A good article, but it seems to me that the author still falls in what himself critizices. I mean he still has an ultramontanist forma mentis.Some months ago, an Spanish blogger wrote that the only good thing of the current Papacy was that there was some people, among the Neoconservatives, who was realizing that their approach was actually papolatrical, and moving toward a critical traddy-style view towards the Pope. When I was a traddy I also used to think so; no I feel this makes nonsense.In fact, most of these Neocons are idealizing the former Papacy (Benedict's) as something like a golden age, so the former assertion is far from been describing the reality. But this attitude is quite the same that most Traddieland inhabitants (at lesto of these whom I know or read) are: they are Neocons or Pius IX, X and XII; they rarely discuss their worst actions, believing that their pontificates were another golden age of orthodoxy or orthopraxis. But they do not realize that the Piononist Papolatrical Papacy is perhaps the most anti-traditional eccelsiology the Church has ever suffered, and that it has far more responsability in the current crisis that the II Vatica Council.It seems to me that the author of this article falls somewhere in the middle of this kind of Neoconism: between that of Benedict and that of Pius XII. But it is still Ultramontanism.Kyrie eleison
Good article, but I'm tired of hearing people treat Frankie as if he's a horrible pope ("this disastrous papacy"). Give me Frankie over Pius XII any day.
Give me Frankie over Pius XII any dayἈμήν