Mark Coleridge on Viganò, me on Coleridge

Mark Coleridge on Viganò

“The latest Vigano broadside (un’altra Viganata!) leaves me wondering if the Archbishop thinks that he rather than @Pontifex should be Pope. #papabile.”

Sources

" ... stated Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane on Twitter"

See here : Archbishop mocks Viganò: I wonder if he ‘thinks he… should be pope’
Lifesitenews | Dorothy Cummings McLean | Mon Oct 1, 2018 - 1:44 pm EST
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-mocks-vigano-i-wonder-if-he-thinks-he...-should-be-pope

me on Coleridge

From Xanadu the great command ... oh, I'm probably misciting the "cardinal's" relative. Either way, a name like Coleridge obliges to some kind of verbal originality.

However, if you do need to reuse the trite so trite it can't be plagiarised, how about at least not taking it from what's trite in Protestants?

In Martin Luther's day, no one was as far as I know saying "is Martin thinking he should be Pope" even back after 95 theses when he was more of a Jansenist than a Protestant proper. By contrast, among Anglicans and other Protestants, asking if a lay person thinks he's a parson or of a parson whether he thinks he's the Archbishop of Canterbury ... I don't know any examples here either, but such an approach makes more sense in a Protestant context.

Some versions of Protestantism, not totally excluded from even Anglicanism, will not accept "do as he says, not as he does" with a reference to Pharisees on the chair of Moses. Lollards, you know ... so, since that answer is out, if you criticise a parson as being a jerk, yourself not being a parson, you would risk a more indirect and backhanded approach, like "do you think you should be the parson?" implying you may be prideful. And if the discord is on doctrine rather than someone's personal behaviour, that is handy too, since an Anglican let alone other Protestant pastor cannot really answer "this is defined dogma" or "this is the opinion of St. so and so" (Aquinas or Augustine being two favourites here in the Latin West).

So, I'll guess (a vague memory in the back of my head wonders if I haven't heard sth like that when I was a Lutheran or before that Evangelical, but as that was back in my teens or pre-teens, the memory if such is very vague), the type of remark has been picked up from ... Anglican? ... Non-Catholic ... Sources.

In all earnest, if someone says so and so is no good as a Pope, it is perhaps because he is concerned so and so is not very good as a Pope. Like I have not considered him as Pope since canonisations of Wojtyla and Roncalli (and I never positively considered him Pope, as I had done with Ratzinger). Such a remark is, for someone knowing it is about doctrine and supporting papacy of that man, too serious a thing to be dealt with by "does he think he should be pope" types of remarks. I don't recall even Catholics supporting Wojtyla in 1988 remarking "does Lefebvre think he should be Pope?"

Are you bent on making Bergoglio not just a snowflake but a pampered one with many supporters? Now, snowflakes are of course sometimes good people who sometimes make their eternal salvation, but I am not over confident they make super good Popes. And if they want to be the other type of papa, it's good if their wife can take them down a peg ...

Over and out from this snowflake .../HGL