FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The abdication-backfire?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
After "stacking" the college with cardinals that he himself appointed, I'm wondering what BXVI is thinking now that one of the JPII appointments won anyway. It would seem that our former holy father was indeed surrounded by wolves who did not appreciate his efforts.

If indeed this plan of BXVI's backfires and Pope Francis does turn out to be what many fear, would it be safe to assume that perhaps BXVI abdicating was not God's will? If BXVI had continued to the end, then Francis would not have won due to age. Think about it....
There is no evidence that Francis represents a break with Benedict, for better or worse.
(03-14-2013, 12:46 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]After "stacking" the college with cardinals that he himself appointed, I'm wondering what BXVI is thinking now that one of the JPII appointments won anyway. It would seem that our former holy father was indeed surrounded by wolves who did not appreciate his efforts.

If indeed this plan of BXVI's backfires and Pope Francis does turn out to be what many fear, would it be safe to assume that perhaps BXVI abdicating was not God's will? If BXVI had continued to the end, then Francis would not have won due to age. Think about it....

We'll know on the Last Day.  Patience, young jedi.
(03-14-2013, 12:49 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]There is no evidence that Francis represents a break with Benedict, for better or worse.

If he was the candidate that received the second largest number of votes in 2005,  then clearly he was the liberal faction's choice.

You don't have a run off between two candidates who are close to each other doctrinally and politically.
(03-14-2013, 12:49 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]There is no evidence that Francis represents a break with Benedict, for better or worse.

Actually the Mass at the Sistine Chapel was a rather clear indication that he will break with Benedict in at least one thing.
Here's an article from Dr. Moynihan from 2005. I trust him. He publishes Inside the Vatican magazine. He speaks of the new pope as being fully in the Ratzinger camp at the last conclave. It gives me hope:
http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflas...4-05-3.htm

From the article:

 
Quote: "Sandro says that, on one side, are "Ratzinger, Ruini, Bergoglio, Scola with their proposal for a new 'Papal Revolution.'"

    On the other side, are a group of more "progressive" cardinals, "with Tettamanzi as the man for all seasons."
    Like many others, Sandro believes that Ratzinger is "the favorite" as of today. "The indisputable front runner in this conclave at the beginning of the third millennium is...Joseph Ratzinger."
    Noting that the votes needed to win are two-thirds of 115 cardinals, or 77 votes, Sandro argues that Ratzinger will open the conclave with nearly that number.

    But, Sandro argues, Ratzinger and his party are feared by some cardinals, because the program they have presented to the cardinal electors is "fearsome and demanding." He writes: "They want 'a Church that is not folded in upon itself, not timid, not lacking in trust, a Church burning with the love of Christ for the salvation of all men,' as Cardinal Camillo Ruini said in a homily at a Saint Peter’s basilica overflowing with crowds, two days after the funeral for John Paul II."

    Sandro argues that Ratzinger and Ruini have, in recent months, been preparing for the "post-Wojtyla" transition, attracting to their standard "many leading cardinals...some of them likely candidates for the papacy themselves."
    He continues: "In the curia there is the German cardinal Walter Kasper, one of Ratzinger and Ruini’s scholarly colleagues since the three were simple theology professors. In Latin America, there is the Argentine of Italian origin Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires. In the United States, there is Francis E. George, archbishop of Chicago. In Canada, there is Marc Ouellet, archbishop of Québec. In Australia, there is George Pell, archbishop of Sydney. In Eastern Europe there is Józef Glemp, archbishop of Warsaw. In Italy, there are Angelo Scola, patriarch of Venice, and Giacomo Biffi, archbishop emeritus of Bologna. This is the framework for the neoconservative party whose beacon is Ratzinger."
    He continues: "Another group of cardinals that has recently drawn closer to this party is the circle of cardinals who are friends of Opus Dei, led by the two who are members of Opus: in the Vatican, Julián Herranz, the leading authority on canon law in the curia, and in Latin America, Juan Luis
    Cipriani Thorne, archbishop of Lima."

    What does this Ratzinger-Ruini-Scola-Bergoglio group want? "They want a resumption of the active management of the Church's ordinary governance, its cleansing from 'filthiness,' a reinforcement of the doctrinal and moral formation of the clergy, a renewal of basic evangelization and the teaching of the catechism, a qualitative improvement in the celebration of the liturgy, a new missionary campaign."
    In short, they want to really get to work to re-build the Church.

    The problem is, that this program will likely lead to a head-on confrontation with what John Paul II used to call "the culture of death" and with what is commonly called "secular humanism."
    "

Something to think about: If in 2005 Bergoglio was fully in Ratzinger's camp, as was Scola, and these three were the top vote getters then, and Scola and Bergoglio were the top vote getters now, then the college of Cardinals is fully under the control of those who support this position! That is a huge sign of hope!
(03-14-2013, 12:58 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]If he was the candidate that received the second largest number of votes in 2005,  then clearly he was the liberal faction's choice.


On the contrary, both Ratzinger and Bergoglio were in the same camp. The Ratzinger camp won both first and second place in 2005. Scola was in the same camp and was another front runner then and presumably yesterday. See my last post.
(03-14-2013, 12:58 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-14-2013, 12:49 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]There is no evidence that Francis represents a break with Benedict, for better or worse.

If he was the candidate that received the second largest number of votes in 2005,  then clearly he was the liberal faction's choice.

Yet His Holiness, when he was then a cardinal, pushed for the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

So, most crazy liberal ploy/twist ever, or the Holy Spirit's work?

You decide, but there's only really one choice.
(03-14-2013, 01:28 PM)Tenmaru Wrote: [ -> ]Yet His Holiness, when he was then a cardinal, pushed for the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

So, most crazy liberal ploy/twist ever, or the Holy Spirit's work?

You decide, but there's only really one choice.

It's all a vast conspiracy, man!

:grin:
Mueller, Koch, and Levada were made Cardinals by Benedict, i dont think they would be considered conservative.