Today's interview, from Raymond Arroyo's World Over Live, is a great indication on where the center of gravity is now moving within the ranks of the knowledgable Catholic faithful.
The interview was with author and apologist Robert Royal and canon lawyer and priest Gerald Murray. I think it's fair to say that all (including Arroyo) were highly critical of Francis and the recent direction of his pontificate in the wake of Amoris Laetitia.
Among other things they addressed the report - now confirmed by many sources - that the Pope ordered the firings of three faithful "un-mutual" priests from important positions and then belligerently exclaimed that, as Pope, he didn't have to explain himself to anyone.
Hence the jab about corporate America.
The three were somewhat restrained and "respectful" - they didn't claim Francis was a heretic or the forerunner to the Anti-Christ, etc. - but the overall negative sentiments were obvious. And I suspect all three may be less restrained in private.
Schism is coming. And more and more fence sitters are taking sides in their own way.
And no, I don't want schism. No true Catholic would. Francis recently privately admitted that he may be the cause of it. But everyone will have to answer to God for the part that he played.
Everyone.
C.S. Lewis once had a character say in That Hideous Strength:
If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family—anything you like—at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.
Obviously Lewis didn't have the early 21st century crisis (stemming from the late 20th century crisis) of the Catholic Church in mind, exactly. But the point is still apt.
There is no refuge. More and more, to exhibit even "apparent neutrality" is to take a side.
Which side are you on?
Like a boil the evil emanating from the Vatican is coming to a head.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
DeleteAnd the head is coming to a boil.
DeleteTo answer your question: Christ's. And may He give me the grace to know it and choose it.
ReplyDeleteMay Pope Francis go to heaven soon in 2017!
ReplyDelete... go to his proper place.
DeleteOr wherever.
DeleteYet, even in this otherwise excellent EWTN interview, we hear Robert Royal commending Pope Francis' "mercy," and Raymond Arroyo nodding in apparent agreement. Gentlemen, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If Amoris is, well, what no one in other times would have hesitated to call heretical, then the problem of Bergoglianism cannot be brushed off as though confined to a footnote or two, inadvertently ambiguous and easily put right. If what Pope Francis means by "accompaniment for the remarried" is contrary to the Faith, then the "mercy" that is invoked in order to rationalize such "accompaniment" can in no way be countenanced, either. When will we stop complimenting this particular pontifical "Emperor" for the splendor of his non-existent "clothes"?
ReplyDeletecomment of the year.
DeleteYes. Exactly so.
DeleteI never stopped because I never started. I saw the joyless malevolence on his face the moment they opened the big French doors.
DeleteNeither my husband nor I want to hear the word "mercy". That word has been co-opted so horribly that it now has a negative connotation! That alone should be grounds for...something.
DeleteThis probably has to be hatd times for them. Maybe they are feeling this out. Tbey could ve protecting their butts, but you're supposed to make excuses for others in Christian charity, even if you can hardly believe these excuses. You don't have to be dense to apply Christian charity. Who hasn't made excuses for a loved one doing something a bit off? If you must, expect the worse; hope for the best, they say (Who are the "they" making up and passing on these adages, as it sounds like a conspiracy theory?).
ReplyDeletePray for all involved.
ReplyDeleteIn the arthurian Parzival of the medieval German meistersinger, Wolfram von Eschenbach, an angel is portrayed as neutral in the war between the obedient and the rebellious angels. As in, neither Yes nor No, but, Maybe, and,Maybe Not.
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing. "Let your yesses be yes, and your nos be no, everything else is from the evil one." Our Blessed Lord only divides into sheep on the right, and goats on the left, He has no middle way.
The three priests were caught reading Rorate Coeli Blog and Lifesite News. That is why Francis resented them.
ReplyDeleteThe past almost 50 years, since all of the confusion that came out of the V2 era, have seen such a watering down of the Churchs authority, and the obedience required to be in the state of grace. When the mass of Catholics refused obedience to the ancient doctrine of the obligation s of the purpose of marriage ( ie no artificial birth prevention) they cut themselves off from Divine Grace, and scoffed at Humane Vitae. So, we have turned our souls over to Satan, and now, he rules in the highest places, and even our own souls.. Lol if you want, but what I say is the truth as always taught by The Church.
ReplyDelete