Edit: when we were watching the last election, it was with resignation. Pope Benedict XVI was a possibility and probably the best possibility of them all, but there was much trepidation about what he’d do in the future. Could we be, as one anonymous canonist remarks, be looking down the barrel of another Vatican Council?
At this point, the new Holy Father, Francis I, is not being met with a great deal of enthusiasm by traditionalists in Argentina. Despite his intransigence on matters such as sexual morality where he opposed illicit unions, he has been unfriendly to tradition in his See.
Still, it’s not the end of the world. The Pope in white may be the greatest Pope we’ve ever had, greater even than St. Pius IX. Or he may be the worst Pope we’ve ever had, only time will tell.
Anyway, don’t expect him to put much of a break on false ecumenism:
Update: Here’s a comment from Rorate Caeli’s combos:
"I live in Buenos Aires. Bergoglio has destroyed the archdioceses, persecuting every single orthodox priest. He despises sacrality, and has de facto prohibited the application of Summorum Pontificum. He is an utter enemy of Tradition, ill-minded, almost maffiosi. This has to be a severe chastisement from God to us all."
18 comments:
Perhaps he wants the Church to return to being a Church of simplicity and poverty as St. Francis did. There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes we can get too hung up on externals. He is a deeply humble man and has my prayers. God bless him. I look forward to his Papacy with joy and hope.
What are all the bases?
I don't feel well...
I'm sure you do, dear. :(
There has never been a Jesuit Pope before.
Of all the saints whose name he could have chosen he chose one who was never a priest. This does not bode well. At all.
"Lord, we give Thee thanks for what Thou givest and for what Thou takest away, Thy will be done." -Pope St Pius X
rjh
So what? Neither was St Benedict.
Bl. Pius IX was a Freemason before becoming such a great pope, wasn't he?
I thought you were referring to the four bases of baseball. So the Papacy being one base, I wondered what the other bases were. Thank you.
He most certainly was not. He was considered a Liberal according to the 19th-century European categories of the post-Napoleonic age. He was favorable to a federated Italy; he quietly favored reform of certain institutions in the Papal States (e.g. the courts); and he was prone to clemency when dealing with the (undeserving) agitators and Radicals (e.g. his famous amnesty at the beginning of his pontificate of all non-homicide political prisoners in the Papal prisons).
When his kindness was taken for weakness by his political enemies, culminating in the violence and outrages against him in 1848, he became much more "realistic" in his political views and modus operandi. In the eyes of diplomats and politicians, he was thought to have become a "reactionary," simply because he began to see through the Liberals' rhetoric to their true intentions, namely the complete overthrow and defeat of the Catholic Church in Italy.
The idea that this great and holy Pontiff would have any truck with the foul ideas and behavior of the continental Masons is beneath contempt. It would be something like claiming that St. Paul was a priest of Cybele before his conversion on the road to Damascus.--Fr. Capreolus
Being a Liberal in that sense isn't that far removed from Liberalism now. Being for the unification of Italy at that time was not only a mark of Liberalism, but of affiliation with the aims of the Masonic Lodge.
More like this http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/24656
It's clearly a complex question. For instance, there was a strong Masonic influence in Savoy and Lombardy of course, but the Masons had important (and long-standing) ties with the Bourbon monarchy as well. Pius IX had to deal with encroachments not only from the Bourbons (e.g. Benevento) but from the erstwhile allies of the Papal States such as Austria. To an Italian, unification at that time was not necessarily what it later came to mean: i.e. the risorgimento, a type of modern democratic republic with a monarch but essentially under the control of Freemasonic and capitalist forces. There were thoughtful Italians, like Pius IX, who were certainly in support of "Altar and Throne" (the watchwords of "reaction"), but because they did not fall in with Metternich and others on the Italian question, they were labeled Liberals. But it was precisely the desire of some to see Italy somehow strengthened against the Great Powers that allowed them to be exploited by the "Risorgimento" characters who were fully Liberal in the worst sense. And the great divide between them and the "Liberal Pope" became evident when they found it imperative to attempt his assassination and overthrow.
On a personal note, it strikes me as odd (not to say "male sonans") that someone whose entire life, writings, and associations have been investigated so thoroughly by the S. Congregation (and in the old days when things were done much more strictly) and been declared Venerable and even Blessed should be casually slandered as a Freemason, bent on the destruction of the Church, etc., etc. (which is what the Grand Orient has always desired), either explicitly in favor of that goal or too stupid to realize what his fellow Masons were plotting.
Regards, Fr. Capreolus
Dear Father Capreolus: Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and scintillating post.
Risorgimento was an explicit part of the Masonic programme and it was subsequently condemned by Pope Pius IX. when he became Pope.
As far as covering the French Monarchy with charges of Masonic alliance that goes too far. Many of the King’s household and most courageous defenders certainly belonged to the lower orders of the Lodge and fell fighting to defend him when the Jacobins finally revealed their hideous and Satanic fury.
If you want to look for complicity in Freemasonry, you’d do better to look at the unfortunate reign of Joseph II in Austria, who reaped what he died with a broken heart as his Masonic confreres destroyed the alliance with France his mother and foreign minister had concocted and the Rebellion spread into Austrian possessions in the Low Countries… leaving his successor to contend with the Revolution in the form of Napoleon I.
I think most Masons, the noble demonstration of many of Louis’ defenders reveals, have no idea what lies behind all of the silly rituals and appearances of male conviviality. I don’t think that the Pope’s associations with Freemasonry in terms of his controversial and unfortunate political views implicates him in being a conspirator with the designs of the Grand Orient Lodge, which accomplished what it set out to do when it divested the Church of the Donation of Constantine.
Thank you! You're very kind. I always enjoy reading your blog.
One little clarification: in referring to the Bourbons, I did not mean to convey the French branch only but the Spanish and Neapolitan as well, and certainly I did not mean to implicate any individuals of those royal families but rather some of their ministers, e.g. Choiseul, who either by sympathy or by design fell in with the Masonic program (the suppression of the Jesuits being the best example).--Fr. Capreolus.
I forgot to add that Father Barruel was a Mason, albeit an unwilling one. Most of the aristocrats murdered by the Jacobins were Masons too. Just goes to show....
I forgot to add that Father Barruel was a Mason, albeit an unwilling one. Most of the aristocrats murdered by the Jacobins were Masons too. Just goes to show....
Post a Comment