Well, it's certainly not what we heard in the homily during today's 9:30 Mass at St. John Neumann. Expounding on today's Gospel from Mark 9:30-37, the homilist preached on humility, attempting to tie it in with the pope's visit to the DC area this coming week. He lauded Pope Francis for not taking on the traditions of his papal predecessors: the crimson robe, the red slippers, the tiara, etc. The homilist said that "Pope Francis does not need these things" and that because of these choices, Pope Francis distinguishes himself for his humility.
I beg to differ.
Pope St Pius X, with tiara and robe A "non-humble" pope?
"These things" to which the homilist referred are not mere props intended to puff up the egos of the pontiffs who occupy the chair of Peter. Rather, they hearken back to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church and towards the papacy itself. The pope is not just "one of the fellas". He is the Vicar of Christ. The traditions associated with that office have nothing to do with the personal proclivities of the individual occupying the Chair of Peter at any given moment. They are linked with the dignity of the office, an office instituted by Jesus Christ Himself when He designated St. Peter as the first pope.
The homilist elaborated on Pope Francis' refusal of the red papal slippers, saying that Pope Francis felt no need for them since "he had other shoes". Perhaps both the homilist and Pope Francis need to be reminded that the red color is a somber reminder that the pope must be prepared to shed his blood in defense of the Faith, as indeed many of the popes (particularly during the first few centuries) did.
I do not think for one moment that Pope Francis is the first to feel discomfort at the thought of assuming the traditions of the papacy. However, it seems that the others understood that these traditions had diddly-squat to do with their personal preferences. In true humility they put aside their personal opinions and adopted the traditions, vestments, living quarters, etc attendant with papal traditions in order to point to Jesus Christ the King, in Whose stead they acted.
Am I saying that Pope Francis displayed lack of humility by not accepting the traditional garb of the papacy? No, for that itself is not sufficient basis for such an opinion (although the eschewing of papal traditions has been a harbinger of other problems). By the same token though, there is no basis for stating that he displayed humility by eschewing papal traditions as today's homilist erroneously claimed.
I came across a video of a talk given by Father Paul Scalia of the Diocese of Arlington. This is an expose of the heresy known as modernism. In it Father details why it is a heresy and what various popes, particularly Pope St Pius X, had to say about it. One of the links I'll give below gives the entire text of the Oath Against Modernism that the sainted pontiff ordered all clergy and seminary teachers to take. The context of the video itself makes plain that this talk occurred several years ago when Pope Benedict XVI was still the reigning pontiff so he could not have had any premonition of the events of the past year, particularly of the disastrous sin-nod of last October. One salient point came at the 25:57 mark, when Father said "once you have 'evolution of dogma' there's really no dogma whatsoever". Hold that truth in mind as we proceed through this post.
Two weeks ago, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldiserri opened a three-day conference of lay and family movements. Aleteia has more coverage of that. The conference was called to reflect upon the preparatory document for next October's synod; encompassed in that was the final report from last October's sin-nod: the one that contained, by order of Pope Francis, the three morally questionable statements that had been voted down by the synod fathers.
The Cardinal took some questions. One of them was from an organization that expressed shock that Cardinal Kasper could suggest that those divorced and remarried Catholics who never had their first marriages declared null by the Church, should be able to receive Holy Communion while living in de facto adultery. (By the way - here's some more examples of the problems with Cardinal Kasper.) The Cardinal replied by saying "we shouldn't be shocked that there is a different position from the 'common doctrine'". Then he went on to say, "there’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different than the so-called ‘common doctrine.’ This doesn’t imply a going against. It means reflecting. Because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change." Emphasis mine, and for reasons stated in the first paragraph.
Edward Pentin has a brief commentary, but his includes the text of Pope Pius X's Oath Against Modernism. He too highlighted the relevant statements. If Cardinal Baldserri took that oath, he violated it. By the way - if the name "Edward Pentin" seems familiar, he's the British journalist whose career Cardinal Kasper tried to destroy after Pentin caught Kasper in a lie regarding his "african" quip - but I digress. A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics has some additional commentary.
Some may wonder why I harp on Cardinal Baldiserri since the sin-nod happened in last October. What happened last October was a preparation for the Ordinary Synod on the Family that will occur next October. Baldiserri, by the pope's designation, will have the same leadership role next October as he did last time. You must understand the minds and the errors that will pervade next year's meeting. Understand, too, that the pope said we have a "year to mature". It seems like one phase of this attempted "maturation" is to induce Catholics to swallow the heresy of modernism. Watch Father Scalia below to learn more of this threat.
In order to address the problems currently facing the Church, it behooves us all to try to examine just how these problems came to be. Quite a few people point to the Vatican II Council in the mid 1960s as the start of the Church's problems. Many sedevacantists seem to be of that opinion. Some deeper thought into the matter makes plain the illogic behind that somewhat simplistic theory. While the misapplications of the proceeds of the Council may have made the problems apparent, by no means did the problems originate from the council.
Common sense only makes that clear. The same crowd that blames Vatican II claims that a number of mefarious bishops undermined the Church via that council. Well think about it for a minute. I tend to concur that some bishops were clearly off the wall. But when did those individuals become bishops? Clearly they weren't ordained the day before the Council started. Many of them were occupying high positions in the church long before the start of the Council.
Quite a few of the pre-conciliar but modern popes saw problems on the horizon. Pope Leo XIII, to address the problems, wrote prayers for the protection of the Church and directed that they be said after every Low Mass; the very familiar Prayer to St Michael is one of those prayers. Pope St Pius X wrote Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane to address specifically the growing threat posed by modernists.
Clearly modernism was a threat and it had made footholds within the Church. How? I came across a book put out by TAN Publishing. It's called Christ Denied and was written by Rev Paul A Wickens. The author delves into what he believes were the origins of the problems with clerical formation in Europe during the early 1900s. He focused on three priests who embraced modernism and who were influential teachers. The first was George Tyrrell, a British Jesuit. He had profound influence over the second, Teilhard de Chardin. I've attempted to read one of the works of the latter - talk about a convoluted mess. But that's how he got away with spreading error. He influenced many, including American seminarians sent to Europe to "study" - and lose their faith. A German pupil of Chardin's was Karl Rahner. I do recommend that you read it. Go to the website of TAN Books and search the title and author. I don't believe Father Wickens supplied the entire picture, but I suspect he supplied a crucial part.
