The End of "Roman Catholicism"? (essay on Francis as Lutheran pope)
#1
Magister today reprinted this interesting and disturbing essay by Prof. Roberto Pertici arguing that the goal of the Francis pontificate has been the destruction of "Roman Catholicism" as a distinctive historical tradition in favour of a "deconfessionalized" (Kasper's term), and practically Protestantised, Christianity. I've put some excerpts below.

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repu...in-luther/

Quote:While in the Lutheran camp this “deconfessionalization” has already been widely achieved (with the aggressive secularization of those societies, for which the problems that were at the foundation of the confessional controversies became irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of “Reformed” Christians), in the Catholic camp instead there is still much to be done, precisely because of the survival of aspects and structures of what I have called “Roman Catholicism.” It is therefore above all to the Catholic world that the invitation to “deconfessionalization” is addressed. Kasper invokes this as a "rediscovery of original catholicity, not restricted to a confessional point of view."

[...]

If we briefly reconsider in this light the behaviors of Francis that have raised the biggest sensation, we better understand their unifying logic:

- his emphasis, right from the day of the election, of his office as bishop of Rome, rather than as pontiff of the universal Church;
- his destructuring of the canonical figure of the Roman pontiff (the famous “who am I to judge?”), at the basis of which - therefore - are not only the factors of character mentioned above, but a deeper reason, of a theological nature;
- the practical downgrading of some of the most characteristic sacraments of the “Catholic mindset” (auricular confession, indissoluble marriage, the Eucharist), realized for pastoral reasons of “mercy” and “welcome”;
- the exaltation of “parrhesìa” within the Church, of presumedly creative confusion, to which is added a vision of the Church almost as a federation of local Churches, endowed with extensive disciplinary, liturgical and even doctrinal powers.

[...]

One understands better, then, the genuine exaltation of the figure and work of Luther that was produced at the top of the Catholic Church on the occasion of the five hundredth anniversary of 1517, all the way to the controversial stamp dedicated to him by the Vatican post office, with him and Melanchthon at the feet of Jesus on the cross.

Quote:So if yesterday “Roman Catholicism” was perceived as a foreign body by modernity, a foreignness for which it was not pardoned, it is natural that its twilight should now be hailed with joy by the “modern world” in its political, media, and cultural institutions, and that therefore the current pontiff should be seen as the one who is healing that fracture between the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the world of information, of international organizations and “think tanks,” which - opened in 1968 with “Humanae Vitae” - had become deeper during the subsequent pontificates.
Reply
#2
Very interesting article, there is a somewhat similar article at Boston Catholic Insider, interesting because the same thread of though is running in different circles (so to speak).

http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/f...can-II.htm

Here is an excerpt from the article...



Francis is the logical conclusion of the Second Vatican Council.  He is the logical consequent of nearly every flawed statement, every questionable postulate, and every sophistical premise either substantive or implicit, within Vatican II as so many antecedents to a catastrophically spurious argument.  As he himself stated as early as 2013 — but not before a rude  slap in the face to all his predecessors (one still alive: Pope “Emeritus” Benedict):   
 

Quote:
Quote:
“In the interview, Francis denounced the “Vatican-centric” nature of the Holy See administration and acknowledged that popes past had been infatuated with the pomp of the
Vatican and its “courtesans.” and then:
“He said the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world, had promised such an opening to people of other faiths and non-believers,
but that the church hadn’t made progress since then.”
1
 
He then went further, to make the paradoxical claim that:
I have the humility and ambition to do so,” he said.” 1
In other words, “I, Francis the celebrated, acclaimed, and famously humble and unpretentious — propose to fully actualize all the nonsense embodied in the equally celebrated (albeit spurious) ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ because I alone , among all my predecessors, have the real humilityand ambition — that they lacked — and the iron will to do so! Bet on it.”
 
 Let us ponder that for a moment, for it is fraught with significance.
Does a humble man boast of his humility? Of course not, for he sees the contradiction inherent in such a question.
More troubling still is the question: is ambition consonant with humility in a pope?

At the apex of power (at which Francis now sits) ambition can dangerously verge on Machiavellian. As Niccolo observed “Ambition is so powerful a passion in the heart, that however high we reach we are never satisfied.”

 
"There are in truth three states of the converted: the beginning,  the middle and the perfection. In the beginning, they experience the charms of sweetness; in the middle, the contests of temptation; and in the end, the fullness of perfection."
-- Pope St. Gregory

“One day, through the Rosary and the Scapular, Our Lady will save the world.”
-- attributed to Saint Domenic
Reply
#3
(04-13-2018, 07:10 AM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote: Very interesting article, there is a somewhat similar article at Boston Catholic Insider, interesting because the same thread of though is running in different circles (so to speak).

http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/f...can-II.htm

Here is an excerpt from the article...



Francis is the logical conclusion of the Second Vatican Council.  He is the logical consequent of nearly every flawed statement, every questionable postulate, and every sophistical premise either substantive or implicit, within Vatican II as so many antecedents to a catastrophically spurious argument.  As he himself stated as early as 2013 — but not before a rude  slap in the face to all his predecessors (one still alive: Pope “Emeritus” Benedict):   
 

Quote:
Quote:
“In the interview, Francis denounced the “Vatican-centric” nature of the Holy See administration and acknowledged that popes past had been infatuated with the pomp of the
Vatican and its “courtesans.” and then:
“He said the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world, had promised such an opening to people of other faiths and non-believers,
but that the church hadn’t made progress since then.”
1
 
He then went further, to make the paradoxical claim that:
I have the humility and ambition to do so,” he said.” 1
In other words, “I, Francis the celebrated, acclaimed, and famously humble and unpretentious — propose to fully actualize all the nonsense embodied in the equally celebrated (albeit spurious) ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ because I alone , among all my predecessors, have the real humilityand ambition — that they lacked — and the iron will to do so! Bet on it.”
 
 Let us ponder that for a moment, for it is fraught with significance.
Does a humble man boast of his humility? Of course not, for he sees the contradiction inherent in such a question.
More troubling still is the question: is ambition consonant with humility in a pope?

At the apex of power (at which Francis now sits) ambition can dangerously verge on Machiavellian. As Niccolo observed “Ambition is so powerful a passion in the heart, that however high we reach we are never satisfied.”

 
Peace.....seems he is clearly a product of what Vat 11 really is!  God bless, angeltime :heart:
Reply
#4
Here is a similar essay from First Things, and the comment I posted with it on my blog.

It has become obvious that not only we 'triumphalist, fundamentalist, neo-pelagian, integrist' Traditional Catholics are asking this question!

This is an article from First Things, written by Gerald McDermott, the holder of the Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School, so it has become a question Protestants are now asking seriously, and not as the joke goes, 'Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear...?'

Maybe it's time for our 'Shepherds' (excepting of course, those Cardinals and theologians who have already guardedly asked the same question) to start thinking about it. Especially in light of the Papally approved, nay, encouraged, 'celebration' of the heresiarch Luther, who said,
Quote:I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist.


Is Pope Francis a Liberal Protestant?
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#5
I've heard from some respected theologians that Pope Francis is doing nothing new than what every Pope since Vatican II has attempted to do. I've heard that all we hate about Francis, is what JPII advocated for in his writings.
[-] The following 2 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • Eric F, formerbuddhist
Reply
#6
The Church will last until the end of time, no matter how small the true remnant gets!  Have faith. Cling to the age old and unchangeable teachings of the Apostolic Church. Recall that St. Paul said that even if an angel came preaching things opposed to the Gospel, we are not to follow those false roads to perdition (paraphrase).

Michael Voris has a good commentary today: https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/epi...g.-failure
Ave Maria!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)