Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ivan's avatar

"The Church canonized a man precisely for rejecting the theology of every pope before him."

I think it would be more appropriate to say: "Bergoglio 'canonized' a man precisely for rejecting the theology of every pope before him." - which, btw., was completely expected and fully understandable from him, as he did the same for the other conciliar popes...

Was Bergoglio the Church? Did Bergoglio even represent the Catholic and Apostolic Church? At all? By any means?

Expand full comment
Michael Johnson's avatar

There’s some interesting shuffling going on with calendar dates in all this.

John XXIII was celebrated yesterday in the new calendar instead of The Maternity of Our Lady, an important feast that is not ancient but that had been put there for a reason. It’s in a Marian month; it follows the Feast of the Rosary and the commemoration of Lepanto; it looks back to the 3rd Ecumenical Council and the rejection of the Nestorian heresy.

They said the Feast wasn’t needed, because of the new Marian Feast instituted on Jan 1st. However, while Our Lady has been honoured in the past on that day it’s always primarily been known as the Circumcision of Christ. (Incidentally, this is the day when the action of the medieval poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight opens, which is undoubtedly significant for the understanding of that poem.) This was a theologically significant Feast, because it emphasises that Christ fulfils the requirements of the old Law. It’s also the first time he bleeds, theologically looking forward to the crucifixion where he sheds his blood for the remission of sins. It’s gone missing.

Expand full comment
87 more comments...

No posts