Skip to comments.Papa Gaga’s “Pastoral” Code: The modernist trick of undermining faith through “experience”
Posted on 12/20/2013 5:46:30 AM PST by IbJensen
WHEN I HEAR the word, culture, I reach for my revolver. The idea behind the pithy saying, usually attributed to Nazi Hermann Goering, is that a soothing term often hides a poisonous agenda. So it is with the term pastoral used in the context of the post-Vatican II religion.
Every priest, bishop and indeed, pope worthy of his calling, of course, must strive to imitate the solicitude of the Good Shepherd as he goes about the work of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the flock in His Masters name. But as those of us who lived through the first chaos-filled decades following Vatican II can tell you, pastoral on the lips of a modernist had another, more sinister connotation. It was the common code for promotes the revolution in doctrine and morality.
And it is this word that we find Bergoglio (Pope Francis) using in just about every public pronouncement he makes daily homilies, Angelus messages, talks to priests and bishops, pastoral exhortations, and interviews. Everything and everybody in the post-Vatican II establishment must now must be pastoral. Soon, no doubt, someone will feed his statements into a computer and come up with a count for how often this word and related concepts appear.
What is the real message Bergoglio wants to convey by constantly employing the word pastoral? And what does it tell us about his long-term program?
1. The Post-Vatican II Pastoral Bishop
Since Bergoglio began his priestly work (and seems forever fixated) in the heady post-Vatican II 60s and 70s, this is era we must look to for clues about how he understands the descriptive term pastoral. And here we encounter the species known as the Vatican II pastoral bishop. It existed everywhere in the world. Some prime examples in America were Joseph Cardinal Bernardin (first of Cincinnati, and then Chicago), John Cardinal Dearden (Detroit), Roger Cardinal Mahony (Fresno, Stockton, Los Angeles), Walter Bucky Sullivan (Norfolk), Matthew Clark (Rochester), and the recently-retired Howard Hubbard (Albany).
This sort of bishop tolerated every sort of heresy and attack on Catholic moral teaching in his diocese. He let priests engage in sacrilegious (if not insane) liturgical practices. He brought in radical modernist theologians to brainwash priests into accepting the new theology. (New Yorks Terence Cardinal Cooke sent every priest in his archdiocese Raymond Browns modernist screed Priest and Bishop, an attack against Catholic teaching on apostolic succession.) He allowed every sort of error to be taught in his seminary, which he put in the care of modernists who then systematically expelled any seminarians still adhering to old Church notions of faith and morality.
He was a believer in proportionalist (=no real rules) moral theology. He promoted, by winks, nudges and silent acquiescence the idea that contraception was not a sin. He assaulted the indissolubility of marriage by installing modernists in his marriage tribunals who handed out phony annulments like party favors on spurious grounds (immaturity and psychic incapacity were two favorites.)
He created a bloated diocesan lay bureaucracy, staffed by uppity feminists with chips on their (bare) shoulders over patriarchy and reproductive freedom. He imposed heretical catechism texts that left generations of children utterly ignorant of the fundamental truths of their faith, and he instituted sex education (i.e. initiation) programs that stripped the same children of innocence and any sense of Catholic morality. He looked the other way or to godless psychology when his clergy preyed upon the little ones. At the same time, he ruthlessly persecuted old priests for adhering to the true faith, by driving them into early retirement, supporting parishioners or younger priests who rebelled against them, punishing them with threats of suspension, and in some cases, trying to get them certified as insane.
When conservatives challenged his loyalty to Catholic dogmas and moral principles, the pastoral bishop feigned offense and proclaimed himself utterly faithful to church teachings without, of course, ever being too specific about what these teachings were.
He taught by example bad example. Everything he did and more importantly, failed to do reinforced the idea that Vatican II definitively broke with the past, and that the old beliefs and rules no longer applied.
The pastoral bishop did not openly deny traditional Catholic doctrine and morality in words. He didnt need to. He denied them with his deeds. His actions and inactions spoke far louder and far more eloquently than anything he could have ever said from the pulpit or published in his crypto-Arian diocesan newspaper. His clergy got in line and followed along.
And the pastoral bishops flock learned the lesson he taught. Fifty years later, the typical American Catholic is utterly ignorant of the most fundamental truths of his faith, which he reduces to good feelings, and a relativist in morality, which he reduces to being nice, not judging and following your conscience.
This, then, is the world Bergoglio, a dyed in the wool member of the post-Vatican generation perhaps more polyester than wool summons up when he utters the word pastoral.
2. De Matteis Warning on Bergoglios Pastoral Revolution
Naturally, conservatives of the Wanderer and Father Reading-Francis-through-Benedict Zuhlsdorf stripe dismiss such notions as exaggeration, leftist/National Catholic Fishwrap wishful thinking or even shock! horror! sedevacantist propaganda. But some respected voices in the Novus Ordo church, especially in Italy, have figured out Bergoglios pastoral code, and have started to warn fellow Catholics of the danger it represents.
One example is the well-known Italian author and church historian Roberto de Mattei, who made a considerable reputation for himself by attacking the conclusions of the School of Bologna, a group of church historians with a more progressive take on Vatican II. De Mattei has already criticized Bergoglio several times, notably his appalling interviews for the atheist Scalfari and the Jesuit publication Civiltá Cattolica this past year. Earlier this month, the Rorate Caeli blog translated and published two lengthy de Mattei articles that dissected Bergoglios pastoral code. The titles convey his dire message: Meltdown of the Church and The Process that has led us to the New Modernists. The articles are written in a high-toned style that may make them tough going for the average U.S. reader, but here are some significant points from the first, Meltdown of the Church:
◾Vatican II was repeatedly termed a pastoral council.
◾But on some points, nevertheless, it did in fact want to teach new things.
◾Overall these novelties do constitute a true and real magisterium, which was presented as an alternative to the traditional one.
◾The innovators expected to reform the whole Church by their praxis or pastoral application of the Council. By doing this, they made it into doctrine.
◾This approach is sometimes called the spirit of the Council or the virtual Council, and its advocates enthusiastically welcomed Francis.
◾Benedict XVIs interpretation (heremeneutic) of Vatican II as continuous with the past was bound to fail, because this admits that a variety of interpretations were possible.
◾So, the virtual Council what progressives did with it is just as authentic as what is in the V2 documents themselves.
◾Because the language of the Vatican II documents was deliberately ambiguous and vague, the progressives interpretation offered the authentic key to the reading of the final documents.
◾Vatican II represents a moment of un-doubtable, and in certain terms, apocalyptic historical discontinuity.
◾Bergoglio is not interested in theological discussions, but in the reality of the facts, and it is in [practice] that he wants to show that he is the true implementer of Vatican II he incarnates the essence of Vatican II.
◾Pastoral revolution is the primary characteristic of Francis pontificate, and pastoral is a key word in his ministry.
◾The pontificate of Francis is the most authentically conciliar one, in which praxis is turned into doctrine, and which attempts to change the image and the reality of the Church.
◾The roots of this pastoral approach lie the new theology condemned by Pius XII in the 1950s, a theology that reduces faith to nothing more than religious experience or encounter.
◾The consequence of this pastoral theology of experience is that doctrines, rites and the interior life are submitted to a liquifying process so radical and so perfected that you can no longer distinguish between Catholics and non-Catholics.
◾The measure of faith is not in the doctrine believed [the traditional definition] but in the life and action of the believer, in which it becomes religious experience, freed from any objective rule of faith whatsoever.
Here, then, is the key to decoding what Bergoglio and other modernists like him mean by pastoral through actions, silence or dissimulation one seeks to undermine Catholic dogma and morality by changing mens experience of them.
Want to dump the dogma of transubstantiation? Say nothing about it from the pulpit, except maybe that its an explanation of the Eucharist, abolish Benediction, reduce signs of reverence, promote hand communion, sing songs filled with all sorts of bread terms, and hide the tabernacle. Want to change teaching on hell? Never mention it. Want to bless contraception? Never preach against it, remain silent in the confessional if anyone bothers to confess it, talk a lot about the primacy of conscience and mature decisions.
Change the experience through action, silence and dissimulation and the dogma and objective moral principles will follow. Thats the diabolical genius of the modernist method.
3. Papa Gaga and Content-Free Catholicism
Modern society rejects dogma and reduces religion to mere personal experience, and this is why it has made Bergoglio a media superstar, if not a supernova. His interviews have already clearly conveyed the idea that he regards doctrine and church law as falling into the Dont Sweat the Small Stuff category, a winning proposition in a secular culture that dismisses differences in faith among various denominations as so much hair-splitting. Bergoglios exaltation of the individual conscience and his who am I to judge remark appeals to a generation of self-absorbed seekers, each of whom feels free to fashion his own commandments and call himself spiritual but not religious. Advocating material help for the poor is a perfectly acceptable message to preach to modern man, because it can be done without it impinging on either modern mans vague religious beliefs or his personal moral (i.e., immoral) conduct. Providing sandwiches for the hungry and clean needles for addicts is a lot less taxing than small minded rules about tossing out the birth control pills and ditching your third trophy wife.
Bergoglio is adored and idolized not because of what he says, but because of the image he projects and the experience he delivers. In this respect, he is like the pop stars Madonna or Lady Gaga (both grossly immoral apostate Catholics and, not incidentally, products of Bergoglios pastoral post-Vatican II church). He is an attractive and recognized brand you can endlessly talk about without any impact whatsoever on your day-to-day-existence. The spiritual insights of his preaching sometimes a recycling of various 60s liberal obsessions are as trite as a Hallmark card; one fully expects to find him to delivering a homily at Casa S. Marta about caterpillars turning into a butterflies.
For these reasons, there was nothing to prevent Bergoglio from being proclaimed Person of the Year ,not only by Time Magazine but also even by a national gay publication the latter fact being proof once again that events in the Novus Ordo are beyond parody.
In sum, Bergoglios pastoral revolution does exactly what it is intended to: It delivers religious experience without real faith a content-free Catholicism, one that is Catholic in name only.
So when in the coming months and years, you hear from the secular press and the Novus Ordo hierarchy that Papa Gagas pastoral approach is really reaching people, remember what you should reach for yourself
sent this out in my email its that good- may have lost a ‘friend’ or two but its just so well written
I will pray for you and that God shows you the truth. To label Pope Francis as Papa Gaga does not come from Christ. It comes from the Prince of Darkness. You screed is full of untruths and distortions. If you really feel this way, then pray for the Pope. If you can’t do that, then that tells me all I need to know about you because it does not reflect a charitable and prayerful spirit.
Not to say Francis I hasn't given me a turn or two. But this chap is not a Catholic priest in good standing, and never has been. For those of you familiar with these things, both the Society of St. Pius X and the Society of St. Pius the V were too liberal for him. He's not showing all his cards here. He doesn't believe the Pope is the Pope. Many of these sedevacantist ("the seat is empty") groups actually elect their own "Popes." There are several of these.
He makes an accurate observation here or there. But he's a crank. He has no judgment. And judgment is everything.
Excellent commentary on our current situation. Wolves in sheep’s clothing, that is what the bishops of Vatican II are. Pope Francis needs conversion, and prayers.
A devastated vineyard.
Excellent commentary on our current situation. Wolves in sheep’s clothing, that is what the bishops of Vatican II are. Pope Francis needs conversion, and prayers.
A devastated vineyard.
So much junk to have to remember and sort out.
Wouldn’t it be a LOT easier to go the PROTESTant route and just rely on what the BIBLE says?
But the view of Catholics—at least the Catholics that I know—is that Apostolic succession lies in the Church, not in the Gospel proclaimed by the Apostles. Though in their eyes, it’s the same thing.
We Protestants believe that apostolic authority comes solely from the pure teachings of the Apostles, which came from Jesus. The Catholics I know believe that it comes from the Roman Catholic Church. Offering to share the Bible with the ones I know typically results in them telling me, “No thanks; I have a priest for that.” Because they were taught to place apostolic authority in the institution, not the message.
At least in my experience, that’s the case.
Sounds about right.
Just curious, why did you post this?
So Cekada is just a moral relativist like any other modernist. Maybe worse than some, since he deliberately does what he knows is wrong.
Have you ever met a Catholic?
Yes. Yes I have. Many of them.
And what I said has been the belief of the majority of the ones I’ve met. Perhaps it’s not the belief of the majority of Catholics in the world, but it IS the belief of the majority of those that I’ve met.
and this is how many Catholic schools are adopting the horrible “Common Core” across the country
Because I know this priest very well.
Anthony Cekada, this author is not a Catholic Priest and never was.
He may be a clergyman in some small Christian group (there are over 36,000 sects presently) but he is not what he claims to be; a Roman Catholic Priest. Thus he is not to be believed no matter how much he feeds the misinformed prejudices on display here.
If Mister Cekada had made his status clear at the beginning of his post I would give his harsh criticisms enough respect to inspire my close examination and refutation. These claims to be clergy are everywhere lately. In Kentucky we even have have women claiming to be Catholic Priests and holding ordinations. The Lexington Herald-Leader presents them as priests. Dishonest women and dishonest newspaper.
Cekada was “ordained” by an infamous ex-Bishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1977. Levebre had been forbidden in 1976 by Pope Paul IV to ordain priests and had his other clerical powers removed.( see note below) It was not a Catholic ordination.
There is a tidal wave of disinformation about the Catholic Church in the public square. Many delight in believing and repeating these clever lies, but such people lack industry and virtue.
If these opponents of the Catholic Church have valid points they could have used the truth.
NOTE from wikipedia:
“In January 1975 the new Bishop of Fribourg stated his wish to withdraw the SSPX’s [Th is Lefebvre’s “Society of Saint Pius the 10th] pious union status. Though Lefebvre then had two meetings with the commission of Cardinals, the Bishop put his intention into effect on 6 May 1975, thereby officially dissolving the Society.[Notes 16] This action was subsequently upheld by Pope Paul VI, who wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre in June 1975. Lefebvre continued his work regardless. In the consistory of 24 May 1976, Pope Paul VI criticized Archbishop Lefebvre by name and appealed to him and his followers to change their minds.
On 29 June 1976, Lefebvre went ahead with planned priestly ordinations without the approval of the local Bishop and despite receiving letters from Rome forbidding them. As a result Lefebvre was suspended a collatione ordinum, i.e., forbidden to ordain any priests.”
I could respond with a lengthy thesis of my own, but I know in my heart, mind and soul what I believe to be the correct situation that exists today within the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church is indeed Roman, being located in Rome, but it is no longer catholic (small c) as liturgy and tenets appear to vary from parish to parish worldwide.
What Vatican II subsequently did, in effect, to the delight of the modernists and secular humanists was to create an entirely new religion based on mankind. I in total honesty believe that our Lord cannot be pleased with the outcome.
I join you in not being altogether pleased with Vatican II. But most of Vatican II was just moving the furniture around and starting to celebrate Mass in the local language. The criticisms are just quibbles.
For 2000 years the Catholic Church has always varied from country to country in non-essentials and surface appearances. In essentials it is unchanged and thank God for it and its lone stand against the extensive depravity of modernity. Most of the martyrs in this new Age of Martyrdom are Roman Catholics though the media insist on the generic term “Christians”.
The essential Mass is the same.
As Scott Hahn has clearly demonstrated in “Consuming the Word: The New Testament and The Eucharist in the Early Church” the “New Testament”is actually not part of a a book. The “New Testament” is the Catholic Mass.
The Mass is the opera, the Bible is just the libretto.
It was more than merely moving furniture around: like moving the Tabernacle into an insignificant niche or room and moving the tenets of the faith out the window. This was done IN ORDER TO CREATE A NEW RELIGION.
The mistaken purpose, that is if Marxist prelates weren’t in on the scheme and I doubt that fact, was to bring the archaic Roman Catholic Church into the 32st Century.
But they forgot one thing: Jesus Christ doesn’t wear Nikes.
The Tabernacles are now back on the altar. It was a mistake as you say.
You have valid criticisms, but don’t throw the baby out with the Etc.
There has always been corruption in the Church from the first.
Don’t shun Peter because of Judas.
Pray tell in what church is the tabernacle back in the enter of the altar? Have the girl altar boys been replaced? Are two species still offered at communion? Does the priest face the congregants thereby praying to them?
Is there a sanctuary candle lit as evidence that the Body of Christ is present?’
Do the noisy congregants still shake hands as a sign they are still awake?
Is communion distributed in the hand?
So many things that prove that a new religion has been created.
Is he even a priest?
Is “being a crank” a valid criticism of anyone? What virtue is being promoted here, and what does crankiness have to do with it? Do you mean the Church of Nice?
I am confused.
His orders may be valid, depending on how he obtained them. But they sure aren't licit. He's insulated himself from any recognizable authority, which causes all kinds of problems. Priests act in persona Christi. The stakes are rather high. They need the discipline of serving under authority.
Is being a crank a valid criticism of anyone?
Oy vey, you bet. "Crank" is another word for "fanatic," someone who" can't change his mind and won't change the subject" (Churchill). The problem with cranks is that they're self-seeking. Their appetite for battle knows no bounds, so they'll attack the truth itself, if the fancy takes them.
What virtue is being promoted here, and what does crankiness have to do with it? Do you mean the Church of Nice?
The virtue promoted by applying a crank-meter is humility. To be humble is to be truthful, because our powers are limited. Fallen man needs hierarchies of other people to help him stay honesteven though hierarchies are made of other fallen men. The cure for the Church of Nice is not the Church of Self, which is where cranks worship. A crank lives in his own private reality. His zeal so overpowers his judgment that he believes in his own authority, and is his own bishop, his own Pope, and his own God.
Okay, now you are using terms I understand. Yes, bitter zeal is something to be avoided. I don’t have this guy’s book yet, but it would not take long to determine if it is colored by this vice.
Maybe you are constrained by such a short space to say something about this author, but without additional information it remains an ad hominem argument. I am not asking you to do any homework for me, but that is where it stands.
The lack of leadership and the lack of adherence to orthodoxy in the hierarchy are causing lot of problems, especially among those who prefer the mass of the saints. Now that the Pope is actively suppressing a traditional order, there is even more confusion.
I miss our German Shepherd.
I looked him up on the Web. You'll probably come away with the same impression I did. We go to the Tridentine Mass on Sundays and big feasts. Daily in whatever's around. We miss Benedict as well. Francis does not appear to be actively hostile to the old Mass, but seems willing to promote men who are.
I know the Franciscan Immaculata. They have been undergoing a Latin-English split for years, probably young-versus-old. I only know the Traditional guys. I think it's important for today's traditional priests to be well-rounded, sociable, confident, with a sense of humor, and able to speak to the common manlike St. Thomas Aquinas. It's the best strategy for saving souls.
Not sure how you can instill well-roundedness at the seminary level, they need to be well-rounded before they get there. Having a great personality is a good addition to having a vocation.