In Christmas Address to Curia, Francis slams “Malicious Resistance” that accuses others and hides behind Traditions!
Well, folks, it looks like the dubia supporters have gotten their answer. Today, Dec. 22, 2016, Francis gave his annual Christmas address to the Roman Curia, which in the past had been loaded with fireworks. So too this time around.
The main focus of this year’s address was the ongoing reform of the Roman Curia, which he likened to a “surgical operation”. He listed twelve principles that guide his reworking of the Vatican apparatus: individualism; pastoral concern; missionary spirit; clear organization; improved functioning; modernization; sobriety; subsidiarity; synodality; catholicity; professionalism; and gradualism.
The real smoking gun, however, was found in the remarks that preceded the enunciation of these twelve principles. In what was obviously an allusion to the dubia over the ongoing Amoris Laetitia controversy, Francis railed against various types of “resistance” to his efforts, especially that which he called “malicious”, and even remembered an event called the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy and infallibility. He took the opportunity to kindly remind his adversaries that as the (supposed) Pope, he possesses “singular, ordinary, full, supreme, immediate and universal power” and is owed “unconditioned obedience.” (When it comes to hell’s apostle Hans Kung, of course, Francis is a bit more lenient.)
Here are the explosive parts of Francis’ Christmas address, verbatim:
At the same time, this [reform of the Curia] means con-forming the Curia ever more fully to its purpose, which is that of cooperating in the ministry of the Successor of Peter (cum ipso consociatam operam prosequuntur, as the Motu Proprio Humanam Progressionem puts it), and supporting the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his singular, ordinary, full, supreme, immediate and universal power.
Consequently, the reform of the Roman Curia must be guided by ecclesiology and directed in bonum et in servitium, as is the service of the Bishop of Rome. This finds eloquent expression in the words of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, quoted in the third chapter of the Constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council: “My honour is that of the universal Church. My honour is the solid strength of my brothers. I feel truly honoured when none of them is denied his due honour”.
The reform of the Curia is in no way implemented with a change of persons – something that certainly is happening and will continue to happen – but with a conversion in persons. Permanent formation is not enough; what we need also and above all is permanent conversion and purification. Without a change of mentality, efforts at practical improvement will be in vain.
In this process, it is normal, and indeed healthy, to encounter difficulties, which in the case of the reform, might present themselves as different types of resistance. There can be cases of open resistance, often born of goodwill and sincere dialogue, and cases of hidden resistance, born of fearful or hardened hearts content with the empty rhetoric of “spiritual window-dressing” typical of those who say they are ready for change, yet want everything to remain as it was before. There are also cases of malicious resistance, which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing). This last kind of resistance hides behind words of self-justification and often accusation; it takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities, in the familiar, or else in a desire to make everything personal, failing to distinguish between the act, the actor, and the action.
The absence of reaction is a sign of death! Consequently, the good cases of resistance – and even those not quite so good – are necessary and merit being listened to, welcomed and their expression encouraged, because this is a sign that the body is living.
All this is to say that the reform of the Curia is a delicate process that has to take place in fidelity to essentials, with constant discernment, evangelical courage and ecclesial wisdom, careful listening, persevering action, positive silence and firm decisions. It requires much prayer, much prayer, profound humility, farsightedness, concrete steps forward and – whenever necessary – even with steps backward, with determination, vitality, responsible exercise of power, unconditioned obedience, but above all by abandonment to the sure guidance of the Holy Spirit and trust in his necessary support. And, for this reason, prayer, prayer and prayer.
(Francis, “Christmas Address to Roman Curia”, Vatican.va, Dec. 22, 2016; italics in original.)
Notice, by the way, that Francis only says that cases of resistance “merit being listened to” — he doesn’t say anything about answering them. For those of us who have learned to read between the lines every time Francis opens his mouth, this is very telling. Although he claims to “welcome” and even “encourage” their expression, he was reported to be “boiling with rage” at finding out that the dubia he had refused to answer were made public in November.
Relatively speaking, the rest of the Christmas address wasn’t very significant. Naturally, he called for a greater incorporation of laity, “especially in those Dicasteries where they can be more competent than clerics or consecrated persons”, and of women in particular, “with particular attention to multiculturalism”. Obviously.
His claim that “it is the chief aim of all forms of service in the Church to bring the Good News to the ends of the earth” was nothing but hypocritical lipservice, since Francis stubbornly refuses to do precisely that, whenever the opportunity arises.
With this latest Bergoglian address, it looks like the ball is once again in the court of the dubia supporters.
Make more popcorn.
Image source: unknown (spoofed by us)
License: fair use
So, Frank, you think the Holy Spirit is guiding you to encourage others to ignore the 6th Commandment through, “discernment”?
No Catholic would ever believe to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to break or lead other souls to break any of the Commandments.
Eh? What?? “Thou shalt not murder”. What on earth ridiculous slander is this that you’re talking about, accusing me of?? Quite plainly (to anyone of sound mind) I am not inciting anyone to disregard ANY of the 10 Commandments, least of all that one! Of what bitter root or fruit in you is this pure slander?
Hear! Hear! Well said, strickerm.
What’s all this talk about reforming the Curia?
I laughed here:
(The Italian version even has a footnote here to one of his homilies at Santa Marta!)
What is the difference between an act and an action? We all know who the actor is…
Sir, you have just uttered heresy, clear and unmistakable heresy. Whatever you may consider yourself to be, you are definitely not a Roman Catholic.
This articulation by Fred is a common one among serious traditional Catholics who are stubbornly anti sedevantist. Vatican I denialism is their means of escape. How can Sedevacantists reach them?
I would start by pointing them to this article: http://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/the-pope-and-the-antichrist/
These folks are often not convinced by documents of Vatican I, owing to the fact that they pretty much regard it the way most traditionalists view Vatican II. Cardinal Manning, however compelling his writings may be, I fear will not make much of an impact. But thank you for the suggestion.
Actually, re-reading the entire Vatican I document I find myself wholly in agreement with it and much enjoying it’s great lucidity in summarising the Catholic faith. That is, right up until literally the last paragraph, more or less – where Papal Infallibility is itself defined. In my view that definition is painfully erroneous and scripturally as well as historically unjustified – even despite all the many glories and blessings and right, righteousness of the Roman Catholic faith. In other words – I do not doubt or reject her claim to Papal Primacy… Nor of the doctrines and dogmas in general of the Roman Catholic faith. But just that one statement at the end there – boasting that no Pope can err from the seat of St Peter. That is entirely NOT in keeping with what I find in the spirit of St Peter himself nor in any of the greatest saints and holy leaders in the whole history of the Bible. From Abraham to Moses, to King David to Solomon and on it goes… Even among the greatest of the Apostles, where is he who was incapable of error and who was confident and proud enough to proclaim it as an infallible dogma itself?? (The answer is of course, that there were none.) And even St James was humble and honest enough to proclaim that, “We all stumble and err in many ways”. And even St Paul was humble and honest enough to write that, “As for now we see but through a glass, darkly – but then, face to face,” (I Cor 13:12). And neither does St Peter anywhere be so bold as to state that no man can err who stands in the Apostolic line of faith. But rather, he only encourages and exhorts us to stand firm and not to follow the lusts of the flesh nor the pride and envying of man, but to rely wholly on God the Lord to uphold us. And we know that he chose crucifixion upside down as a statement of his unworthiness to be crucified in exact like manner as Christ Himself. And so, as Paul said, “Where is boasting?” Except in that which is of Christ. But who can honestly say that he no longer has a human nature and mind capable of error and omission?? The fact is, that there is an inherent element of exaggerated spiritual pride in such a claim – which most ironically must plunge it’s maker or holder INEVITABLY into some degree of error, pride and hypocrisy. The very thing that it is designed to counter! I do therefore have to state that I believe that holy Pope Pius IX did make a serious error of judgement in defining that dogma as it defined – even if you who follow it must therefore call me a heretic. But his error was not his alone. He merely encapsulated a mentality which had developed during a thousand years of Church history and schisms – as well as, it can be said, a some growing tendencies of the Church of Laodicea. I fully admit that it sickens me to find myself there even sounding a little bit like antipope Francis in his own Socialist critique of Roman Catholicism – but nevertheless unfortunately I do find that part to be true. But further I would ask, “How was it possible that the Freemasonic plan to infiltrate and corrupt the Curia and Vatican from within was able to have such success?? If the Pope was infallible could he not have done something enough to prevent their success?? But no. The devil found enough that was already weak and corruptible within the Curia that such widespread moral and intellectual corruption was quite within it’s grasp – most regrettably. Thus I conclude: that the disasters of Vatican II would not even have happened if the proud claim of Vatican I had actually been fully true and correct.
Sir, you are demonstrating most perfectly precisely the very definition of heresy: You can agree with all the rest of Vatican I as much as you like, it does not make you any less of a heretic, for the REASON WHY you accept those parts, as you state explicitly, is that “I find myself wholly in agreement with it”. That is the problem: You are making your own personal self — whether you find the teaching convincing or not — the standard of what is true and false. And you do so quite consciously against the very authority of the Catholic Church. That is the TEXTBOOK definition of heresy.
And thus, you reject papal infallibility because you it does not agree with the ultimate standard, YOU. And thus you put yourself against the divinely appointment authority on matters of faith and morals, the holy Roman Catholic Church. It does not get any more heretical than that.
This is exactly what the so-called “Old Catholics” did, who formed after Vatican I in reaction to it:
“They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred.” –Pope Pius IX, Encyclical “Etsi Multa”, n. 22.
But you also do not seem to understand infallibility at all, because you ask how an infallible Pope could not have prevented an infiltration of the Church. Really, what does that have to do with papal infallibility as defined? In any case, you reject what does not make sense to you, and thus you show you have no Faith whatsoever, because your standard for accepting or rejecting is yourself, not the Church.
The act of Faith, we remember, says: “O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost; I believe that Thy divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, ***because Thou hast revealed them***, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.”
We must believe on the authority of God revealing and the Church proposing, not on our own, non-existent authority. Sir, you have proven definitively that you have no Faith. It doesn’t matter how many doctrines you do accept, because you accept them all for the wrong reason.
Thank you for pointing these things and these texts out to me. In the first, quotation from Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Etsi Multa: You show explicitly how he defines Papal Infallibility as being “indefectibility” or in other words, “inerrancy” in all matters of faith and morals. And then you further go on to tell me that I am among the worst of heretics because one’s faith in God, in Christ necessarily also necessitates that I believe all things from the Church, from the Popes, automatically and unquestioningly, by faith and not by reasoning. Correct?
But then, are you not also guilty of exactly the same thing, every time that you question, analyse and criticise what comes out of “Pope” Bergoglio’s mouth and all the Novus Ordo so-called “Popes” before him??
Verifiably it is true that he and the others before him were/are heretics. But you would not know that unless you dared to also allow your own mind and conscience to critique what they say in relationship to the traditional magisterium! Your faith in God, in Christ, and in the Church also depends upon using what brain and spiritual conscience God has given you to dare to discern what you believe is right from wrong, has it not?
(You’re gonna call me a protestant now, I’ll bet)
Sir, if you claim to be a Roman Catholic — and you do, that’s the biggest problem — that you must adhere to everything the Church teaches, both as being of Faith (dogma, under pain of heresy) and of lesser degrees of certainty (under pain of mortal sin). You do not do that. You are a heretic in the most proper sense of the word.
You say I am guilty of the same thing you are. Even if that were so, it would only make me wrong too (and a hypocrite) — it would not make you right.
But no, there is nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about rejecting the teachings of manifest non-Popes. See, if only you claimed that Pius IX had not been a real Pope, your position would at least make SOME sense. But you don’t. You believe explicitly that the Church has erred. That is a most damnable heresy.
It is the teaching of the Church that requires you to conclude that Jorge and his predecessors are not true Popes. That is in utmost fidelity to the Church, not in contradiction to her.
And yes, if you make the teaching of the Church subject to personal approval or rejection by you, then you are a Protestant. You got it.
“Let no one take from you the glory of that rectitude in doctrine and fidelity in obedience due to the Vicar of Christ; among your ranks let there be no room for that ‘free examination’ more fitting to the heterodox mentality than to the pride of the Christian, and according to which no one hesitates to summon before the tribunal of his own judgment even those things which have their origin in the Apostolic See.” — Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, Sept. 10, 1957.
Um, well, you are right that my “heresy” centres only on one particular dogma of the faith. Beyond that I am right there with you. It is sad to me… deeply wounding to find the situation so. But this quote from Pope Pius XII it also sums it up well for me too: It is the “pride of the Christian” which you are so keen to defend. And not his humility? We all know that pride comes before a fall… And how low can we go? Time itself will soon show…
You don’t have to put the word heresy in quotes — it IS heresy, in the most proper sense of the term, and you keep justifying it. It boggles the mind. It doesn’t matter that “beyond that” you’re right there with me. Denying one dogma denies them all. You have suffered shipwreck in the Faith. You keep qualifying your statements as, “in my view” and “in my opinion”, and then do not hesitate to put your own admitted OPINION over the dogmatic teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ. It’s unbelievable.
Pope Pius XII wasn’t promoting the vice of pride. He was using the word “pride” in the sense of “glory”, as in being “proud” to be Catholic, i.e. glorying in the name of Catholic. Not being a Catholic who is arrogant.
BTW, it doesn’t matter one bit that you think that the matter is “deeply wounding”. I bet Ignaz Dollinger thought the same thing.
You have no higher authority than yourself. Do not bother posting any more. I do not intend to spend all day responding to your posts, and I will not leave them uncommented. I suggest you promote your heresy elsewhere.
I didn’t say I “think” it is deeply wounding. I said honestly that I find it – I FEEL it – deeply wounding… Because I am sincere.
Sincere, literally “without wax” as the wax was used to hide faults in works made from marble, has little to do with feelings, Fred.
There is a legitimate pride in the humility of martyrdom. To have won the race by doing God’s will. Or do you believe the Saints in Heaven are crying?
The dogma of Papal Infallibility defined by Vatican I states that the Holy Father, be he a true Pope with legitimate authority granted by Our Lord Himself, cannot error when he renders a decision from the Sede of Peter on faith and morals. So then, perhaps you are a troll? Or a misinformed man.
I didn’t know until I read your comment that there are Trads who reject Vatl, or at least the defined doctrine of papal infallibility, as a reaction against sedevacantism.
As the saying goes, you can’t make this stuff up.
Since I was raised in the pre-Vatll church, papal infallibility, was taken for granted. And in my wayward journey, I never lost that understanding. And over the last 30 years, as my interior life deepened, I have come to SEE the absolute necessity of this most necessary of church doctrines, in order to protect faith and morals.
Tom Healey, it isn’t a reaction against sedevactantism. Please see above.
Well said, Mr. Healey.
All you here who think and state that to question or disagree with the Vat I definition of Papal Infallibility is in order to try to “escape (or oppose) sedevacantism” you are quite wrong in that presumption of motive. It is nothing to do with desire to escape from or avoid anything. On the contrary, it is an honest engagement with the most difficult of FACTS. Neither is it in any way “anti-Catholic” actually…although I know that this definition of Papal Infallibility has the effect of labelling it so. And in my view part of the problem with it is that it creates a form of “circular reasoning” which is unjustifiable. I do believe in One holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church… But we don’t have that, do we. We have a church which has been divided ever since 1054 actually. But that alone is not my argument against Papal Infallibility. The arguments are various and are quite reasonable, honest and objective, I would say. And I do believe (and hope) that after the prophesied terrible days of tribulation and the destruction of Rome – when St Peter and St Paul do come down from heaven and re-institute the holy Catholic Church with her new and most holy Pope, who will convene a new Council to re-establish the Catholic faith – I believe and hope that he/they will then rectify and correct this default, circular reasoning dogma into it’s more proper and truly spiritual form – whereby the Catholic Church is re-affirmed and defined as unfailing in her mission and in her essential doctrines of the revealed faith in Jesus Christ. But with the humility and allowance to admit and correct her human capacity to err by commission or omission as well – that this too shall be accepted in good faith, by those of the faith. ironically proclaimed by him who will be the most holy Pope in history too.
Rarely have I read such blatant and pertinacious heresy. You really are rivaling Francis in this regard, except that your heresy centers only one specific dogma, unlike the Modernists, who undermine them all.
Please see my response to your other comment. I really don’t care what your MOTIVE is for your heresy — it matters not in the least and does not justify heresy at all. To be clear: You do NOT believe in the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. And you apparently even believe that this one Church, which you claim to believe in, is not one but divided.
Neither is there circular reasoning involved in anything, since the Pope did not simply declare his infallibility ex cathedra but it was taught by an entire ecumenical council, which was always considered infallible, even before the infallibility of the Pope was declared.
Now, let me give you a warning here: Since you obviously persist in heresy, and are quite pertiancious about it (I don’t think I’ve ever personally witnessed a clearer manifestation of pertinacity), I am not inclined to give you a forum here. Novus Ordo Watch is mainly meant for people who are of good will and are trying to figure things out. Some combox discussion in that regard is necessary and helpful. But I will NOT tolerate people who are blatant heretics trying to spread their heresies. So, if you persist further in your heresy, your future posts are subject to deletion/non-approval. Yes, this is censorship. No, this is not a democracy.
“All this is to say…” … a plate full of balderdash. I suspect Smooch wrote this anti-Christmas, pro-Boatmass Address for Malicious Worm, Bergoglio, to force feed his V2 flock more dirt.
Sedevacante! The Chair is empty! Yes, I am eating popcorn and I am waiting for my favorite part when….
Does anyone seriously think this conflict is going to go anywhere? What really can Burke do? All he could do is pronounce Frances a heretic. Then Frances would kick him out and take away his pay and pension. Burke is never going to let himself suffer that much. This will all blow over .
Very insightful. I think you’re right about how it’ll eventually play out. But it’s a sure thing there will be a few more nutty statements from Jorge before it’s over.
If Vatican I had never defined papal infallibility, we wouldn’t be able to say that Francis is an antipope at all. (Or at least it would be much harder.) So Vatican I actually protected the Church.
Probably the semi-trads will say “the Pope cited the I Vatican Council!! See he is catholic…”
Progressives whether religious or political are consistently hypocritical about one thing. They will only site tradition when it can be used to justify their own power and authority. They then use that authority to destroy all other traditions.
“. . . that hides behind tradition”.
Tune in next time when we hear about those who “hide behind Scripture.”
Heh, heh-I hate to laugh, but at times we must. Except Frank will use the protestant term “The Bible.” One always hears about protestants reading their children Bible stories, for example, but I’ve rarely heard them say they’re reading from Holy Scripture. Meaning, anyone’s commentary & words can be a protestant “bible.”
Francis claims he as “pope” has. “singular, ordinary, full….” Did Caligula or Saddam Hossein expect anything less that full, unquestioned obedience from their subjects. Or else! You referred to Hans Kung, that Bergoglio does not censure him. I didn’t get your point at first. Then I remembered from my meager reading years ago, that Kung, in his blunt, arrogant way, rejected, or called into question, papal infallibility. I really appreciate knowledgeable people who are able to connect the many dots.
There was a story told in Catholic circles, meant to poke fun at Kung’s arrogance and stupidity. A conclave was called to elect a new pope. Lo and behold, “cardinal” Kung was elected. And when asked if he accepted the election results, his response was “No”, because if he accepted he would lose his powers of “infallibility”.
I suppose this is what happens when each believer gets to decide whether to accept conciliar teaching or not. It really is just the same resistance theology, applied 100 years earlier.
You know, the more I think about what you say here, that it is just Resistance theology only 100 years earlier, the more I think it is closer to the truth of the matter.
I have a friend who is rather extreme in this way of thinking, and he sort of jokes that he is a Nicaea II Catholic because he finds elements of Trent objectionable (basically the suppression of many less ancient forms of the mass).
There is a certain independence in the thinking of these folks that is bizarrely American and Medieval at the same time.
And who are we to weigh the workings of the Holy Ghost working in the Church established by Divine Authority, by the words and Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself? These people sound very Protestant.
There are so many hoops to jump through and so many square pegs to fit into round holes to justify a heretical pope. The sheer mental gymnastics required is one of the strongest arguements for sedevacantism. The issue really is emotional. It is extremely hard to let go of the church and communities that we were raised in. Intellectually it is not hard at all to see that the Vatican 2 religion is no longer Catholic. Its the heart that can’t let go.
Exactly right. Very well said.
How true! Many present day members of the Novus Ordo sect are unable to fathom the Sede being vacant. It is too obvious if you examine the facts but it is too shocking to admit. Like finding out a horrible truth about one’s own father.
1986 was a spiritual turning point for me. It was the beginning of my conversion(spiritually) and the beginning of my reversion(theologically). Prior to 86 my misery drive me down a few dead ends, such as psychotherapy, new age ideas and transformation psychology like the old est.
Then the Holy Spirit came to me and changed my life forever. So the last 30 years have been a Catholic spiritual awakening I didn’t know was possible.
To make a long story short, being older, I knew nothing about the internet and had no interest. I happened to meet a Moslem in 2012, who never stopped pestering me to buy a laptop. I finally gave in and he drove me to a store and helped to find one suitable. Months later I got internet service, and a new world opened up. Starting with ChurchMilitant.Com. After them my education continued with maybe a dozen Trad blogs and finally ending with or including Novus Ordo Watch.
Going back to. the early 90s I discovered First Things, Crisis and NOR. They had concerns about the direction the post Vatll church was going in, but it was all remote, abstract, so I didn’t really get the fact that the church has been corrupted from within, starting with the council itself and the conciliar popes.
So it was Catholic blogs that opened my eyes to this monstrous betrayal of Christ starting with those popes. And now we have Jorge Bergoglio, AKA Pope Francis. What a horror show, and it seems there is more to come.
My developing spiritual life has shown me that Christianity is impossible withiut papal infallibility. The church would have disappeared many centuries ago if Christ, in His Divine wisdom, had not established Peter as the first pope with the authority to declare and protect doctrines concerning faith and morals. The Protestant revolt and Vatll itself reveal what happens when the sway Original Sin has over our souls is forgotten.
Christ knew the power of Original Sin over our souls and how easy it is to go astray. Thus papal infallibility in it’s narrowly understood meaning.
I can no longer make the blind assumptions about Vatll and the conciliar popes that I used to hold. My eyes have been opened.
Powerful testimony in support of Sedevacantism, Mr. Healey. Now to the battle of the Ages! Against us is arrayed Satan’s spawn but we rest in the Truth and we have weapons, glorious weapons! The True Mass wherein Our Lord Himself feeds our souls. The weapon supremely suited to flank Satan’s pride. There is also another weapon Satan trembles at, the Holy Rosary of Our Blessed Mother. So girded with these invincible weapons the little remnant shall, God willing, triumph!
The dogma of Papal Infallibility defined by Vatican I states that the Holy Father, be he a true Pope with legitimate authority granted by Our Lord Himself, cannot error when he renders a decision from the Sede of Peter on faith and morals.
So then, pray and fast for these souls would be the order of the day. Conversion will only result from our prayerful sacrifices to bathe these souls in the laver of God’s grace. Of course, God will do as His Perfect Will decides. We are mere instruments with free will to either cooperate or not.