly. It can mark the boundary lines,,but it sure as heck can't do much explaining of what lies within them whatsoever. In fact, the Bishops are like the drunk drivers God somehow mysteriously keeps on the road. They still finally crash, and would teeter off the edge of the cliff once out of the car, if it wasn't for the hand of providence saving them from their bloody selves. Resourcement Theology--uhg--I am becoming convinced, is theological cream of wheat jacked up with a couple of spoonfuls of lite brown sugar scooped from patristic quotes. Still has very little taste and even less nutritional value, regardless of the packaging.

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

“Danielou's "Why the Church?", recommended as a trenchant championing of Tradition”

Yeh, when it comes to tradition-championing its hard to beat the nouvelles! Congar is another one!! Don’t get that guy started talkin’ about TRADITION! He’ll talk your EAR off!! He LLLOOOOOOVVVVEEESSSS tradition!!

Then you wanna talk about modernism, which is kinda the opposite of tradition. Talk to that Komonchak fella. Brother, he will set you straight about modernism, and how it is properly called PIAN modernism – you know, all them modernist Pius guys that Danielou and Congar and Komonchak and the rest of the gang came along to set us right about.

One of the first principles of propagandists is to pick the key words of one’s opponents and change their meanings.