Sunday, 25 May 2014

Impious old men...

Fr Hunwicke has been defending the Papacy a lot lately.It seems to be characteristic of Romanists to do their utmost to defend that institution, seemingly at the expense of Our Lord. And the general thrust of Fr Hunwicke's arguments are the various limitations supposedly set in place by Pastor Aeternus around the office of pope. In other words, popes can't do such and such without deviating from their vocation, under God, which is to say that they go about a field riddled with holes steering the barque of Peter so that she doesn't get sucked down into a mire. How did the popes become "infallible"? Is that the will of God? If there are so many limitations on the pope, the guarantor of "Tradition," then why can he do so much violence to Tradition in the name of his master? It's almost as if the great enemies in Rome, the apologists of popery, have enacted these so-called limitations at the time that their lord pope is wantonly destroying and usurping the very things he claims to uphold. The pope styles himself "supreme bridge-builder" and the point of unity in Christendom and then authorises the establishment of a rival Patriarchate in Constantinople. The pope thinks of himself as supreme liturgist, and then dismantles the antient structure of the Psalter. The pope names unto himself all tides and seasons and imposes a novel kalendar on the princes of Europe.

I fear that the history and tendency of the Papacy contradict the conclusions drawn by Fr Hunwicke. If such a man as Fr Hunwicke describes ever existed I'll shew you a green dog.


  1. Green dogs... doubtless will someday be a product of genetic engineering.

    Without a pope, would you have bishops? Would it be problematic if some bishops allowed certain practices in their dioceses that others prohibited within their dioceses? Without a pope, what would be the consequences of the subsequent decentralization? What would check a bishop who decided to go off on a very personal tangent? Can a college of bishops decide to "defrock" a bishop or somehow declare them not to be a bishop?

    I am not particularly worried about it. I do not have a dog in that fight... not even a green dog, but I am curious.

  2. In a fight, when the going gets tough, you need a Pope who can kick ass, just like a leader of any organisation.

  3. Bishops are bishops. Their episcopal dignity and authority are not dispensed by one man. Any one bishop can speak in the name of the Church. Who needs popes?

  4. Personally, I have no need for a pope, but how does one deal with different bishops presenting different view of what is Christian teaching?