Tuesday, September 29, 2015

My impressions of the Pope's visit, and more

  • My impressions of the Pope's visit. Predictable. Amiable fellow; polite, innocuous PC message (talking in liberalism's language and not pushing Jesus' and the church's truth claims because the world already knows them, or is it a sellout by omission?); of course he didn't go against the teachings of the church like the world wanted. As Pope he can't! The outdoor Mass in Philadelphia had typical Novus Ordo junk but was slightly higher than past such extravaganzas thanks to Benedict the Great, ironically "the Great" because he doesn't have a cult of personality; the papacy is about the church, not the man. An arm-waving cantrix in an appareled alb?! Also, unliturgical music isn't more solemn if an orchestra plays it. The Holy Spirit speaks through the church and doesn't contradict himself; the Pope can only defend the teachings. Pope Francis has a quality of great men: like the church itself, nobody owns him. I didn't get to see him. The trip to Wildwood is a big yearly event and happened to fall on the wrong weekend; I rationalized it by saying he'd say nothing new and it wasn't worth going through security and standing for hours just to see him on a big screen. I may have missed the chance of a lifetime, but maybe I'll see a better Pope one day.
  • Giving the Holy Father credit: at 78, saying a few things in a language he doesn't really speak in front of a huge native-speaking crowd. And now I know what Argentine Spanish sounds like.
  • He's Catholic: "On women priests, that cannot be done." Good he repeated that but here he sounds unnecessarily apologetic, trying to please the feminists.
  • Rob Sexton writes: It appears to me that the Pope is urging Americans in ways subtle and obvious to think outside the strictures of the completely artificial left/right dichotomy we have confected in this country. Catholic leaders have always done that, from Rerum Novarum to Fr. Ryan's social program for the American bishops in 1919 to distributism/third-wayism to Fr. Coughlin; the Social Reign of Christ the King, a society with a heart. I'll take mine without the low churchmanship (false view of the early church; Protestant) and the political correctness (ripoff of Christian ethics, likewise Protestant).
  • Fr. Stephen Freeman: Un-ecumenism. Obviously something that denies the West is part of the church and that sells out on divorce-and-remarriage and on contraception isn't the church, but good point. Every ancient church claims it's the true one; so did the old high-church Anglicans. Christians have fallen for Protestant denominationalism, and the state, Leviathan, has become a false church. And as I like to say, that Western state's religion, political correctness or secular humanism, is a Christian heresy.
  • Hat etiquette. About the only time I tip it is passing a Catholic or Orthodox church.
  • LRC: The new shackle of serfdom: clinging to health insurance.
  • From 2012: Millennials getting nostalgic for not having a life as kids.
  • Happy Michaelmas. Prayer to St. Michael. Angels of course are amazing.


  1. "Women priests?" that's where you've got the bar set for determining Catholicity?

    1. No, but it's a reliable sign this Pope knows what his office can and can't do.

    2. "'Women priests?' that's where you've got the bar set for determining Catholicity?"

      It is a very good criterion for "Catholicity - NOT;" any "ecclesial community" that purports to "ordain" women can be dismissed out of hand as having any credible claim to be "Catholic" in any historical sense, even if it might be considered Christian (e.g., the Church of the Nazarene, which purports to ordain women, seems to be a genuine Protestant Christian body, whereas The Episcopal Church, by contrast, which also purports to ordain them, seems to have deliquesced into a sub-Christian libertine cult, leaving its Christianity behind much as the Unitarians did a century and a half ago).

  2. Pope Francis' unquestioning support for globalisation, mass immigration, the abolition of the death penalty, and the worldly understanding of religious liberty seem especially dangerous to me. Does his voicing of these sentiments before the American Congress count as the "ordinary magisterium," and therefore require the ascent of ordinary people like you and me? Because, forgetting theological differences for the moment, I'm afraid I have to take sharp disagreement with the "Vicar of Christ," as I am sure his predecessors from centuries past would too, on these matters.

    1. Does his voicing of these sentiments before the American Congress count as the "ordinary magisterium," and therefore require the ascent of ordinary people like you and me?

      My guess is no.


Leave comment