Thursday, October 22, 2015

What do you mean, "Failed Papacy"?

Michael Voris concludes that the verdict is still out on whether history will ultimately judge Bergoglio's as a "failed papacy" (and there are doubtless others who will cynically argue that it's been far too successful); but he offers an interesting synopsis of this Synod and its fallout in terms of its ultimate effects on the Church for either good or ill, and how these may reflect on the Holy Father. Whether you agree with this or that point, it's a brief discussion worth hearing. Pray for Pope Francis.

Related: Don Pio Pace, Op-Ed: "The Failed Francis Pontificate - Finding another Path for the Church: may Pope Pacelli help us!" (RC, October 22, 2015).


Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Mr. Voris seems to be trodding the well-worn path of others who, in a different context, tried to exculpate the ultimate authority.

Remember the cry, Let Reagan be Reagan as though ol' Ronnie did not choose the men in his Cabinet/White House Staff and as though he did not agree with them and as though he was being used by them rather than the opposite?

Bergoglio can deliver an orthodox sermon and then he can - and has- walk heterodox moments later and he is the reason the Synod exists as it does and no amount of speculation about the role of others can shroud the truth.

When to comes to Bergoglio, Mr. Voris's failed attempts to slide past the crime scene in Saint Peter's while pointing at alley ways trying to direct our attention there ,has reached the point where even Fr. Hunwice is pointing out his problems; problems such as castigating Bishops for washing the feet of women on Maundy Thursday while refusing to write/speak about that abuse when Bergoglio did the same thing - only worse.

There is a lot to like about Mr. Voris but his double standard of criticising all Bishops but Bergoglio is indefensible and it is ruining his reputation as a man who is unafraid to speak the truth and his attempt to place the blame on Prelates other than the Pope is absurd.

Surely he must know of the existence of other Blogs who have caught Bergoglio out in his inanities and material heresies?

Voris must think we are idiots and unaware of, say, The Denzinger-Bergolio Blog, 1st Peter , Rorate Caeli, Mutual Enrichment, Vox Cantoris, Pertinacious Papist, The Remnant and many, many other Blogs which had throughly documented the plain and simple truth that Voris seeks to obfuscate.

He has chosen to go down trying to shield the perp from criticism.

C'est la vie

but there is nothing virtuous or masculine about refusing to point out that the Pontiff is the Perp.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

O, ABS forgot to add that it is the absolute height of absurdity to try and paint as a victim he who has ultimate authority and who has publicly, REPEATEDLY, praised the very Prelates Voris tries to suggest have painted Bergolio into a corner.

Bergolio not only could have - he should have, for it is his duty - PREACHED THE TRUTH - but he won't and Voris tires to get us to agree with him that the poor humble pope is a victim of the media or other prelates, or anything other than a victim of his own not doing his duty.

The Pope is supposed to be the symbol of stability and unity. Bergoglio sedulously worked,and still is, at being the opposite and it is ALL HIS OWN FAULT.

JM said...

"What do I mean..."

I mean John, Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI... all failed papacies with the Church in an ambiguous, like-me-please-like-me, nose dive.

Admirable men, and God knows I want my heroes!

But also theological hot messes each and every one. Catholic Karl Barths, to a man... And we wonder at where we are...