I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:35 am

+JMJ+


ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:45 am

wosbald wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:35 am
+JMJ+

Bullpucky, fat boy.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:45 pm

+JMJ+

Pachamama – the missing piece of the puzzle [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
(Featured image taken from here)

In my last article about the Our Lady of the Amazon / Pachamama controversy, I tried to reconcile the apparent contradictions between the various claims about the identity of the enigmatic wooden carved figure. I reached the conclusion, supported by interventions from official sources that the figure could be construed as either 1) a representation of life, fertility, Mother Earth (Vatican spokespeople and REPAM representatives); or 2) the Blessed Virgin Mary (the native woman who presented the statue to the Pope; the priest that organized the parallel activities in St. Maria Traspontina).

However, this does not answer a crucial question, which is important to be able to understand another locus of contradictions. I wrote, relative to the Marian hypothesis:
A person who is indeed looking for the truth of the matter, instead of pushing for a narrative, will act differently. Such a person will ask himself: “If this is just a representation of life… then why are there people close to the event saying it’s Our Lady of the Amazon?”
My last article sought to answer this question by solving all the contradictions between those two interpretations. Nevertheless, this task is not yet complete. A person who is indeed searching for the truth instead of pushing for a narrative will explore all the possible angles, and try to leave no loose threads. Of course, the less evidence that exists for a certain interpretation (such as the “Pachamama” interpretation), the more we must rely on speculation (rather than facts) to draw a coherent picture. Even so, in light of all that is going on, we should still ask the question, “If this is just a representation of life, or if it is a depiction of Our Lady of the Amazon, then what is the origin of the claim that this is Pachamama?”

As the narrative has unfolded, many biased media reports have spun the facts and give the impression that the statue was unquestionably Pachamama, a pagan goddess. In these reports, they give the impression that there’s no debate whether a pagan ritual took place on Vatican soil. They have done this in order to discredit the Synod on the Amazon — and ultimately the Pope himself. They have shown themselves to be utterly impervious to any rebuttal; their minds are already convinced that this was a pagan ritual. Now all they need to do is find the facts to corroborate their preordained conclusion.

However, even if the existence of these media claims explains why the Pachamama hypothesis persists — even after the repetitive and continuous denials that there was an idolatrous/pagan purpose for the statues by official sources — it does not explain where that hypothesis originated in the first place. Surely this idea didn’t originate from the multitude of papal critics who — as this story has progressed — have shown they know nothing about Pachamama beyond Google Image searches and the ability to repeat talking points, and who probably had not heard of Pachamama before all this happened. So where did it come from?

==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Evidence for the Pachamama hypothesis

[…]

The two pachamamas

[…]

Some context

[…]

Internal validation

[…]

The native woman speaks again

[…]

Conclusions

While we’ve not been able to establish a direct connection between the controversial figure and the Pachamama hypothesis, we have seen that the organizers of the event have made some references to Pachamama. When they did so, they referred to Pachamama simply as Mother Earth, not as a pagan goddess. Their concept of Mother Earth does not contain any religious significance that could be construed as idolatrous. Rather, they use Mother Earth as many other eco-movements use it: as a way to promote environmental causes. In the specific case of REPAM, they add to this a layer of Catholicism, inspired by Pope Francis’ Laudato ‘Si, and by St. Francis of Assisi’s Laudato Si’. Whether they succeed at doing this in an orthodox way is something that should be discussed in a calm and unbiased way, without prejudiced conclusions. In the end, it will be the Pope who will decide on that, when he publishes his post-synodal apostolic exhortation.

In the meantime, this in no way contradicts any of the conclusions I made in my last article, namely:
  • The statues were acquired and used by REPAM as a representation of life, mother earth, and the indigenous peoples, not pagan goddesses;
  • The official stance of the Vatican and REPAM is that these representations (either in the Vatican Gardens activity or in the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina) have no specific religious significance, either pagan or Catholic;
  • Nevertheless, it is clear that some indigenous people have conferred a Marian significance to the carved images;
  • Among those people is the native woman who presided over the activity at the Vatican Gardens and who presented the figure to the Pope; This has also been validated by the priest in charge of organizing the events in the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina;
  • The only ones peddling charges of paganism are media outlets hostile to the Synod and biased against the Pope;
It would be hypocritical to believe Ednamar Viana when she mentions Mother Earth in relation to the tree planting ceremony and not believe the same woman when she presents the statue as Our Lady of the Amazon. It would be even more damning to accuse her of paganism when she mentions Mother Earth, when she did not refer to Mother Earth as a goddess. Again, the most plausible explanation is that the carved figures did not have any religious significance when they were acquired, representing merely some abstract concepts like Mother Earth (not the goddess, but the symbolic reality), but that were later conferred with some Marian significance, namely by indigenous people such as Ednamar and Fr. Rojas.

There is not, at this moment, any evidence in favor of the “A pagan goddess was worshipped at the Vatican” hypothesis. There are, in fact, several official denials of this thesis, both by REPAM and the Vatican. I am reminded of the fundamentalist Protestant controversies around the usage of the word Lucifer in a certain Catholic hymn to refer to Jesus. In the same way, Pachamama is a loaded term that can be used in an orthodox way by those who actually wield it, and has been misconstrued to prove that something demonic was underfoot by people who had already reached that conclusion. And I think we now have a better grasp on what might be the possible (though not proven) provenance of the term “Pachamama,” as understood by Catholics in the Amazon region.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:29 pm

wosbald wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:45 pm
+JMJ+

Pachamama – the missing piece of the puzzle [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
(Featured image taken from here)

In my last article about the Our Lady of the Amazon / Pachamama controversy, I tried to reconcile the apparent contradictions between the various claims about the identity of the enigmatic wooden carved figure. I reached the conclusion, supported by interventions from official sources that the figure could be construed as either 1) a representation of life, fertility, Mother Earth (Vatican spokespeople and REPAM representatives); or 2) the Blessed Virgin Mary (the native woman who presented the statue to the Pope; the priest that organized the parallel activities in St. Maria Traspontina).

However, this does not answer a crucial question, which is important to be able to understand another locus of contradictions. I wrote, relative to the Marian hypothesis:
A person who is indeed looking for the truth of the matter, instead of pushing for a narrative, will act differently. Such a person will ask himself: “If this is just a representation of life… then why are there people close to the event saying it’s Our Lady of the Amazon?”
My last article sought to answer this question by solving all the contradictions between those two interpretations. Nevertheless, this task is not yet complete. A person who is indeed searching for the truth instead of pushing for a narrative will explore all the possible angles, and try to leave no loose threads. Of course, the less evidence that exists for a certain interpretation (such as the “Pachamama” interpretation), the more we must rely on speculation (rather than facts) to draw a coherent picture. Even so, in light of all that is going on, we should still ask the question, “If this is just a representation of life, or if it is a depiction of Our Lady of the Amazon, then what is the origin of the claim that this is Pachamama?”

As the narrative has unfolded, many biased media reports have spun the facts and give the impression that the statue was unquestionably Pachamama, a pagan goddess. In these reports, they give the impression that there’s no debate whether a pagan ritual took place on Vatican soil. They have done this in order to discredit the Synod on the Amazon — and ultimately the Pope himself. They have shown themselves to be utterly impervious to any rebuttal; their minds are already convinced that this was a pagan ritual. Now all they need to do is find the facts to corroborate their preordained conclusion.

However, even if the existence of these media claims explains why the Pachamama hypothesis persists — even after the repetitive and continuous denials that there was an idolatrous/pagan purpose for the statues by official sources — it does not explain where that hypothesis originated in the first place. Surely this idea didn’t originate from the multitude of papal critics who — as this story has progressed — have shown they know nothing about Pachamama beyond Google Image searches and the ability to repeat talking points, and who probably had not heard of Pachamama before all this happened. So where did it come from?

==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Evidence for the Pachamama hypothesis

[…]

The two pachamamas

[…]

Some context

[…]

Internal validation

[…]

The native woman speaks again

[…]

Conclusions

While we’ve not been able to establish a direct connection between the controversial figure and the Pachamama hypothesis, we have seen that the organizers of the event have made some references to Pachamama. When they did so, they referred to Pachamama simply as Mother Earth, not as a pagan goddess. Their concept of Mother Earth does not contain any religious significance that could be construed as idolatrous. Rather, they use Mother Earth as many other eco-movements use it: as a way to promote environmental causes. In the specific case of REPAM, they add to this a layer of Catholicism, inspired by Pope Francis’ Laudato ‘Si, and by St. Francis of Assisi’s Laudato Si’. Whether they succeed at doing this in an orthodox way is something that should be discussed in a calm and unbiased way, without prejudiced conclusions. In the end, it will be the Pope who will decide on that, when he publishes his post-synodal apostolic exhortation.

In the meantime, this in no way contradicts any of the conclusions I made in my last article, namely:
  • The statues were acquired and used by REPAM as a representation of life, mother earth, and the indigenous peoples, not pagan goddesses;
  • The official stance of the Vatican and REPAM is that these representations (either in the Vatican Gardens activity or in the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina) have no specific religious significance, either pagan or Catholic;
  • Nevertheless, it is clear that some indigenous people have conferred a Marian significance to the carved images;
  • Among those people is the native woman who presided over the activity at the Vatican Gardens and who presented the figure to the Pope; This has also been validated by the priest in charge of organizing the events in the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina;
  • The only ones peddling charges of paganism are media outlets hostile to the Synod and biased against the Pope;
It would be hypocritical to believe Ednamar Viana when she mentions Mother Earth in relation to the tree planting ceremony and not believe the same woman when she presents the statue as Our Lady of the Amazon. It would be even more damning to accuse her of paganism when she mentions Mother Earth, when she did not refer to Mother Earth as a goddess. Again, the most plausible explanation is that the carved figures did not have any religious significance when they were acquired, representing merely some abstract concepts like Mother Earth (not the goddess, but the symbolic reality), but that were later conferred with some Marian significance, namely by indigenous people such as Ednamar and Fr. Rojas.

There is not, at this moment, any evidence in favor of the “A pagan goddess was worshipped at the Vatican” hypothesis. There are, in fact, several official denials of this thesis, both by REPAM and the Vatican. I am reminded of the fundamentalist Protestant controversies around the usage of the word Lucifer in a certain Catholic hymn to refer to Jesus. In the same way, Pachamama is a loaded term that can be used in an orthodox way by those who actually wield it, and has been misconstrued to prove that something demonic was underfoot by people who had already reached that conclusion. And I think we now have a better grasp on what might be the possible (though not proven) provenance of the term “Pachamama,” as understood by Catholics in the Amazon region.
So she's a representation of Mother Earth. Of course we traditionally put a representation of Mother Earth in our churches and perform rituals in her presence. :egor:

Beautifully written piece with touching loyal devotion, for which I greatly admire the author, but it doesn't change the impression that whatever that is, it shouldnt be venerated within a church.

Funny that he hasn't found the Italian Bishop's conference document with the published prayer asking Pachamama to "be propitious." Why are we supposed to pray to Mother Earth? I would genuinely like to hear the answer.

And yes, I'll be suspicious. I view wherepeteris in much the same light as I view church militant: as interesting but biased sources. The latter can find nothing about this Pope to praise, the former can find nothing to disagree with. But that doesnt mean I dont read it.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Thunktank » Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:10 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:29 pm
wosbald wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:45 pm
+JMJ+

Pachamama – the missing piece of the puzzle [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
(Featured image taken from here)

In my last article about the Our Lady of the Amazon / Pachamama controversy, I tried to reconcile the apparent contradictions between the various claims about the identity of the enigmatic wooden carved figure. I reached the conclusion, supported by interventions from official sources that the figure could be construed as either 1) a representation of life, fertility, Mother Earth (Vatican spokespeople and REPAM representatives); or 2) the Blessed Virgin Mary (the native woman who presented the statue to the Pope; the priest that organized the parallel activities in St. Maria Traspontina).

However, this does not answer a crucial question, which is important to be able to understand another locus of contradictions. I wrote, relative to the Marian hypothesis:
A person who is indeed looking for the truth of the matter, instead of pushing for a narrative, will act differently. Such a person will ask himself: “If this is just a representation of life… then why are there people close to the event saying it’s Our Lady of the Amazon?”
My last article sought to answer this question by solving all the contradictions between those two interpretations. Nevertheless, this task is not yet complete. A person who is indeed searching for the truth instead of pushing for a narrative will explore all the possible angles, and try to leave no loose threads. Of course, the less evidence that exists for a certain interpretation (such as the “Pachamama” interpretation), the more we must rely on speculation (rather than facts) to draw a coherent picture. Even so, in light of all that is going on, we should still ask the question, “If this is just a representation of life, or if it is a depiction of Our Lady of the Amazon, then what is the origin of the claim that this is Pachamama?”

As the narrative has unfolded, many biased media reports have spun the facts and give the impression that the statue was unquestionably Pachamama, a pagan goddess. In these reports, they give the impression that there’s no debate whether a pagan ritual took place on Vatican soil. They have done this in order to discredit the Synod on the Amazon — and ultimately the Pope himself. They have shown themselves to be utterly impervious to any rebuttal; their minds are already convinced that this was a pagan ritual. Now all they need to do is find the facts to corroborate their preordained conclusion.

However, even if the existence of these media claims explains why the Pachamama hypothesis persists — even after the repetitive and continuous denials that there was an idolatrous/pagan purpose for the statues by official sources — it does not explain where that hypothesis originated in the first place. Surely this idea didn’t originate from the multitude of papal critics who — as this story has progressed — have shown they know nothing about Pachamama beyond Google Image searches and the ability to repeat talking points, and who probably had not heard of Pachamama before all this happened. So where did it come from?

==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Evidence for the Pachamama hypothesis

[…]

The two pachamamas

[…]

Some context

[…]

Internal validation

[…]

The native woman speaks again

[…]

Conclusions

While we’ve not been able to establish a direct connection between the controversial figure and the Pachamama hypothesis, we have seen that the organizers of the event have made some references to Pachamama. When they did so, they referred to Pachamama simply as Mother Earth, not as a pagan goddess. Their concept of Mother Earth does not contain any religious significance that could be construed as idolatrous. Rather, they use Mother Earth as many other eco-movements use it: as a way to promote environmental causes. In the specific case of REPAM, they add to this a layer of Catholicism, inspired by Pope Francis’ Laudato ‘Si, and by St. Francis of Assisi’s Laudato Si’. Whether they succeed at doing this in an orthodox way is something that should be discussed in a calm and unbiased way, without prejudiced conclusions. In the end, it will be the Pope who will decide on that, when he publishes his post-synodal apostolic exhortation.

In the meantime, this in no way contradicts any of the conclusions I made in my last article, namely:
  • The statues were acquired and used by REPAM as a representation of life, mother earth, and the indigenous peoples, not pagan goddesses;
  • The official stance of the Vatican and REPAM is that these representations (either in the Vatican Gardens activity or in the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina) have no specific religious significance, either pagan or Catholic;
  • Nevertheless, it is clear that some indigenous people have conferred a Marian significance to the carved images;
  • Among those people is the native woman who presided over the activity at the Vatican Gardens and who presented the figure to the Pope; This has also been validated by the priest in charge of organizing the events in the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina;
  • The only ones peddling charges of paganism are media outlets hostile to the Synod and biased against the Pope;
It would be hypocritical to believe Ednamar Viana when she mentions Mother Earth in relation to the tree planting ceremony and not believe the same woman when she presents the statue as Our Lady of the Amazon. It would be even more damning to accuse her of paganism when she mentions Mother Earth, when she did not refer to Mother Earth as a goddess. Again, the most plausible explanation is that the carved figures did not have any religious significance when they were acquired, representing merely some abstract concepts like Mother Earth (not the goddess, but the symbolic reality), but that were later conferred with some Marian significance, namely by indigenous people such as Ednamar and Fr. Rojas.

There is not, at this moment, any evidence in favor of the “A pagan goddess was worshipped at the Vatican” hypothesis. There are, in fact, several official denials of this thesis, both by REPAM and the Vatican. I am reminded of the fundamentalist Protestant controversies around the usage of the word Lucifer in a certain Catholic hymn to refer to Jesus. In the same way, Pachamama is a loaded term that can be used in an orthodox way by those who actually wield it, and has been misconstrued to prove that something demonic was underfoot by people who had already reached that conclusion. And I think we now have a better grasp on what might be the possible (though not proven) provenance of the term “Pachamama,” as understood by Catholics in the Amazon region.
So she's a representation of Mother Earth. Of course we traditionally put a representation of Mother Earth in our churches and perform rituals in her presence. :egor:

Beautifully written piece with touching loyal devotion, for which I greatly admire the author, but it doesn't change the impression that whatever that is, it shouldnt be venerated within a church.

Funny that he hasn't found the Italian Bishop's conference document with the published prayer asking Pachamama to "be propitious." Why are we supposed to pray to Mother Earth? I would genuinely like to hear the answer.

And yes, I'll be suspicious. I view wherepeteris in much the same light as I view church militant: as interesting but biased sources. The latter can find nothing about this Pope to praise, the former can find nothing to disagree with. But that doesnt mean I dont read it.
Regardless the intent, it’s a scandal and leads to confusion among the faithful and non Catholics alike. Something like this happens every time we have some sort of ecumenical gathering too in the last few decades. There really should be clear and concise rules about these sorts of things that show fidelity to the Gospel. If it’s supposed to represent Our Lady of the Amazon, so be it. But yeah, if it’s a representation of “Mother Earth” well then we just invited a proximity of Neo Pagan goop into the conversation because of our western culture experience and any churchman who can’t see that possible confusion is just naive. The church has always venerated Saints because they are examples of righteousness and purification by the Glory of God; which I’ll say again, was something largely lacking in the synod. Not enough purification of our souls.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:34 pm

+JMJ+




ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:32 am

+JMJ+



Tuttleview:

Rocco Palmo @roccopalmo | Twitter
“The pastoral thrust of Francis must reach the American people” – its text now posted (http://bit.ly/36VQPbo), this morning’s striking message of Pope’s Nuncio +Pierre to US bishops, calling bench to “measure to what extent we have received the Magisterium of the Pope”:

Image

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:52 pm

wosbald wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:34 pm
+JMJ+



So you really think you're the only ones that read any Saul Alinsky, eh?
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:54 pm

+JMJ+

A Reponse to Ross Douthat [In-Depth, Opinion]

Intra-Thread Trackback: pg 111

Image

Where Peter Is was recently mentioned in the New York Times, in a column by Ross Douthat entitled, “What Will Happen to Conservative Catholicism?”. In the piece, he surveys the ways that conservative Catholics in America have responded to Pope Francis. He also analyzes two potential paths forward for Catholic conservatives other than that of Cardinal Burke or that which he describes as a “schismatic plunge.” The first is:
A conservative Catholicism that strains more mightily than Burke to interpret all of Francis’ moves in continuity with his predecessors, while arguing that the pope’s liberalizing allies and appointees are somehow misinterpreting him … it persists in the hope of a kind of snapping-back moment, when Francis or a successor decides that Catholic bishops in countries like Germany are pushing things too far, at which point there can be a kind of restoration of the John Paul II-era battle lines, with the papacy — despite Francis’ experiments — reinterpreted to have always been on the side of orthodoxy.
This, of course, is a line of thinking that we’ve largely pushed back against because we can’t ignore that there have been changes during this pontificate, not only developments in doctrine or changes in discipline, but in a renewed approach to evangelization and radical conversion that’s already beginning to take hold in the Church. We are convinced that Pope Francis’s legacy will not be reduced to a footnote.

He mentions WPI while describing the second path forward:
Another alternative is a conservatism that simply resolves the apparent conflict between tradition and papal power in favor of the latter, submitting its private judgment to papal authority in 19th-century style — even if that submission requires accepting shifts on sex, marriage, celibacy and other issues that look awfully like the sort of liberal Protestantism that the 19th-century popes opposed. This would be a conservatism of structure more than doctrine, as suggested by the title of a website that champions its approach: ‘Where Peter Is.’ But it would still need, for its long-term coherence, an account of how doctrine can and cannot change beyond just papal fiat. So it, too, awaits clarifications that this papacy has conspicuously not supplied.
His description of our position is sadly inaccurate, but it is reassuring that he describes our approach as “conservative,” rather than liberal, progressive, or modernist. Too often in recent years fidelity to the pope has been associated with a liberal agenda.

Our position is simply that Catholics are called to respond with docility and obedience to the ordinary Magisterium of the pope, regardless of who the pope is. Our position is that the Living Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition in the Church. As the Catechism says:
‘The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (CCC #85)
Douthat suggest that in order for the Where Peter Is approach to be coherent, there needs to be “an account of how doctrine can and cannot change beyond just papal fiat.” Such an account already exists, and it is called the development of doctrine. This is what we’ve been asserting since the beginning: that the development of doctrine is sometimes more mysterious and often less predictable than the critics of Pope Francis would have you believe. Yes, there is continuity, and there are unchangeable truths, but the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church isn’t something that we can predict or immediately comprehend.

If the Magisterium is the only authoritative interpreter of the Tradition, then it follows that the Magisterium that informs the faithful’s understanding of Traditions. We should be learning from Laudato Si’ and Amoris Laetitia, not picking them apart and judging them against our ossified understanding of the Faith. Pope Saint Paul VI spoke of this in a 1976 letter to SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the Church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the Church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit — the deposit of faith — and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the Church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.
Thus a development in doctrine is legitimate precisely because it is the Holy Spirit, through the Magisterium, that guides the Church in the development of doctrine. Popes do not rule by “fiat.” Rather, we as Catholics can trust that all magisterial teachings, are in continuity with Tradition.

[…]

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:08 pm

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:54 pm
+JMJ+

A Reponse to Ross Douthat [In-Depth, Opinion]

Intra-Thread Trackback: pg 111

Image

Where Peter Is was recently mentioned in the New York Times, in a column by Ross Douthat entitled, “What Will Happen to Conservative Catholicism?”. In the piece, he surveys the ways that conservative Catholics in America have responded to Pope Francis. He also analyzes two potential paths forward for Catholic conservatives other than that of Cardinal Burke or that which he describes as a “schismatic plunge.” The first is:
A conservative Catholicism that strains more mightily than Burke to interpret all of Francis’ moves in continuity with his predecessors, while arguing that the pope’s liberalizing allies and appointees are somehow misinterpreting him … it persists in the hope of a kind of snapping-back moment, when Francis or a successor decides that Catholic bishops in countries like Germany are pushing things too far, at which point there can be a kind of restoration of the John Paul II-era battle lines, with the papacy — despite Francis’ experiments — reinterpreted to have always been on the side of orthodoxy.
This, of course, is a line of thinking that we’ve largely pushed back against because we can’t ignore that there have been changes during this pontificate, not only developments in doctrine or changes in discipline, but in a renewed approach to evangelization and radical conversion that’s already beginning to take hold in the Church. We are convinced that Pope Francis’s legacy will not be reduced to a footnote.

He mentions WPI while describing the second path forward:
Another alternative is a conservatism that simply resolves the apparent conflict between tradition and papal power in favor of the latter, submitting its private judgment to papal authority in 19th-century style — even if that submission requires accepting shifts on sex, marriage, celibacy and other issues that look awfully like the sort of liberal Protestantism that the 19th-century popes opposed. This would be a conservatism of structure more than doctrine, as suggested by the title of a website that champions its approach: ‘Where Peter Is.’ But it would still need, for its long-term coherence, an account of how doctrine can and cannot change beyond just papal fiat. So it, too, awaits clarifications that this papacy has conspicuously not supplied.
His description of our position is sadly inaccurate, but it is reassuring that he describes our approach as “conservative,” rather than liberal, progressive, or modernist. Too often in recent years fidelity to the pope has been associated with a liberal agenda.

Our position is simply that Catholics are called to respond with docility and obedience to the ordinary Magisterium of the pope, regardless of who the pope is. Our position is that the Living Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition in the Church. As the Catechism says:
‘The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (CCC #85)
Douthat suggest that in order for the Where Peter Is approach to be coherent, there needs to be “an account of how doctrine can and cannot change beyond just papal fiat.” Such an account already exists, and it is called the development of doctrine. This is what we’ve been asserting since the beginning: that the development of doctrine is sometimes more mysterious and often less predictable than the critics of Pope Francis would have you believe. Yes, there is continuity, and there are unchangeable truths, but the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church isn’t something that we can predict or immediately comprehend.

If the Magisterium is the only authoritative interpreter of the Tradition, then it follows that the Magisterium that informs the faithful’s understanding of Traditions. We should be learning from Laudato Si’ and Amoris Laetitia, not picking them apart and judging them against our ossified understanding of the Faith. Pope Saint Paul VI spoke of this in a 1976 letter to SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the Church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the Church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit — the deposit of faith — and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the Church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.
Thus a development in doctrine is legitimate precisely because it is the Holy Spirit, through the Magisterium, that guides the Church in the development of doctrine. Popes do not rule by “fiat.” Rather, we as Catholics can trust that all magisterial teachings, are in continuity with Tradition.

[…]
I defy anyone to make logical sense of that article. Seriously. Word soup.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:10 pm

+JMJ+


ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:07 am

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:10 pm
+JMJ+

What a soft, punchable face. I imagine one could punch it all day without hurting one's hand. Is it available for a test punch, do you think?

You can hear the whiny self-righteousness in the tweet...the entire lack of of logic...forget that the Magisterium is a balance, follow the Pope and only the Pope or you're creating a new religion by following the old ways!

It would be hilarious if it wasn't pure, unadulterated evil.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:25 am

+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:07 am
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:10 pm
What a soft, punchable face. I imagine one could punch it all day without hurting one's hand. Is it available for a test punch, do you think?

You can hear the whiny self-righteousness in the tweet...the entire lack of of logic...forget that the Magisterium is a balance, follow the Pope and only the Pope or you're creating a new religion by following the old ways!

It would be hilarious if it wasn't pure, unadulterated evil.
The Magisterium is not a "balance". It's not "in balance" with anything.

OTOH, it is certainly true that the Magisterium is harmonized by the Sensus Catholicus. However, these two are in harmony by definition. By necessity. IOW, there is no "practical application" of this theological fact.

And so, it's not as if — in the practical and temporal unfolding of the Church's life — the Catholic conscience is ever put into the position of weighing, on the one hand, the Magisterium as saying 'X' and, on the other hand, the Sensus as saying 'Y', and then having to chart some sort of middle-course twixt the two.

Not sure if this reflects what you meant or if it answers your plaint, but there it is, bro. :)

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:38 am

wosbald wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:25 am
+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:07 am
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:10 pm
What a soft, punchable face. I imagine one could punch it all day without hurting one's hand. Is it available for a test punch, do you think?

You can hear the whiny self-righteousness in the tweet...the entire lack of of logic...forget that the Magisterium is a balance, follow the Pope and only the Pope or you're creating a new religion by following the old ways!

It would be hilarious if it wasn't pure, unadulterated evil.
The Magisterium is not a "balance". It's not "in balance" with anything.

OTOH, it is certainly true that the Magisterium is mutually conditioned by the Sensus Catholicus. However, these two are in harmony by definition. By necessity. IOW, there is no "practical application" of this theological fact.

And so, it's not as if — in the practical and temporal unfolding of the Church's life — the Catholic conscience is ever put into the position of weighing, on the one hand, the Magisterium as saying 'X' and, on the other hand, the Sensus as saying 'Y', and then having to chart some sort of middle-course twixt the two.

Not sure if this reflects what you meant or if it answers your plaint, but there it is, bro. :)
Thanks, brother. Not quite what I was getting at, but very close. We do seem to be reaching the point of a split along the x-y axis with some people seeming to actively encourage it. But the devil is always afoot and we should genuinely be thankful that he is so interested as it is incontrovertible proof that our shared faith is worthwhile. My beliefs cannot and will not change. Faith is immutable, unlike Twitter and Catholic media!

I'm going to take a short break in a few moments and say a rosary for the Church and for us both.

By the way, I was in Cleveland last weekend. Couldn't even get skyline chili.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39850
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Del » Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm

So, do y'all have any questions for Cardinal Burke?

He's always back in Wisconsin for Our Lady of Guadalupe.

He'll be our guest of honor at our annual banquet for St. Ambrose Academy on Dec. 7 (Feast of St. Ambrose, bishop & Doctor).

I'll be happy to pass along any messages....
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:30 pm

Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm
So, do y'all have any questions for Cardinal Burke?

He's always back in Wisconsin for Our Lady of Guadalupe.

He'll be our guest of honor at our annual banquet for St. Ambrose Academy on Dec. 7 (Feast of St. Ambrose, bishop & Doctor).
I'll be happy to pass along any messages....
Just tell him many of us pray for him. He takes a lot of unwarranted abuse.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39850
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Del » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:44 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:30 pm
Del wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:53 pm
So, do y'all have any questions for Cardinal Burke?

He's always back in Wisconsin for Our Lady of Guadalupe.

He'll be our guest of honor at our annual banquet for St. Ambrose Academy on Dec. 7 (Feast of St. Ambrose, bishop & Doctor).
I'll be happy to pass along any messages....
Just tell him many of us pray for him. He takes a lot of unwarranted abuse.
Beaten up and abused and misrepresented, in the secular, Christian media, and social media, by friends and foes alike.
1 Timothy 3:1 wrote:The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:20 pm

+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:38 am
… My beliefs cannot and will not change. Faith is immutable, unlike Twitter and Catholic media!

[…]
Your beliefs don't have to change unless Newmanian "development" is understood as "change". In that case, they must, indeed, change.



The rule to remember is that, if the Magisterium is saying 'X', then the Sensus Catholicus, by necessity, is also saying 'X'.

Or think of the issue as 'X1' and 'X2'.

If the Magisterium is saying 'X1', then the Senus must be saying a parallel and complimentary 'X2'.

It may not be 'X1', but it's still an 'X'.

In any case, the Sensus is certainly not saying a hostile and oppositional 'Y'.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:31 pm

wosbald wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:20 pm
+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:38 am
… My beliefs cannot and will not change. Faith is immutable, unlike Twitter and Catholic media!

[…]
Your beliefs don't have to change unless Newmanian "development" is understood as "change". In that case, they must, indeed, change.

Watching that video gives me a real desire to hunt you down and give you an atomic wedgie.

What you say only works if both sides are playing fairly, my friend, and treading carefully and respectfully. From what I can see, one side is gleefully hoping for a mass exodus of their opponents and the other is devoutly praying for a second Cadaver Synod.

L'eglise, ce n'est pas seulement le pape.

Me? I'm just afraid of Pope Parolin.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:52 pm

+JMJ+

Is Cardinal Burke an enemy of the pope? [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Image: Joseph Shaw, Creative Commons, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). [Source]

This weekend, the New York Times published portions of a lengthy interview of Cardinal Raymond Burke by columnist Ross Douthat.

Before going any further, I would like to acknowledge that in this interview, Cardinal Burke answered the question I posed in my September 24th post, “Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope?”
Douthat: You believe Francis is a legitimate pope?

Burke: Yes, yes. I’ve had people present to me all kinds of arguments calling into question the election of Pope Francis. But I name him every time I offer the Holy Mass, I call him Pope Francis, it’s not an empty speech on my part. I believe that he is the pope. And I try to say that consistently to people, because you’re correct — according to my perception also, people are getting more and more extreme in their response to what’s going on in the church.
I have amended the piece to include these remarks.

Thank God he isn’t as far gone as I’d feared. Cardinal Burke makes numerous troubling statements and remarks in his interview with Douthat, but at least he isn’t harboring secret sedevacantist thoughts.

[…]

Accepting that his [Burke's] motives may be pure certainly doesn’t mean that he isn’t surrounded by people and connected to organizations with nefarious intentions. The degree to which he’s been used, as opposed to being the instigator, of all the initiatives to undermine and destroy Francis’s papacy is something we may never know. What we do know is that he is the public face of this movement. His rank as a cardinal adds gravitas to every banquet, conference, and speaking engagement at which he appears. In the 1970s, the SSPX could only wrangle an archbishop. Today’s radical traditionalists have a cardinal. That’s no small upgrade.

I am sometimes concerned that Pope Francis doesn’t see the very real destruction that Cardinal Burke is causing in the Church, particularly in the United States. Prior to his election, many committed conservative Catholics here had a vague sense that he was a faithful, orthodox prelate. They might not have even known what he looked like, but his name was consistently rattled off in the list of orthodox Catholic bishops (Chaput, Burke, Olmsted, Gomez, etc.). I didn’t realize anything was off about his views until he told a French interview in early 2015 that if Francis taught something he disagreed with, “I will resist.”

It was fortunate that I had been studying papal primacy at the time because I was curious, having been influenced and confused by various strains of traditionalism, about how Catholics can be certain that a particular official teaching was orthodox. My studies led me to a CDF document from 1998, that summarizes the Church’s teachings on papal primacy. These words in particular struck me:
The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism …
It’s simply not rational to hold, on one hand, that the Church teaches the pope is the guarantor of orthodoxy, while on the other, a cardinal believes it’s acceptable to call for resistance to his false teachings. It’s not only impossible, but it’s absurd. My study of the papacy has only reinforced the truth: Cardinal Burke’s circle cannot be squared.

But if I wasn’t knowledgeable about the papacy, if I hadn’t begun to understand the relationship between the papacy and the Magisterium, I might have simply accepted what Cardinal Burke said. And I think there are many well-meaning conservative Catholics who have fallen into that trap. They are in our families, our communities, and among our friends.

[…]

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

Post Reply