The True Anti-Catholic Agenda Moves Forward as “Pope Francis” Names More Cardinals

“Pope Francis” is continuing to follow up on his program to “clean house” within “the Church”.

Recall that in one of his first interviews, he promised to change things in a big way:

“Vatican II, inspired by Pope Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something.

“… providence has placed me at the head of the Church and the Diocese of Peter. I will do what I can to fulfill the mandate that has been entrusted to me” (Interview published October 1, 2013).

He has announced that he will be creating 10 new voting Cardinals in a consistory to be held October 5 this year. This is important because only Cardinals under the age of 80 can vote for the next pope – a vote which, I can assure you, conservative Roman Catholics will be watching for and sweating about. The longer “Pope Francis” lives, (a) the more he will be able to mess up conservative Roman Catholic ideals, and (b) the greater the odds that he will be able to shape the voting for a “successor” who will continue those kinds of policies.

Coming from North America, Central America, Africa, Europe, and Asia, Pope Francis said Sept. 1 that "their origin expresses the missionary vocation of the Church, which continues to proclaim the merciful love of God to all people on earth."

Among those to be elevated to cardinal is Canadian Jesuit Fr. Michael Czerny, the head of the Migrants and Refugees section of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.

Two other red hat recipients also work inside the Vatican. They are: Spanish Archbishop Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, prefect of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue; and Portuguese Archbishop José Tolentino Mendonca, librarian of the Holy Roman Church.

From Africa are Archbishop Fridolin Ambongo Besungu of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Archbishop Cristobal Lopez Romero of Rabat in Morocco.

There is Archbishop Ignatius Suharyo Hardjoatmodjo of Jakarta in Indonesia and Bishop Alvaro Ramazzini of Huehuetenango, Guatemala. North America is represented only by Archbishop Juan de la Caridad Garcia Rodriguez of Havana, Cuba.

Archbishops Jean Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg and Matteo Zuppi of Bologna represent Europe.

These 10 voting Cardinals will replace those who are getting older and falling off the voting list. I’m not sure who these individuals are, but there is at least one Jesuit (and the Jesuit order has been given up for lost by the conservatives) and an Archbishop from Cuba, who is certain to be a Bergoglio fan.

So far Pope Bergoglio has named 73 new Cardinals of voting age. I’m not sure how many have passed the magic number 80 in the interim, so that will affect the total number of voting Cardinals he can claim at the moment. It’s a number that’s always changing.

The October 2019 consistory will bring the number of electors to 128. Assuming that none of these old guys dies during the year, the number of voting Cardinals will fall again to 120 again in November 2020, when Donald Wuerl turns 80.

Previous Articles:

Bergoglio’s Gig: Opposing Ratzinger (We knew that “Pope Francis” was going to oppose “Pope Benedict” from the start).

Killing Pope Francis (May 24, 2017 – outlining conservative Catholic hopes).

Betting on Dead Papal Politics (May 25, 2017).

Killing Pope Ratzinger" (February 8, 2018 – how the “Francis” party is outwitting the “Benedict” party).

Tribalism in traditional Catholic theology

In the past, when a theologian practiced theology as a member of a religious order, that is, as a member of a congregation formed according to a certain spirit distinguished from that of other orders, this theology bore the distinct and tangible imprint of the theology of that order. The major orders such as the Benedictines, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, and the Jesuits each had their own style of theology, a fact that was acknowledged then. Each order cultivated its own specific theology and each distinguished its theology from that of other religious orders. They were proud of their respective theological traditions and they even had their own officially recognized doctors of the Church as well as key figures in the various theological “schools.” In all of this, there is nothing objectionable provided, of course, that these differences do not degenerate into stubborn conflicts along party lines—something that occurred quite often in the past. Nowadays I think this is no longer the case. As far as legislation of my order is concerned, I ought to teach, for example, the so-called scientia media and consequently should oppose and reject the Thomistic theology of grace as expounded in the Baroque era. Karl Rahner, S.J. "Experiences of a Catholic Theologian," Theological Studies 61 (2000), 10. 

If sola scriptura is the problem, is the magisterium the solution?

Perhaps the major Catholic objection to the Protestant faith is that sola Scriptura "fails" to secure unanimity. It spawns "30,000" denominations. It's a "blueprint for anarchy". An infallible book is pointless without an infallible interpreter. 

Here's one way to formulate the objection: Calvinists don't find Arminian interpretations convincing while Arminians don't find Calvinist interpretations convincing. Paedobaptistis don't find credobaptist interpretations convincing while credobaptists don't find pedobaptist interpretations convincing. Zwinglians don't find sacramental interpretations convincing while sacramentalists don't find Zwinglian interpretations convincing. Amils don't find premil interpretations convincing while premils don't find amil interpretations convincing. Charismatics don't find cessationist interpretations convincing while cessationists don't find charismatic interpretation convincing. And so on and so forth. 

Therefore, we need an authoritative tiebreaker to cast the winning vote. A referee to say which side is right. 

But if that's the problem, is the Roman Magisterium the solution? No, because the magisterium simply relocates the same problem. The magisterium has failed to secure unanimity. It failed to forestall the Photian schism. It failed to forestall the Protestant Reformation. It failed to forestall the Jansenist movement. It failed to forestall the rise of modernism in the Catholic church. It failed to forestall the RadTrad backlash. 

And for the same reason: Protestants don't find the purported evidence for the magisterium convincing. They don't find the biblical prooftexts and patristic prooftexts convincing. What is more, they don't find the answers provided by the magisterium to be convincing. And not just Protestants, but Eastern Orthodox. And not just outsiders, but insiders (e.g. Jansenists, modernists, RadTrads). 

If God intended the magisterium to be the solution, why didn't he provide convincing evidence? Evidence sufficient so that everyone is persuaded by the "solution"? Just as rival Protestant groups find each others interpretations unconvincing, ever so many people both inside and outside the Roman communion find Magisterial interpretations unconvincing. 

So the Catholic answer fails to resolve the problem it posed for itself. And that's worse for Catholics since Protestants don't concede that sola Scriptura is a disqualifying objection to begin with. If, however, you're going to say that sola Scriptura is fundamentally unsatisfactory because it fails to secure unanimity, then the onus is on you to solve the perceived problem. Catholic apologists fail to discharge their own burden of proof because their alternative merely repackages the perceived problem. So they failed on their own grounds. There's no failsafe. The magisterium is just another "answer" that lots of people find unpersuasive–like answers in general. 

A deliberate strategy of ambiguity

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ross-douthat-book-to-change-the-church-pope-francis/

What happens in Germany won't stay in Germany

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/05/what-happens-in-germany

Do your own thing Catholicism

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/04/an-ambiguous-exhortation

Francis: Being The Change He Wants

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-change-the-church-ross-douthat/

Papal dilemma

Ratzinger has expressed muted concern over the direction that his successor is taking the church. His diplomatic understatement no doubt reflects a much deeper dismay or panic. His life's work is unraveling. 

Why doesn't he intervene more forcibly? Of course, at his age, he doesn't have the stamina for a knockdown drag out fight. But this is just a question of making public statements.

My guess is that he's be reticent because Francis presents an intractable papal dilemma. It's exceedingly rare to have two living popes. Suppose they have a very public disagreement over the fundamental direction of the church. Suppose Ratzinger says he's the voice of authentic Catholicism while Francis says he's the voice of authentic Catholicism? Which pope are faithful Catholics suppose to follow? Flip a coin?  

I suspect Ratzinger doesn't say more because that would expose the Catholic conundrum. So long as this is a hypothetical scenario about contradictory popes, it's easier for Catholic apologists to paper over the divergence. But if you have two living popes at loggerheads, the system self-implodes. 

It's a game of chicken: blink or head-on collision. Ratzinger can only oppose Francis by causing a track wreck that destroys the papacy. Mutual annihilation. 

So there is no solution. At best, Catholicism was an idealistic theory. But things have come to a head. If you have two leaders at the top of the pyramid, and they give the faithful contradictory directions, there is no referee. 

The pope was supposed to be the referee. When popes disagree, the practical incongruity of the system is exposed. 

In one sense this is nothing new. There's plenty of diachronic contradiction between a former pontificate and a later pontificate. But when it's simultaneous, that brings the dilemma from the background to the foreground. 

Civil war in Rome

If I didn't know any better, I'd almost suspect that Catholicism is a blueprint for anarchy:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-rebukes-top-cardinals-proposal-for-liturgical-blessing-for-homos

Catholicism in crisis

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456074/pope-francis-ross-douthat-massimo-faggioli-debate-catholic-church-future

http://saltandlighttv.org/francisatfive/

Self-identify as fit for communion

Like transgenderism, as the revisionist policy of Pope Francis shakes out, it comes down to how communicants self-identify:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/mr-fit-goes-to-communion

Catholic fence-straddling

Catholic theological method builds on a platform of cumulative error, where earlier errors lay the precedent for later and more egregious errors. 

One of the ways that Catholics routinely defend their sect is to distinguish between official and unofficial teaching. But, ironically, that's just one more reason to reject Catholicism. The fact that the hierarchy so often straddles the fence on major issues, refusing to take a definitive position one way or the other, is hardly to its credit. If the pope is able to infallibly distinguish truth from error in matters of doctrine and ethics, why does he leave so many important issues up for grabs?

An obvious explanation is that by not taking an official position, the magisterium can't be proven wrong. You can't lose if you don't play.

One of the big selling points for Catholicism is the claim that you guys have a living oracle, unlike us benighted evangelicals with our dead book. We've got competing opinions, but no referee. So it's amusing when Catholics retreat into "there's no official position" in Catholicism on major issues to defend their sect.

Reforming the irreformable

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454562/pope-francis-divorce-remarriage-communion-guidelines-letter

Papal silly putty

Having reversed church policy on the admission of adulterous Catholics to communion, Francis is now making moves to reverse church policy on capital punishment. This has been in the pipeline for some time now. Main difference is that he apparently intends to formalize the reversal.

For some background on the lead-up to current developments:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/05/gods-justice-and-ours

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/antonin-scalia-and-his-critics-the-church-the-courts-and-the-death-penalty

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2016/09/had-an-interesting-conversation-with-robert-p-george.html

Catholic philosopher and convert to Catholicism Ed Feser, who has a big following on the Internet, published a defends of the traditional Catholic position on capital punishment just in time to have Pope Francis pull the rug right out from under him. One wonders if there's a breaking-point for some of these disgruntled, high-profile converts to Rome.

The controversy is useful for documenting how the magisterium is a blueprint for anarchy, as well as how Catholic "tradition" has become silly putty in the hands of the magisterium:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/21/on-capital-punishment-even-the-popes-defenders-are-confused/

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/10/mcclamrock-on-by-man-shall-his-blood-be.html

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/30/catholic-theologians-must-set-an-example-of-intellectual-honesty-a-reply-to-prof-robert-fastiggi/

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/two-further-ideas-about-development-of.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/reply-to-brugger-and-tollefsen.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/reply-to-fastiggi.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/reply-to-griffiths-and-hart.html

That's just a sample. The magisterium is a blueprint for anarchy. 

There Is Chaos in the Church, and You Are a Cause

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/11/01/a-theologian-writes-to-the-pope-there-is-chaos-in-the-church-and-you-are-a-cause/

Disunity Predates The Reformation And Is Rampant Among Non-Christians

We're getting the predictable media stories about how the Reformation supposedly brought about such lamentable disunity, like here and here. Stories like these don't mention that it was common for people to complain about widespread disunity in Christianity long before the Reformation occurred. Celsus raised the issue in his treatise against Christianity in the second century. Origen wrote a response to Celsus in the third century, and he made another point there that's ignored by media stories like the ones linked above. As Origen noted, we also find widespread disunity in philosophy, medicine, and other fields, not just in Christianity or only in religious circles. (To read more about what Celsus, Origen, and other pre-Reformation sources said on issues of unity, see here and here.) Maybe the media should run some stories on how lamentable it is that modern journalism is so fractured, with so many reporters and media organizations disagreeing about issues related to journalism, holding differing views of journalistic ethics, competing with each other, hating each other, working to undermine each other, and so on. Yes, there's a lot of disunity in professing Christianity. The same is true of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, science, medicine, politics, journalism, philosophy, etc.

Saving Catholicism from the pope

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/

Post-Catholicism

I'm not making any firm predictions. Prognostications are not my strong suit. 

There is, though, a plausible trajectory regarding the church of Rome. Since Pius XII, it's been in process of becoming a mainline denomination. Francis has accelerated that process. The question is whether the trend is already irreversible.

The motivation has been around for a long time. The idea is that Christianity must adapt to survive. "Modern man" can no longer believe many things his backward, superstitious ancestors believed. This project has been around for a long time. For instance:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher/#PhilReli

Bultmann was another notable exponent. These theologians are idealists. They don't think they are destroying Christianity, but saving Christianity. 

Francis has the support of some bishops, many priests, many Catholic academics. I don't know what percentage of the Roman episcopate supports his initiatives, but it's clearly significant. 

In addition, it's my impression that he's popular among the laity. Given that coalition, along with the inherent prerogatives of the papal office, he seems to be unstoppable. Question is how far he wants to go, how long he lives, and his successors. 

The church of Rome generally prefers an incremental strategy of stepwise compromise to major overnight changes. A softening up process. 

A minority of Catholics take doctrine seriously. By contrast, many Catholics aren't doctrinally oriented. They don't care about logical or historical consistency. In regard to that constituency, a pope can get away with dramatic reversals and contradictions, so long as his policies are deemed to be an improvement over the status quo ante.

From my observation, Catholics who are doctrinally oriented subdivide:

i) Some Catholic apologists, after initially defending Francis, have retreated into diplomatic silence.

ii) Apropos (i), some Catholics have lost hope in Francis, but refuse to openly oppose him. They've hunkered down, hoping his successor(s) will stem the tide. 

iii) Some Catholic apologists rubber-stamp whatever he says and does.

iv) Some conservative Catholics–especially converts–are openly critical of Francis. 

Whether his successors will lock in his initiatives, continue the process of modernism, or attempt to backtrack depends in part on the composition of the next papal conclave. To my knowledge, 75 is the mandatory retirement age for cardinals (indeed, for bishops generally), which gives Francis an opportunity to pack the College of Cardinals with theological soulmates if he can hang on for a few more years. Because bishops are already apt to be up in years when they are elevated to the cardinalate, there's rapid turnover in the College of Cardinals:

http://www.gcatholic.org/hierarchy/cardinals-alive-age.htm

It's also striking that Francis was elected by a College of Cardinals, all of whom were appointed by hardline popes (John-Paul II, Benedict XVI). If a papal conclave with a more conservative composition elected Francis, it's hard to see how a papal conclave with a more liberal composition will elect a rightwing reactionary. However, some cardinals, even if they are sympathetic to the modernist agenda, may wish to avoid a bomb-thrower. Time will tell. 

Suppose in the next 50 years, give or take, the church of Rome becomes just another mainline denomination. By that I mean, its theology becomes essentially indistinguishable from the other mainline denominations (e.g. UMC, ELCA, ECUSA, PCUSA). That will precipitate a schism. 

On the one hand it will temporarily replenish the radtrad movement. However, that's a blind alley. 

On the other hand, charismatics have already siphoned off many Catholics. They lie in wait to absorb the influx of disaffected Catholics. (Of course, the charismatic movement is a swamp.)

A post-Catholic world will involve a major realignment, with evangelicals taking up some of the slack. Indeed, that process is already underway. 

Of course, evangelicalism is a soft identity that ranges along a political and theological continuum. However, the combined effect of Obama and Trump is to force fence-straddlers to go left. Theological "moderates" are rapidly shrinking. 

If the Roman church becomes a mainline denomination, it won't die overnight. Rather, it will slowly bleed to death. But the process of secularization can be rapid. Catholicism imploded in Quebec in one generation. The collapse was sudden because the culture was already so nominally Catholic. 

Will Pope Bergoglio outlast the “tiny, extreme fringe” of Traditionalists?

Just following up on my earlier blog post on the scholars who “corrected” “Pope Francis”, it’s interesting to look at the various responses to this statement.

USA Today interviewed Massimo Faggioli, a professor at Villanova University’s Department of Theology and Religious Studies, and author of a number of books on church history. He marginalized the writers of this statement:

BREAKING: 62 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’

We will be hearing about this for a while:

BREAKING: 62 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’

ROME, September 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Expressing “profound grief” and “filial devotion,” Catholic clergy and lay scholars from around the world have issued what they are calling a “Filial Correction” to Pope Francis for “propagating heresy.”

The Filial Correction, in the form of a 25-page letter, bears the signatures of sixty-two Catholic academics, researchers, and scholars in various fields from twenty countries. They assert that Pope Francis has supported heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the Eucharist that are causing a host of “heresies and other errors” to spread throughout the Catholic Church.

The letter was dated July 16 of this year, and “delivered to the Pope at his Santa Marta residence on August 11, 2017”. (It seems to me they could have just emailed him, it would have been quicker).

Unlike the “Dubia” last year, a formal document issued by four Cardinals last year simply asking for clarity on particular questions, this document has no formal standing. In fact, it is already being dismissed as simply “conservative theologians” who are “failing” to exercise “prudence” and “discernment”.

The traditionalist (and yet not having broken communion with the pope, as opposed to, say, the SSPX) Rorate Caeli begins its dramatic coverage of this item with the phrase, “And So It Begins: ‘FILIAL CORRECTION OF POPE FRANCIS For the Propagation of Heresies’.”

On the other hand, officially, nothing has really begun. They are still just throwing insults at each other, for all practical purposes.