The story varies—some ascribe it to the pontificate of Pius
IX other to Pius X and a few to Leo XIII, but allegedly a delegation of British
Anglicans were admitted to a papal audience and when they asked for the Holy
Father’s blessing, the Pope uttered the following prayer which is used for the
blessing of the incense at solemn Mass: “ab illo benedicaris
in cuius honore cremaberis” (May you be blessed by him in whose
honor you shall be burned). Now those
were the days when we knew how to treat heretics. What happened? How did we slide down the ladder from our
exclusive perch in the heavenly heights of safeguarding the purity of the faith
into the ecumenical boondoggle of inclusivity and relativism?
I suspect the Pandora’s Box of decay and error was opened
when Pope John XXIII addressed the world’s cabal of heretics and schismatics
(AKA Protestants and Orthodox) as “separated brethren.” Talk about putting lipstick on a pig, they’re
nothing but rebels, murderers, and thieves.
They stole our cathedrals and ancient churches across Europe and the
Near East, they cruelly martyred those who stuck to the old faith, they defaced
sacred images and scattered the relic of the saints in the dirt of their
streets. Their leaders broke their vows
of celibacy and let countless souls to the fires of hell and this Pope calls
them “separated brethren?” Enemies, not
brothers, and it was they who chose separation.
And then that pernicious council of Vatican II speaks of “restoring
unity.” The only way back is
unconditional surrender. Truth does not
compromise. Error has no rights!
But if that weren’t bad enough, the next Pope—even worse
than John—Paul VI on December 16 (imagine, in Advent, barely a week before
Christmas) 1975 fell on his knees and kissed the foot of the schismatic prelate
Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon. What
was he thinking? The Pope bows to no one
save God alone. He is the Vicar of
Christ. Would Christ bow to some
schismatic bishop? The same Pope had ten
years earlier lifted the excommunication of the Greek claimant to the
Patriarchate of Constantinople imposed over nine centuries before. How do you undo almost a thousand years of
excommunication? Do the gates of hell
open and let the prisoners out? By what
authority can a pope undo the divine judgment?
Divine Mercy only goes so far—once you are dead you have no more claim
to it. It’s too late to change your mind
and say, like the Church Lady on the old Saturday
Night Life, to God, “never mind.” Once God puts you in the devil’s frying
pan you’re there to stay. But what is
even worse, this liberal Pope let the Greek claimant to the Patriarchal throne
absolve him of the excommunication. As
if a schismatic had the authority to life an excommunication, much less impose
one on a Pope. I tell you, things were
going to hell fast and have been ever since.
But it only get’s worse as time passes.
It was John Paul II who really compromised the integrity of
the papacy however. He began by
apologizing for Galileo. Honestly, he
should just have ignored that old canard—I mean over and done with centuries
ago. What is the point of bringing it up
all over again. And besides, maybe
Galileo was right about the earth revolving around the sun, but he was defiant
in the face of Church’s authority and refused to back down. That alone should have been grounds for
imprisonment by the Inquisition. And it
wasn’t that he was tortured or burned at the stake. But that was only the beginning. John Paul then went on to apologize for the
Church’s involvement in the African salve trade. Really?!?!?!
Like the Pope was selling slaves in Saint Peter’s square. OK, so there were a few bad apples in the
Catholic barrel—the Pope can’t apologize for every Catholic who has ever made a
bad choice. But then he went on to
apologize for burning Protestant heretics at the stake and for the Religious
Wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. I am sorry but we had an obligation to stop
the spread of those pernicious heresies that were causing millions of souls to
be lost. I only think we should have
gone at it harder. In 1995 he apologized
to women for the way the Church has treated them through the centuries. What drugs was he on? The Church has always been the protector of
women. And it just got worse and
worse. John Paul apologized for the
Crusades, for the treatment of Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, for the
behavior of European missionaries in China in the 19th century, for
the removal of Australian aboriginal children from their families to Church-run
institutions in the late 19th- and early 20th centuries,
for the 1204 Sack of Constantinople, and for the contempt shown towards the
primitive “cultures” of the various savage peoples among whom the Church sent
missionaries from the 16th through the 20th
centuries. I find this last one
particularly hard to understand as we introduced these tribes to music and art
and literature; we taught them to read and to write. We gave them medicines and made scientific
technology available to them. We have
been their salvation in the material as well as the spiritual realms.
And now Francis thinks we owe gay people an apology. Will this madness never stop? What is to be gained by apologizing when we
weren’t wrong to begin with? No, the
Church should never admit to be wrong.
We have the Truth and we should uphold it in the face of all these
modern heresies that are corrupting our world.
Truth admits for no compromise. All that this apology stuff does is to open the
door to dialogue and reconciliation. And
surely God doesn’t want that, does he?
Stand firm in the Truth and when you pray for your non-Catholic friends
and relatives, remember the old prayer ab illo benedicaris
in cuius honore cremaberis.
Very funny but like all mirth there is truth to be cleaned from it.
ReplyDeleteHey Consolamini,
ReplyDeleteWhile I am glad that you counter those vile Radicals who Misrepresent Traditonalism, I can't Side with your apologia for two reasons:
1) Enemies of the Church don't give a damn about how much we apologize to them. They want to keep on sinning or being whatever religion they are in spite of the apology, and that includes liberalized Catholics who are lazy in their practice of their faith. Just last week, one of my wife's bridesmaids believed that with the Gays "Love is love." Now this apology will close off her mind further to the true teachings of the Church. And where I'm from in Toronto, we are the gay capital of Canada with your now month long Pride month complete with parade. I can guarantee you that those people who are in that will say "that's nice Francis," move on and keep doing what they are doing.
2) because the Church has lost a lot of credibility on a public scale, PR wise and morally, all these apologies do is continue to make her a weakling in the eyes of the average person. Ever hear the expression "they can smell the fear on you?" people respond positively to confidence and strength, not weakness and failure, of which the former is received as leadership like qualities.
So I can't be with you on this one. However, I do think that people WILL join the Church and repent of their ways in spite of all this. It's just to me this is an inefficient way to evangelize and attract people to Her.
Truth admits for no compromise.
ReplyDeleteOh, oh. So much for The Donald's much-vaunted negotiation skills, the essence of which involve compromise. The Truth will be meaningless to him.
Wait, we already know that, don't we?
The great Cardinal Hume (London) said a few years ago in a landmark statement regarding pastoral care of homosexual persons that all love comes from God, including that between persons of the same sex. That should be our starting point even if the church cannot (yet) accept or understand the sexual expression of that love.
ReplyDeleteWhile apologizing may well be a gift given to someone else, it is a way or acknowledging one's own failure/sin. It is not done to change another person but out of integrity for who you are. In today's reading from Isaiah the Lord says, basically, keep your prayers, sacrifices, smells and bells, and give me justice and mercy. I think that this is what is behind the apology. If people are drawn to the Church because of Francis' words/actions, all the better. But the primary purpose of the apology is not increasing church membership or changing another. It is simply being responsible.
ReplyDeletePlease delete if this was already submitted.
ReplyDeleteJulian, These apologies may not influence "the Enemies" of the church. However, I believe they carry weight with many who have been damaged, betrayed, violated, ignored, or oppressed by the church they loved and many still love. To be perceived as being humble is not the same as being a weakling. Keep the apologies coming as needed, Pope Francis! Thanks, Consolamini, for your posts that continue to educate and inform - often with humor!
Apologizing is a sign of weakness. You don't see the (conservative) growing churches apologizing, do you ?
ReplyDeleteI also don't see the enemies of the Catholic Church and Catholics apologizing for THEIR offenses -- what does THAT tell you ?
Sometimes I get the feeling that if some of our prelates were Jews, they'd be apologizing for provoking German Nazis in the 1930's.
- Anonymous in NY
The question isn't a sign of weakness or following the lead of the "conservative) growing churches--the question is always fidelity to the Gospel and when the Church has failed to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus--whether consciously or not--it has a moral obligation to admit its failure, ask forgiveness, and seek reconciliation with those it has harmed. otherwise, it has no moral integrity. The failure of the CatholicChurch to be honest about a century of the coverup of the sexual abuse of minors is a prime example of how the Church has lost its moral credibility because of its arrogance. Time for honesty, forgiveness, and reconciliation.
ReplyDeleteThe pedophile scandal was real and I have no problem apologizing to actual physical victims. But apologizing to groups of politically correct victims for alleged offenses is quite another thing.
DeleteThis country wasn't that hospitable to Catholics from about 1650-1924 (Immigration Act) but nobody seems to want to remember THAT. I'm not asking for an apology, just sayin'.......LOL - Anonymous in NY
So the Jews and Muslims were not actual physical victims of the Spanish Inquisition? So the Protestants of France weren't actual physical victims of the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre? So the Muslims of Jerusalem were not actual physical victims in the Crusader 1099 conquest of the city when the horses were belly deep in their blood? So the Greeks of Jerusalem weren't actual physical victims of the sack of Constantinople in 1204? But still I disagree with your basic premise --when the Church has sinned it must be honest and confess it. And the Church has sinned frequently and violently whether it be in its complicity with the slave trade and the brutalization of Native Americans in Latin America, in its attempts to silence the voice of women disciples from Teresa of Avila to Mary MacKillop to Marguerite Porete, in its lack of pastoral care for its parishioners with same-sex attraction, in its treatment of its African/American members, and countless other situations. Just because we have ourselves been victims of discrimination and even outright persecution does not absolve us from our need to honestly confess our complicity in web of human suffering imposed in the name of Christian religion.
ReplyDelete