It's not surprising that the leftwing, secular, anti-Catholic imbeciles in the media and in academia view the Papacy this way, along with ignorant and badly catechized Catholics. But let's face it, when is the last time a conciliar Pope reiterated traditional Catholic dogma on the Papacy as upheld by Vatican I in a clear, concise and traditional way? The liberal loons are loons, and will always hate the Catholic Church, but the conciliar popes and hierarchy haven't done anything to help clear up these misconceptions of the Church and the Papacy to people with open minds, at least not to my recollection.
It's bad form to promote my own work (which is nothing more than a few quotes and pics similar to your post) but...I did something similar a few days ago Benedict XVI: For the Record http://is.gd/97LHPMI think it's crucial that we correct the record re: Pope Benedict whenever it (or he) is diminished
Great work Rorate as always. Also kudos to Blindfella, that's a succinct bit of work.The thing is, how do you "fight" this sort of thing? It's frustrating to feel that one is shouting from a blog (even a well-read on like RC) when, for the most part, it is being read by like-minded individuals. How does one help misled/misguided Catholics who feed on the poor reporting?
Interesting that John Thavis at his blog questions implicitly whether this news is credible since it came from the Congregation and not the Vatican press office and that it was some kind of defense of Pope Benedict. I am quite disheartened by the fact that diminishing Benedict seems to be a sport these days among Catholic bloggers on Patheos or First Things. The secular press has had a field day pitting Francis against Benedict (to destroy Benedict's legacy) but why are Catholic blogsphere like Weigel, Akin and various ones on Patheos doing the same? Is there some kind of mob lynch mentality in the blogsphere? What is at work here?
I wish my religion's business wasn't in the media so much.
Well done, Blindfella.
I'm so sad it just brings tears to my eyes. All because Francis is deemed liberal and BXVI deemed conservative.My heart is breaking for BXVI as I never stood up for him in comment sections of online sites that had this kind of awful rant. I just held my tongue and rolled my eyes. Now? We are going against "humble" if we dare say a peep so we will be vilified for any rebuttal to anything Pope Francis does.
It is what-has-generally-appeared-as-orthodox-Catholic Media that seemed unafraid to tackle issues in the Church honestly up to Pope Francis's election that are disturbing me (and I think many committed and rational Catholics). Many seem to have adopted a disingenuous, closed attitude to the Pope and what he does or doesn't do, and insult and defame those who sincerely question objective behaviours of the Pope in the light of the Faith. It is a very bad development. It is as if some well-known Catholic commentators have decided to close their eyes and ears and suspend all reason, logic, discernment. It's all very 1984-ish. Especially as it is clear that those who are questioning certain objective acts are committed to obedience to the Magisterium of the Church, and make it clear that they maintain filial loyalty to the Pope whilst criticising objective acts or omissions by him in respect of the Deposit of Faith. What has happened to these Catholic Media commentators and publications? What are they afraid of? They are acting like the loyal faithful Catholics who exercise their reason and judgment to seek explanations, etc., are the enemies of the Church, when it is precisely these people who will remain loyal to the Church no matter how hard things get. These Catholic Media commentators seem to be anxious to keep the fair weather newfound "friends" of the Church content and comfortable in their ideas of the Church ought to be and how they think Pope Francis is conforming to their ideas.
All the more reason the Pope should put aside his personal feelings about the Papacy and wear red shoes because that is what the Pope wears, and teach people that THEY are wrong about exterior elements that help define the Papacy. As long as interior and exterior are not in balance then there will always be strife. Benedict was the balance. Red shoes stay, Tiara is gone, Mozeta stays, Flabellum are gone, Fanon stays, Gloves are gone, Baroque and beautiful (not plain) stays, coronations are gone, Stole stays, Palantine and Nobel Guards are gone. We have already given up many exterior signs. Benedict simply utilized what was left. I wonder how much money will now be spent on "plain" vestments and the such. IDK but it makes more sense to me to utilize what is in Vatican storage and highlight that than constantly buy new things when each Pontificate begins. Simplicity does carry the descriptive adjective "Noble". Noble has the connotation of being stately, heavenly, monarchial like it or not. If one were to ask a tailor to design a simple vestment or garment they would come up with what the current Pope is wearing. There should be the added distinction of noble. So far I don't see it.
The left wingers always detested the Catholic Church. So it is logical they will defend a Bishop of Rome that brings the preferential option for the poor from Liberation Theology. We will have to defend B16's eight years if we want to keep our TLM.
The degradation of the the majesty of the office in order to highlight the incumbent's personal humbleness is not humility, but pride, and the secular media will quickly turn on Pope Francis in a New York minute once they realize he will not be ordaining lesbian bishops anytime soon. True personal humility and splendor are not mutually exclusive.
This must not in any way be construed as criticism of the Roman Pontiff, or his Emeritus: each man is who he is, mainstream journalists, and Catholics who pretend to represent the "mainstream" opinion in the Church, portray them according to their own interests.
So sad. Things are so depressing and sad these days.
To be hated by the world you must be doing something very right and to be loved by it. Well...
If it's superficiality of perception that makes the difference in the modern age, well, I suppose that there you have the reason we are living in the age of superficial liturgy. Without it, the church would be attacked out of public existence. Every age must have its characteristics, and the church, being composed of elements of the temporal society in which it exists, is having to make use of that glaring characteristic of superficiality in order to keep the world off it's back. Oh well, that's the hand we're dealt. It doesn't mean we can't beaver away in the background projecting tradition and supporting the real underpinnings of the church, but the foreground has to mesh with the world. Unfortunately there are precious few kings behaving regally for their own credibility these days. I hate it, but it's a fact.
" ... but the foreground has to mesh with the world ..".No, it does not have to at all.
Pope Benedict XVI in his performances as professor, roman cardinal and later supreme pontiff has always been a sincere example of true humility. He never wanted his personality to be to the fore. The footage of his pontificatetestimonialized this brilliantly.
The Post-Conciliar church wanted openness to the world and this is what it has achieved for itself. Now it must cope with a prying, ignorant, often-malicious, gossiping, scandal-mongering, sanctimonious, politically sterilised and inimical media. It wanted to "dialogue" with the world and the best of luck to it.
The mainstream NO media is misrepresentative of Catholicism, that is all I can say about it.
"We are sure, the enemies of the Church, who think that their time has come, will see that their joy was premature, and that they may close the grave they had dug."--Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge (March 14, 1937).
I tend to agree with Anonymous and Lynda in that it is not just the secular news outlets and Mainstream Media that is doing this sadly. It is also the Wise People at EWTN Ave Maria Radio and yes even Rome Reports and even Vatican Radio. They are in effect pitting one Pope against the other and in so doing embolden the Church's enemies and plays right into their hands.This has also caused a "Personality Cult.
"Thus says the LORD: Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings, who seeks his strength in flesh, whose heart turns away from the LORD."-Jeremiah 17:5Since when true humbleness of Papacy being refuted into 'Papalidolatry-seemed like humbleness' by those so called 'Catholic' mainstream media?John Paul The Third
Anonymous:You wrote: "Interesting that John Thavis at his blog questions implicitly whether this news is credible since it came from the Congregation and not the Vatican press office and that it was some kind of defense of Pope Benedict. I am quite disheartened by the fact that diminishing Benedict seems to be a sport these days among Catholic bloggers on Patheos or First Things. The secular press has had a field day pitting Francis against Benedict (to destroy Benedict's legacy) but why are Catholic blogsphere like Weigel, Akin and various ones on Patheos doing the same? Is there some kind of mob lynch mentality in the blogsphere? What is at work here?"Weigel, Akin, Patheos are neocon Catholic sites. I doubt they ever really liked Benedict XVI (Weigel notably went after Benedict XVI for his views in Caritas in Veritate (National Review and to much derision, I might add). Benedict XVI didn't hew to the JPII line enough.Moreover, neocon Catholics, as Fr. Chad Ripperger wrote some years ago, have no sense of tradition or continuity. For them, the current occupant of the Chair of Peter is it and is viewed as the lodestar, with no reference to the actions or writings or previous pontiffs.Just watch: when Pope Francis either resigns or dies, neocons will be all about whoever succeeds him, with no reference to anything preceding.
Ultimately, the media will never comprehend the Sacramental mysteries nor the raison d'etre for being a Roman Catholic in the first place.Almighty God has put the mysteries of The Faith beyond human understanding. Praise His Holy Name.
In the post-Conciliar age, the protestant accusation against Catholics of worshiping the Pope has come true. Who can imagine a farmer in the nineteenth century eagerly rushing to the postman for the latest from the Vatican; a drawn picture of the Pope doing this or that motion, and having his heart lifted or lowered depending on it; a speech which he hopes will address exactly the problems of his part of the world; hanging on his walls sayings of the current and most recent Popes instead of biblical or saintly pictures or quotes?We should, in a sense, be very happy for the diminishing of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. First, in the light of the mainstream media, it shows that he did at least something right. Secondly, in the light of the catholic media, we all learn first-hand the phrase of the papal coronation: sic transit gloria mundi (so passes the glory of the world).
Oh, the atheist media are already attacking Pope Francis too, and it will get worse the more they realise that he's not changing Catholic doctrine one jot.
Judith, that is really not the way a lady talks. Should we blame bad parenting?...
''In the post-Conciliar age, the protestant accusation against Catholics of worshiping the Pope has come true.''Very true, (though, to be honest, the seeds of the papal personality cult were sown earlier on.) The cult of the Pope's person reached its ignoble climax under John Paul II. The head of a Vatican Radio programme, now deceased, (i do not wish to reveal his name here), confided to me in the 1970's that he was told by the administration that he aired too much ''anti-communism'' and should start getting in line with Paul VI's politics of detente. Then in the 1980s the same head of programme confided that he had received complaints from the jesuit administration of the Radio, that his programme did not talk enough about Pope John Paul II. The programme aired too much catechism and devotional programmes, and not enough about the pope's trips, acctivities, receptions, etc. After ignoring the criticism for a couple years, he had to give in and scrap the more religious parts of the progamme. Finally, and with little notice, he was ''retired'' early. This monsignore, who was truly humble, a devoted son of the Church and patriot, left without thanks for the many years of service to the Papacy. He compared the cult of John Paul II to that of Stalin, and was let go for not having the trait most appreciated within the post-conciliar Vatican: total subservience to the personality cult of the reigning Pontiff, (pardon, Bishop of Rome, though, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name ...) Pope Benedict had redemensioned this aspect, making the office more important than the person. Now it seems that the same JPII personality cult is coming back, this time under the guise of ''humble'' liturgical and pontifical minimalism.
By renouncing the papacy instead of holding fast until death, Benedict XVI will now undergo a period of humiliation inflicted on him by many in the world who will mercilessly compare him to their new "fav.". He'll be here to suffer it instead of being in a place beyond caring -- Heaven or Purgatory's holding cell. He may not have the peaceful existence he hoped for but one of great interior unrest. The wages of his abdication. I think he'll need our prayers more than ever.
Susan:Yeah, I'm certain Benedict XVI suffers so by what goes on in the massmedia of the world, and ESPECIALLY English speaking massmedia and blogs. He's totally anguished by the lack of praise in the comment sections of National Catholic Register, I'm sure.
Post a Comment