FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Slate: Francis, the Nightmare Pope
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
I can agree with this article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...on_as.html

Why Pope Francis May Be a Catholic Nightmare
He may seem like a humble reformer, but Cardinal Bergoglio is the last thing the Vatican needs.

There are two ways to look at the election of Pope Francis. He takes the name of the famous saint, whose life was defined by a vision in which he was commanded by a crucifix to “rebuild my Church, which is in ruins.” That name, combined with rumors that Cardinal Bergoglio impressed his fellow Cardinals at preconclave meetings with his willingness to clean up the Curia, may be a signal that reform is on the way.
His choice of name may also signal an affiliation with the Jesuit saint Francis Xavier, an exemplary evangelist and missionary. Cardinal Bergoglio is known as a simple, humble person who eschewed the pomp of his high office in the church. Until now, he has lived in a simple apartment and cooked his own meals. He worked to prevent priests from abandoning their parishes and the sacraments entirely for revolutionary political activism in Argentina, when liberation theology was ascendant.
But the other way to look at the dawn of this papacy is that it is one more in the pile of recent Catholic novelties and mediocrities. He is the first Latin American pope, the first Jesuit to be pope, and the first to take the name Francis. And so he falls in line with the larger era of the church in the past 50 years which has been defined by ill-considered experimentation: a “pastoral” ecumenical council at Vatican II, a new synthetic vernacular liturgy, the hasty revision of the rules for almost all religious orders within the church, the dramatic gestures and “saint factory” of Pope John Paul II’s papacy, along with the surprise resignation of Benedict XVI. In this vision, Benedict’s papacy, which focused on “continuity,” seems like the exception to an epoch of stunning and unsettling change, which—as we know—usually heralds collapse.
Advertisement

There are reasons to believe that Pope Francis is a transitional figure, unlikely to effect major reform at the top of the church. He is not known as a champion of any theological vision, traditional or modern. He is just two years younger than Pope Benedict was upon his election eight years ago. He has deep connections to Italy, but little experience with the workings of the Vatican offices. A contentious reading of Pope Francis’ rise is that Benedict’s enemies have triumphed completely. It is unusual for a one-time rival in a previous election to triumph in a future one. And there is almost no path to Bergoglio’s election without support from curial Italians, combined with a Latin American bloc. Low-level conspiracy theories already flourish in Italy that Benedict’s resignation was the result of a curia determined to undermine his reforms. This election will only intensify that speculation. An older pope who does not know which curial offices and officers need the ax, will be even easier to ignore than Benedict.
Besides his lack of knowledge of the ins and outs of the Vatican, there is almost no evidence of him taking a tough line with anyone in his own diocese. Are we to believe that Buenos Aires has been spared the moral rot and corruption found almost everywhere else in the Catholic clergy? Or, more likely, do we have another Cardinal who looked the other way, and studiously avoided confrontation with the “filth” in the church, no matter the danger to children or to the cause of the church?  Presumption and detraction are sins, but Catholics should gird themselves; the sudden spotlight on his reign may reveal scandal and negligence.
Liturgical traditionalists (myself included) can only be depressed by this election–it is almost the worst result possible for those of us who think the new liturgy lost the theological profundity and ritual beauty of the Tridentine Mass. Benedict’s liberation of the traditional Latin Mass and revisions to the new vernacular Mass have not been implemented at all in Cardinal Bergoglio’s own diocese. Already some of the small breaks with liturgical tradition at the announcement of his election are being interpreted as a move toward the grand, unruly, and improvisational style of John Paul II; an implicit rebuke of Benedict.
Of course, the papacy has offered surprises in the past. Catholic tradition holds that the papacy was built on a mediocre man, St. Peter, who was once described as “a shuffler, a snob, a coward—in a word, a man.” Pope Francis is now the man at the head of a Church impaired by immoral clergy, negligent bishops, and a moribund intellectual and spiritual life. God help him.
Found more commentary.  One more person unafraid to be a little critical of the man's past.

Ann Barnhardt


http://barnhardt.biz/


ON FRANCIS
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT - MARCH 14, AD 2013 10:34 AM MST
Let me start with a positive comment. Remember, this is the best I could come up with:
If we had gotten the pope we DESERVE, we would now have Pope Snoop Dogg.

And thus ends the positivity.

Francis, like his homeland of Argentina, is a total disaster. He has overseen the near-total destruction of the Church in Argentina. He hates and despises the Tridentine Mass, which is to say that he hates the Mass - let's not mince words, and is a rabid persecutor of anyone in Argentina who shows ANY signs of tradition. A priest in Argentina literally risks the end of his career if he wears a cassock in public. He has forbidden the Tridentine Mass in Argentina, which is an act of direct disobedience, specifically against the papal decree Summorum Pontificum, but embraces horrific "charismatic" and "Superfun Rockband"-type liturgical sacrilege.

Which brings us to his regard for the papacy, and the Church itself. He said yesterday in his bizarre little speech, again and again, that he was the Bishop of Rome, which is true, but in being the Bishop of Rome the pope is the head of the Universal Church, not just the city of Rome. Francis does not believe this, and even made a reference to the idea that the pope is "first among equals". This means that he regards the Church as a mere loose confederacy, and also that he thinks the Church is, or should be, a democracy. The proof of this is, again, his blatant disobedience to Summorum Pontificum. He will never do anything to clean up the sodomite infiltrators in the Church outside of Rome because he doesn't feel that the pope has any authority outside of Rome. Bottom line here: many bishops and archbishops have been kept in line over the past eight years because Benedict was relatively aggressive in booting out extremely bad bishops. Benedict was feared in a healthy way. This guy is basically the big green light to every Marxist-homosexualist to just go ahead and do whatever, because they know Francis will never remove them or even chastise them, because Francis doesn't believe that the pope has any universal authority and is merely the bishop of the city of Rome proper - at least that is the excuse that will be given when nothing is done about abuses and heresies **that Francis is sympathetic towards.**

BUT, like all insecure leaders who say that they reject authority and obedience, reports from Buenos Aires are that he is an iron-fisted totalitarian against traditionalists, precisely because he has no confidence in or respect for his own authority, and thus assumes that no one else does either, and thus wields power against his perceived enemies only from brute force. Again, this is TEXTBOOK 20th century Marxist worldview and psychology. It is also the diametrical opposite of the virtue of MEEKNESS, which is power under control.

Next, he is an "ecu-maniac", which is to say that he is in the "all religions are equal and can't we all just get along" camp. In Buenos Aires he knelt before and received the "blessing" of a Superfun Rockband Church "pastor", and even received "communion" from a Protestant. There are pictures floating around of that episode. This is terrifying. He clearly does not have a strong belief in or understanding of Our Lord, His Church, the Mass or the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. But, as I have stated repeatedly, almost none of the men ordained in the 1960s, 70s or 80s do.

Next, he's a Jesuit. Now, I must disclose that I have a deep personal, seething, visceral hatred of Jesuits, but my hatred of them is a corollary to the fact that they long ago descended into truly evil heresies and apostasy. Jesuits, in addition to being a cult of sodomites who hate God, are also … wait for it … Marxists. Now Francis has in the past put up some token resistance to so-called "Liberation theology", which is just Communist Totalitarianism in religious drag, but he is huge, huge, huge on "social justice", which is merely code for Marxism. This guy's worldview revolves around giving people free stuff because it's nice, which as we have discussed is contrary to logic and reason, specifically in the subset of mathematics, and thus is contrary to Our Lord who is FIRST the Logos, with the Divine Caritas (charity) proceeding out of the Logos. Bottom line, there will be zero positive assistance to the world from Francis with regards to the inevitable economic collapse. Not only will there be nothing helpful coming from him, he will almost certainly come out in favor of more debt, more "free stuff", and more rhetoric about how people are "entitled" to physical and service commodities (which are someone else's man-hours, remember) as "rights".

But Ann! He has gone on record against homosexual "marriage" and abortion!

Wow. Is this really how far we have sunk? The Roman pontiff is on record as being against sodomy and killing babies and we cite this as proof of ORTHODOXY? Really? I wonder if he also believes in gravity. Does belief in gravity constitute a conservative worldview now?

Benedict thought that between the "Natural Solution" (the passage of time yielding the death or retirement of the bad guys) and the appointments he was able to make over the last eight years that he had set up the College of Cardinals to elect a successor that was very much in the Ratzingerian camp. Benedict was wrong. Not only did they not elect a Ratzingerian, they elected the anti-Ratzinger. In the 2005 conclave Francis came in second to Ratzinger, which is to say that Francis was the "opposition". In what must have Benedict's mind reeling today, after eight years of purging and priming the College of Cardinals, the very men Ratzinger placed turned around and elected the anti-Ratzinger. This proves, as I have said all along, that playing prevent defense, namely the "natural solution" of waiting for the bad guys to die is UNSOUND. In war, you fix your bayonets, say your prayers, and you charge.

Tridentine Mass-goers and clergy, this guy will be on the warpath against us at some point. Prepare. Brace. He may attempt to undo Summorum Pontificum either directly or through intense passive aggression. Any hopes of reconciling the good guys in the SSPX is now totally over. Beyond that, the splinter factions will now claim that "they were right", and sadly even more schism will result, and more people will remain outside the Church. So sad.

We got what we deserved, and probably better than we deserve. God's chastisement of His people is sending them bad priests, bishops, and now, in all likelihood, a bad pope. What do you expect? Look around. The world is awash in staggering sin and blasphemy and no one will lift a finger to do anything about it. And, as my last essay on penance proved via my email box, no one is sorry or has any desire to make reparation to Our Lord for any of it. No one has the slightest comprehension of the notion of taking on the burden of guilt for sins that they didn't directly commit, which blows my mind because that is LITERALLY the ENTIRE POINT of the Incarnation. The mind reels at the collective obtuseness needed to miss that glaring point.

No one has the slightest comprehension of the idea of seeing Our Lord in agony and simply stepping over to Him and asking, "What can I do to help You? What can I do to make You feel better? Let me take some of Your burden. Let me go with You."

Nope. So long as we all leave Him alone in His Passion, He will leave us to our self-absorption and indifference.

Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison.

Viva il Papa.

Yep, that more or less describes reality as I see it.
Just putting this video in the record of the "Nightmare Pope" thread. 


I know Ann. She is a VERY angry person. 

Why not hold onto those stones instead of throwing them right away and looking for any possible dirt?

I am reading that he did allow the TLM: http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blo...ntina.html

And he IS our validly elected Vicar of Christ. Some respect for him is necessary.  Let us get behind him with our prayers.  The liberal Jesuits dislike him very much it seems and that is a good sign right there.

I am disappointed that criticism of the Vicar of Christ starts from this forum within 24 hours.

We owe our allegience to the Holy Father.  As a Franciscan myself and following the lead of our Seraphic Holy Father, St. Francis, we must be faithful to our pope.  I intend to be.
(03-14-2013, 02:25 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: [ -> ]Just putting this video in the record of the "Nightmare Pope" thread. 


Although the liturgy was an abomination, the sermon was actually quite good using the story of Pinocchio to repeatedly warn children of falsity of magic and to tell them the only way one can change one's heart is through Christ. 

I have to say it's been a long time since I have heard a NO cleric warn children about the occult. 
Yeah, he does seem to talk about the occult and the devil a lot (see his firs homily).  A friend of mine sent me a translated portion of one of his writings.  Here's a sample:

Quote:“The Demon, theologically, is a being who chooses not to accept the plan of God.  The Lord's masterpiece is man, and some angels do not accept this and rebel.  The Demon is one of these.  In the Book of Job he is the tempter, who seeks to destroy the work of God, to bring us to self-sufficiency, to pride.  Jesus defines him as the Father of Lies, and the Book of Wisdom says that sin entered into the world by the envy of the devil toward the masterpiece of God.  His fruits are always destruction, division, hatred, slander.  And in personal experience, I feel him there every time I am tempted to do something that is not what God is calling me to do.  I believe that the devil exists.  Perhaps his greatest success in these times is to make us believe that he does not exist, that everything is arranged on a purely human level.  Man’s life on this earth is a warfare [milicia], as Job says, in the sense that people are constantly put to the test; that is to say, a struggle to overcome situations and to move beyond them.  Saint Paul takes this idea and applies it to athletes in a stadium who must be deprived of many things in order to achieve success.  The Christian life also is a sort of athleticism, a contest, a race, in which we must get rid of those things which separate us from God.

I think Burdensome's thread helps at least frame how a deep focus on the supernatural and liturgy like the above end up together.
(03-14-2013, 02:47 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-14-2013, 02:25 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: [ -> ]Just putting this video in the record of the "Nightmare Pope" thread. 


Although the liturgy was an abomination, the sermon was actually quite good using the story of Pinocchio to repeatedly warn children of falsity of magic and to tell them the only way one can change one's heart is through Christ. 

I have to say it's been a long time since I have heard a NO cleric warn children about the occult. 

Then as those children grow up they seem him attending ecumaniac meetings for Hanukkah with Jews and Pagans (Umbanda) followers and wonder whether he was speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Talk about sending a confused message.

I can only conclude that he does not think the Umbanda follower is worshipping the 'devil.'  Otherwise he would not be praying with him would he?

F's "devil" is not actually the same Devil as the classic Catholic Devil.

You're being confused by his use of the same word to describe a wholly different thing, from his perspective.
(03-14-2013, 02:35 PM)Magdalene Wrote: [ -> ]I
I am disappointed that criticism of the Vicar of Christ starts from this forum within 24 hours.

We owe our allegience to the Holy Father.... we must be faithful to our pope.  I intend to be.

I wonder if you'd be as patriotic to Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503), who bribed his way into the papacy, which his uncle held not long before.  He had mistresses and seven illegitimate children by them.  He made cardinals for money, and imprisoned and robbed his critics.  The soon-to-be Pope Leo X said of him: "Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all."

Just because a man is pope doesn't make him a good or saintly man.  There is nothing wrong with looking at Pope Francis' past and coming to conclusions.

I've already said I respect the office of the pope...even if Pope Francis doesn't.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6