FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Current Assessment of Pope Francis
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Short Answer:  The Jury is Still Out.

Long Answer:  First the bad.  There a 5 possible explanations of the antics on Holy Thursday:
1.  Insanity
2.  Ignorance
3.  Traditions of the Church are secondary to his agenda
4.  Cowardice
5.  He's a raving Modernist

No evidence for 1.  2 is hard to accept for a theologian, and the press release said the Vatican hesitated.  Shows 2 to be incorrect.  3 is possible.  After considering it, 4 is possible.  5 I'm ignoring for now.  3 I've discussed elsewhere.  4 goes down something like this.  Everything is set up.  Then he finds out that the prison priest has chosen two women.  Instead of fighting, he rolls over.

At this point I'm hoping it was cowardice.  For Trads, that means we raise our voices in complaint to counter the voices of error to bolster his resolve.  And he might have learned a lesson from it.  And if he did give in to a momentary (or even a persistant) weakness, while bad, it doesn't conclude things.

Now the good side.  His writings have been pretty darn good.  He's said that if you don't pray to Jesus you pray to the devil.  He's called for more confession times.  He's stressed the physical Resurrection and could even be taking a swipe at heretic Mueller.  For this last point, this means Mueller is gone.  If Mueller is indeed thrown out, we have a partial confirmation.

So for me, the jury is still out.  Coming up are his appointments to the Curia.  That will give us some more info.  And we can look at future writings and see if this positive trend continues. 

So at this point, I can't conclude whether he will be a good Pope or not.  I believe that is rational given the evidence.

I know the Holy Thursday thing was bad, and certain antics from his past are bad.  But you have to get back to the writings.  An honest assessment says that they are more hard hitting than JPII or Benedict.
Personally I hope he is just indifferent to Liturgy and will let Msgr. Marini run the show for papal liturgies and leave Summorum Pontificum on the books.
6.- He has done this many, many times before.

It is not cowardice because he has done this before and it was explained that the Holy Father had made a change to the schedule and moved the event to the prison, he wasn't taken off guard, but initiated it, as it is inline with what he has done in the past.

He is a Jesuit that doesn't care about liturgy and when he does it is modernist through and through.

I have worked with Jesuits, and they don't even believe in the real presence or if they do they don't show it in any discernable way.

They worship God in talking about the poor, but often not living like they are poor, the Jesuits around here live in huge mansions in the best part of town... but they do travel to South America every few years to 'help' the poor...
I don't take as much offense at the Mandatum as you guys do. It wasn't done as I recall before Vatican II. It was restored by Vatican II, and I saw it as another piece of archaelogism. That said I understand vir and that doesn't mean women.

I'm waiting to see and what else can I do ? I could drive myself crazy with every word written interpreting every gesture Pope Francis makes, by the entire spectrum of pundits from Sister Joan to George Weigel and Fr. Z to Bishop Williamson. But why ? My time is short and indigestion I don't care for at all.

To this late date and I mean late I have not abandoned the message at Fatima. There is no one not anyone that will fix this. The Lord God Almighty sent His mother with our solution and not even the SSPX can do anything about fixing this.

Either Pope Francis in his humility obeys Heaven and Consecrates Russia or we'll see Walter Miller's Flame deluge for real. It is my one ray of hope, that he is truly humble and fears no one but Heaven.  The beginning of wisdom is fear of God.

1 would remove him from office

“Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are… those afflicted with habitual insanity.… By falling into certain and perpetual insanity, the Roman Pontiff would automatically lose pontifical jurisdiction… For the certain and perpetual insanity of the Roman Pontiff (not doubtful or temporary) is the equivalent to death, and through death the Roman Pontiff certainly loses his jurisdication.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 1938] 2:415, 2:452)

Ignorance is an illogical argument since we are speaking of the Holy Father, it is the duty of the clergy as individuals and whole to know and study the theology and laws of the Church.

5 would go beyond what one is lawfully permitted to say.

Between 3 & 4 I'm going with 3 since they had control over the event. Cowardice would mean they were pressured into the situation.
(04-03-2013, 02:12 PM)StMichael929 Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I hope he is just indifferent to Liturgy and will let Msgr. Marini run the show for papal liturgies and leave Summorum Pontificum on the books.

I think this is possible and even likely.  There has been no evidence that he cares about liturgy in the way that most of us here care about liturgy.  But neither has there been evidence that he is hostile to good liturgy or the TLM.  However, I agree with James that "the jury is still out."  There have some been some very hopeful signs as far as doctrine goes.  His comments on the Resurrection were very encouraging.

Having a pope who is neutral on liturgy but strong on other areas would not be such a bad thing. 
Quote: 6.- He has done this many, many times before.

There is no 6.  You are left with 4 or 5.  Either traditions of the Church are not allowed to get in the way of his agenda, or traditions are meaningless things which makes him a raving modernist.

My hope is in option 3.
(04-03-2013, 03:46 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't take as much offense at the Mandatum as you guys do. It wasn't done as I recall before Vatican II. It was restored by Vatican II, and I saw it as another piece of archaelogism. That said I understand vir and that doesn't mean women.


It was done in at least 1945, as I have linked to in my article on this issue (written based on my previous post of similar content):

It is prescribed in my St. Joseph Daily Missal, copyright 1956 with an inscription to the original recipient from 1957; it specifically states 12 men.

It is in the 1962 Missal.

It is not a Vatican II reintroduction.

Per the thread Scriptorium posted (, from the USCCB's excuses, the reasoning of a "development" in the symbolism of the rite is ridiculous and something along the lines of a massive tap dance. We don't get to just make crap up, such as washing women's feet, because the times are convenient for it and its inclusiveness is conveniently feel-good. Pure and simple the entire rite, as shown in the Traditional understanding, excludes women due to the nature of its context as part of the Last Supper.

Let's look at the original question in Script's thread:

Quote:My parish liturgy committee has decided to allow both men and women to take part in the washing of the feet at the liturgy on Holy Thursday. I have always heard that only men may have their feet washed. Which does the Church allow?

Notice the question is concerning women taking part and what the Church allows. Then the USCCB first replies:
Quote: The rubric for Holy Thursday, under the title WASHING OF FEET, reads:

    "Depending on pastoral circumstance, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one's feet and dries them."

So the specific washees as prescribed are men, per the Tradition. Nowhere is it possible to include women without driving a new element into it which is not endemic to the context of the practice, nor through the understanding per Tradition as developed. Yet, this is exactly what the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy does; even more overtly, the response is based not on the original question, re: women, but addresses the significance of the Holy Thursday foot washing rite. Their explanation is not whether women are allowed, which is no, but a tap dance on how they can justify what is not allowed. We already know the significance and do not need them to explain it. What we want is an answer on the inclusion of women out of the context of, and against, Tradition. You can almost hear the band in the background while the Nicholas Brothers warm up:

Quote:Regarding the phrase viri selecti, the Chairman of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy, after a review of the matter by the committee, authorized the following response which appeared in the BCL Newsletter of February 1987:

Question: What is the significance of the Holy Thursday foot washing rite?

They include women in a very sneaky way, which, if we are to follow the logic, the Church prior to the creativity and awesomeness of the American parishes was wrong and stupid, obviously:

Quote:... Because the gospel of the mandatum read on Holy Thursday also depicts Jesus as the "Teacher and Lord" who humbly serves his disciples by performing this extraordinary gesture which goes beyond the laws of hospitality,2 the element of humble service has accentuated the celebration of the foot washing rite in the United States over the last decade or more. In this regard, it has become customary in many places to invite both men and women to be participants in this rite in recognition of the service that should be given by all the faithful to the Church and to the world. Thus, in the United States, a variation in the rite developed in which not only charity is signified but also humble service....

So this has 2 aspects:

1) the inclusion of non-Traditional practice out of seemingly nowhere, and with no basis but the innovation of the Good Unifying Ideas on Liturgy Today Ya'll™ (GUILTY) movement.
2) it is at the behest of a corollary notion to Social Justice and corporal works of mercy which has been co-opted in language and application by the GUILTY crowd. Even more oddly, this particular aspect was already present in the rite, per the explanation from 1945. It was just a minor aspect versus the larger, more important, aspect of the entire issue in context.

It goes along with the flipping of stressed aspects of the liturgy insofar as Sacrifice become a mere Meal (and... uh... oh yeah, that whole Sacrifice thing) and salvation of souls being supplanted by saving the face of a person's feelings because they're not rich.

Of course, since this goes along with the reality that such equalizing always results in the lowering of the high and rarely the raising of the low, if ever, as seen in Marxist models, we end up with something that no longer really means what it means in the eyes of the uncatechized masses. It's just stupidity ran rampant. We're promised utopia but have ended up with Soviet Bloc housing parishes, a bunch of dead souls, and what might actually be just bread lines stretching down the aisle-- at least in the Novus Ordo.

It is a passive aggressive reversal of Galatians 1:10 to appease the culture. It's simply incorrect, as it stresses the wrong thing and rips the entire rite out of context for the goal of pleasing those who really don't give a damn about what anything means, unless they make up the meaning.

As I said in my article, and the original post from which I wrote it, the explanation from 1945 which is absolutely rich in the understanding cannot be reconciled with what we saw in 2013, nor what the insipid letter from 1987 states. It's a revolution, and I believe it's just a minor version of having two Liturgies of the Eucharist: one which is valid and one which screws with form, matter or intent, indeed Tradition and Sacred Scripture, so as to let the Prots have a snack during the next hit song. After all, gotta please everyone don'tcha know (except in doing so the only ones actually pleased are the ones intent on destroying the Faith).

And really, should we expect anything less from the Novus Ordo crowd? The question remains as to whether Pope Francis will reel them in or let them pull him out of the boat on issues which, though not meeting the onus of the Church defecting, or the Pontiff teaching heresy ex cathedra, are detrimental in all other ways.

Dance boys, dance.
Pages: 1 2 3