Come in off the ledge, please.
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 846
    Not so very long ago, if I referred to a Pope by his birth name, I could expect American Traditionalists to scold me. I came to the Church through reading Italian and knowing the Church there. They ALWAYS refer to the Pope's family name. In case anyone hadn't noticed, the Borghese Pope slapped his family name on the front of St. Peter's. The family the Pope came from was an essential part of Italians' understanding who the Pope was. In the US, the Pope was more disembodied, and so it was the custom of not doing that, and not referring to his personality. I found it strange, but there it was.

    Now, it's the opposite. And it's getting worse. I had been told by a Traditionalist expert in liturgy and music some time ago that there were those who even viewed Pope St. Pius X with suspicion and looked to Pius V.

    According to Archp. Ganswein, Pope Benedict felt--not that there wasn't a problem that needed addressing--but that harsh restrictions on the TLM would make Traditionalists feel oppressed.

    True enough.

    At least one famous Traditionalist author is getting close to correct doctrine by referring to "Montini," because that's who changed the form of the Mass, not Vatican II. I saw somebody on the website refer to "Pacellian Reforms" A commenter and author did a back and forth on those reforms. The commenter felt SSPX was just not pure enough because they were tied to the 1955 Missal, which he described as "pathetic" or something.

    Where does this stop? In Protestantism, that's where. I didn't join the Church to get in a bunch of fights. The Apostolic Succession is actually why I left Protestantism.

    As a brilliant undergard I knew once put it, in frustration with Traditionalists, "I mean, we're Catholic. We have a Pope."

    There were no Vatican II reforms. Councils can't change things authoritatively. There are reforms instituted by Pope St. Paul VI. We should call them that. It's a dodge to say otherwise. And we should not refer disparagingly to ANY Pope by his family name.

    There is a very easy=to-occupy middle ground, where you understand Jorge Mario Bergoglio's background and previous life but refer to Pope Francis with respect. That is the Catholic way.


  • Kenneth,

    Like you, I am a convert.

    I see some of the responses you identify, but I see the cause as different from what you identify. One should certainly not adopt some "middle of the road" idea, since Christ Himself is the definition of the right road. A middle road would imply compromise with evil, which is singularly unhelpful in identifying the way forward.

    No, what we have is the mystery of iniquity. What you're seeing is the heart-ache of Catholics who love God and His Church, and revere the Holy Father as Holy Father, while finding the present Holy Father's behavior irreconcilable with the Office.

    The Holy Father can't, logically, teach that those who adhere to what has been faithfully handed on from fathers and grandfathers, and consistently taught by Holy Fathers for generations are somehow suffering some kind of a mental illness or are guilty of infidelity.
    Thanked by 2francis LauraKaz
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,532
    What is wrong with being attached to a missal? The Dominicans are I sure attached to their Missal, just as the Copts etc. The Church has never had just one Missal we have a variety, As for a unique Roman Missal... so the where does that leave the various uses of the Roman Missal, such as the Ordinariate? I suspect that those who repeat this idea do not know the difference between a Rite and a Use.

    As for the name of the Pope, various places have their customs, some refer to the family name others to the choose name. Does it really matter. As for respect we have to respect the office, not necessarily the holder.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,132
    How can you not respect the office holder but still respect the office?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,354
    Kenneth and bhcordova... the Church ledge has had a long and dangerous history... don't stand out there. We have had bad popes before, perhaps not as bad as this, I will grant you that.

    You must realize that it is tradition to always respect the office... a particular pope's personal opinions and resulting wreckage we do not. CGZ tells it just as Saint Paul tells it... the Mystery of Iniquity.

    Here is one of the best books I have read on the subject. It behooves us to know all the mysteries of our Faith... this is the unfortunate one that we must also know and be mindful of, for the devil prowls like a lion...

    (btw... this is free)
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,532
    So one can like / dislike say Trump / Biden (delete as appropriate), but still believe that the Presidential office is a good or only form of good government. In another way the dislike of say Trump did not prevent those that have a respect for that form of government to vote for Biden.

    So we can say that having a Pope is good but the holder of the Office could be bad (see history for plenty of examples).