FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: A Different Type of Pope
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Michael Voris states why he does not overly criticize the pope and why we shouldn't either

My thinking on this is similar to the idea we used to have here in the United States about the President.

It used to be that "dissent against the President ended at the shore's edge"

The idea behind this is that despite our internal quarrels, we present a united front to the rest of the world.

The incessant attacks against the Pope from Catholics does undermine the church, much like incessantly attacking the President when he conducts foreign policy undermines the country. ( I for one oppose everything the President has done, does now, and most likely what he will do in the future.  That being said, there is no country I'd rather live in than the United States.  Otherwise, I'd move.)

Same goes for the Pope.  The Church will never err, cannot err and will not err in the future.  Ever.  The Pope is a man, like I am.  He sins like I sin, though most likely less than me.  When the Pope speaks, his words carry more weight than mine, both spiritually and theologically.  The Pope is supported by the Holy Spirit. 

The Church has had a tumultuous history, times when the Vatican itself was a practical brothel.  At no time in the darkest days of the church did the Pope or the Magisterium teach error.  At No time in history has the church erred on Faith and Morals.  This includes Vatican II.

This constant fighting reminds me of the gospel of John.  Chapter 6, vs. 60-69.  Specifically verse 68. 

Each one of us has a role to play in fulfilling God's plan.  As the gentleman in the video points out, be sure you're not leading souls away from salvation. 



Michael Voris' argument is upon reflection correct, and any speculation or criticism about Voris and/or the Pope was unwarranted.

I retract the comments and argument and apologize for any act of Gossip, Detraction, Calumny, or or Slander suffered to them as a resort of my posting/speculation.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.
The whole problem here is with Voris' assumption that people equate the Pope with the Church.

This may be true, but it is really an error... the people must always be reminded that the Pope is the servant of tradition, and so when he goes against the tradition he isn't doing his job.

How is that scandalous to the 'little ones'?

And if they are scandalized, that means they need to learn their faith better...

The only good to come out of Pope Francis' pontificate that I can see, is that through all the confusion he is causing perhaps people will realize that popes can't just do whatever they want and that they are to be obedient to the traditions of the Church just like everyone else, even more so.

I think Voris has made a major strategical error that he will eventually regret. When the pope does something seriously against the faith, like allowing people living in sin to receive communion, he will have to either ignore it, or call him out.
Of course the Millstone verse applies to all of us, including the bishops and the Pope.  

Again, another comparison to the President.  When the President orders troops into harms way, because he, as the commander in chief, has determined it is necessary for we the people of the United States, it is our duty as citizens to back the President and the troops and win.  We can sort the consequences out afterwards, but winning is paramount.

The reason for this is that I have a job, you have a job, a lot of other Americans have jobs.  We also have families.  We elect leaders to run the country and look out for our interests because we have better or other things to do with our time.  Therefore, the President is far more informed about what is going on and therefore in a better position to make decisions that affect national security.  

In the same way, the Pope is FAR better positioned to see the entirety of the state of the Church, and make decisions based on that.  Far better informed than you or I as arm chair Catholics playing Monday morning quarterback.  Indeed, I'd argue criticizing Bishops in Public is uncalled for and destructive.  Even the Pope doesn't do that, unless all other methods have been exhausted.

(as an aside, me, and people I know, have approached priests is private when we find something that the priest is doing is not correct.  In each case, the priest has rapidly corrected himself.  The gospel is quite clear on the hows and whens of approaching fellow sinners about their sins.  I do feel pain when I see Nancy Pelosi claim to be a Catholic, but her bishop has called upon her both privately and publicly to change.  In all things, charity and mercy, but in the end, God will judge.)

Rereading the Millstone verse, pay attention to the idea of becoming like little children.

If you have faith, If you believe the Church is Christ's bride and that the Church therefore cannot err, then be satisfied.  Also, Obedience is what is called for here.  IF you believe, then obedience is required.  Look to Mary and the Saints for examples.

Tend to your own Garden.  Look to your own salvation.  Be the light in the darkness by focusing on your own relationship with Christ.  You'd be surprised how much you can help people by being an excellent example.  The Holy Spirit can and will work through you.

How many Saints do you know of that took up arms and assailed the Church?  Very few.  But Martin Luther did.  So did John Calvin.  And countless others.  By their fruits you will know them.

I have Faith.  I have Faith that God has already won.  I have faith that the plan is in place and proceeding accordingly.  What I struggle with is finding my place in that plan, and doing what I need to do to further that plan..

And that is all that any of us can do, including our beloved Pope.  "Who am I to judge?"
(03-17-2014, 02:32 PM)Jaegermeister Wrote: [ -> ]Each one of us has a role to play in fulfilling God's plan.  As the gentleman in the video points out, be sure you're not leading souls away from salvation. 

Like telling Muslims to stay in their faith?  Unfortunately almost everything Francis believes, says, and does accomplishes exactly what you are saying not to do. 
(03-17-2014, 04:09 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2014, 02:32 PM)Jaegermeister Wrote: [ -> ]Each one of us has a role to play in fulfilling God's plan.  As the gentleman in the video points out, be sure you're not leading souls away from salvation. 

Like telling Muslims to stay in their faith?  Unfortunately almost everything Francis believes, says, and does accomplishes exactly what you are saying not to do. 

---I am unable to locate a source, either in video or text, where the Holy Father told muslims to stay in their faith.  Link please, or I assume it is another diabolical statement that has no merit.---

Grace is what brings a person to the Church.  By exposing people who are not Catholic to the Mercy and Charity of Christ and the Catholic Church, we allow the Holy Spirit to work wonders in the hearts of men, and women.

Not trying to build a straw man argument, but would you prefer the Pope to greet these people by saying "You Godless worshipers of a fake prophet, woe be unto you if you don't instantly change your faith, bow down and beg for your souls, because you will spend eternity in the unquenchable fires of hell if you are too stupid and ignorant to understand you're worshiping a false god!"

Yes, because the above paragraph is how you win friends and influence people.  I trust in the Holy Spirit and Christ's Bride.  Do you?
Preposterous.  This is the best Voris can do to explain his twisted position?

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.ph...ring-storm

On Public Criticism of Popes

Some Catholics hold that we must never engage in public criticism of the Pope­­—no matter what he says, no matter what he does. “We must not incite indignation concerning the Holy Father” say these people, even as they themselves—quite rightly—call for indignation concerning wayward prelates such as Cardinal Dolan, publicly criticizing them without reserve for doing nothing other than what the Pope has done, authorized, encouraged or tolerated himself.

But “incitement” is not my intention here. I write because the Pope’s own words and deeds have already aroused indignation among the faithful. Indignation is not a sin when it is warranted. On the contrary, it is a Catholic’s natural reaction to conduct that threatens the good of the Church and the welfare of souls. The Bishop of Rome is no more exempt than any other member of the hierarchy from the indignation of his subjects when he wounds them or the Church of which he is head. Indignation over a prelate’s behavior—even if that prelate were a Pope—is not to be confused with hatred or rancor toward the one who holds the office; it is, rather, an appropriate reaction to a wrong and a natural impetus for seeking its redress. Nor is seeking redress to be confused with a lack of “charity,” as it so often is in this age of emotivism. One is of course obliged in charity to forgive a wrong, but there is nonetheless a duty to repair it, especially when it harms the common good of the Church.

The origin of the pious prescription “no public criticism of the Pope” is mysterious, as it is certainly not to be found in the official teaching of the Church or the common opinion of theologians. Nor is there any sign of a theology of abject silence in the face of papal wrongs throughout the long history of public opposition—often fierce—to wayward Popes, beginning with Paul’s public rebuke of Peter for his scandalous refusal to eat with Gentiles: “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11).” To the facile objection that saints may criticize erring Popes, one might offer the facile reply that we ought to imitate the example of the saints. Nowhere, however, does the Church impose any “saints only” limitation on objecting publicly to what a Pope has said or done in public.

There were no known saints involved, for example, in the public opposition to John XXII (r. 1316-1334) when he insisted in a series of Sunday sermons that the blessed departed do not see God until after the General Judgment­—thus, among other dire consequences, nullifying the traditional teaching on the efficacy of prayers for the souls in Purgatory. Theologians at the University Paris concurred that, while the matter had never been defined as dogma, the Pope was in error, and they petitioned him to recant his opinion. The Pope ultimately did so, noting that he had never imposed his view upon the Church and that everyone had been free to disagree with him. John XXII’s more energetic opponents, including Cardinal Orsini and King Louis of Bavaria, called upon the cardinals to convoke a council to condemn him as a heretic. None of the papal critics in this affair stands condemned by the judgment of the Church.

To address another facile objection, some Catholics maintain that even if it may be permissible to express criticism of a Pope in given circumstances, one must never do so on the Internet or in the press. But it is precisely on the Internet and in the press that Pope Francis has insisted on making his opinions and gestures known to all of humanity. The Pope has the whole planet buzzing about the latest thing he has said or done—all of it broadcast worldwide nearly every day with the assistance of a public relations team headed by PR “wizard” Greg Burke, a former Fox News and Time magazine correspondent and a member of Opus Dei.

One must dismiss as simply ludicrous the idea that in an age of mass communications the only Catholic way to express an objection to what a Pope has deliberately broadcast to the world is some sort of private entreaty. Reflecting the reality of modern social communications, the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides that the faithful, “according to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess… have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful…” (CCC § 212(3)). The canon does not provide “except when it comes to the Pope.”

Recognizing the right and duty of the faithful in this regard, Pope Francis personally telephoned the late traditionalist writer Mario Palmaro after he and his co-author had published a newspaper article leveling a scathing assessment of the publicity-seeking aspect of this pontificate under the bold title “We Do Not Like This Pope.” During the conversation, after expressing concern for Dr. Palmaro’s health (he would soon succumb to liver cancer at the age of 45), the Pope thanked him for his criticisms, assuring him that he “understood that those criticisms had been made with love, and how important it had been for him to receive them.” Further exercising his right and duty, Palmaro later told the press “he cannot ‘state objectively that Pope Francis met our criticisms.’” Palmaro added the caveat that must guide any Catholic who raises a public objection to a Pope’s actions: “we did not want to judge the Pope as a human person. We distinguish the action from the person.”

How odd it is that neo-Catholic proponents of the opinion that the Pope may never be criticized in public, who generally tend to be au courant with “the modern world,” blithely ignore the modern reality of instantaneous worldwide communications, exploited by the Pope himself, and insist upon a way of proceeding that was not even morally obligatory in the days of quill pens, parchment paper, and letters delivered by horseback and ship. With all the world agog at Pope Francis, and with damage to the Church’s image mounting in proportion to the praise he garners from her worst enemies, the proponents of this novel ban on public criticism of Popes now find themselves constrained to remain silent about matters uppermost in the public consciousness of virtually the entire human race! Their pious notion, utterly without foundation in Church teaching, confines them­—and them alone—to a kind of deep sea diving bell, submerged beneath tempestuous waters, wherein the storms whipped up by Francis cannot reach them, while every other happening in the Church is received loud and clear and is fair game for comment and the harshest of criticism from inside the diving bell, especially the doings of those dastardly bishops, who are to blame for everything. This is the absurdity they imagine is enjoined upon the faithful by a duty that turns out to be nothing more than their view of how things should be.

Paradoxically enough, this notion of papal immunity from public criticism has arisen precisely during an unparalleled epoch­—our own­­—in which a series of Popes has said or done things that have caused public scandal. The idea, I suppose, is that objecting to these scandals publicly might threaten the faith of Catholics who are not equipped to handle such commentary, so that the better approach is to say nothing at all. On the contrary, the better approach is not to ignore papal scandals but to educate Catholics to the historical reality that the history of the papacy is riddled with the scandalous acts and omissions of errant Popes and that this reality does not undermine, but rather demonstrates, the indefectibility of the Church, for not even the worst of Popes has been able to destroy her or to negate any part of the deposit of the Faith. Those who take upon themselves the task of commenting on Church affairs do not serve the Church by hiding historical reality from the faithful, who will learn of the current scandals anyway from the mass media and may suffer a loss of faith precisely because they do not understand that Popes can and do err in matters not within the limited scope of papal infallibility.

Indeed, the work of the Holy Ghost can be seen in the First Vatican Council’s narrow dogmatic definition of the Pope’s infallible teaching authority. The Pope is infallible only when he: “speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church…” (First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Sess. 3, cap. 4). Of course, the Pope has no power to define doctrines as he pleases, for as Vatican I also teaches: “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” A Pope, or a Council approved by a Pope, can define as dogma only what the Church has always believed as doctrine, albeit without a formal definition. Accordingly, even in defining the dogma of papal infallibility itself the Fathers of Vatican I were at pains to demonstrate that they were “faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith…”

Therefore, when a Pope is not defining dogma or simply repeating doctrine the Church has always taught, he is susceptible to errors of judgment, false opinions, and prudential blunders, as the long history of the papacy demonstrates. (Cfr. Dr. John Rao’s definitive historical study Black Legends and the Light of the World). Which brings me to the merits of this discussion.
(03-17-2014, 04:18 PM)Jaegermeister Wrote: [ -> ]---I am unable to locate a source, either in video or text, where the Holy Father told muslims to stay in their faith.  Link please, or I assume it is another diabolical statement that has no merit.---

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/pope-f...and-share/

It is utterly amazing that there are Catholics - possibly MOST Catholics - who at this point are NOT aware that this type of thing is exactly what Pope Francis is about.  It is exactly what the false ecumenism of the council is about.

Cardinal Kasper has been saying for years that non-Catholics do not need to, and should not, convert to Catholicism.  He has never been censured or corrected in any way because of this position.  Were you aware of that?

Yes, our neo-Catholic apologists are truly doing their jobs - playing a very good defense, that is. 
(03-17-2014, 04:18 PM)Jaegermeister Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2014, 04:09 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2014, 02:32 PM)Jaegermeister Wrote: [ -> ]Each one of us has a role to play in fulfilling God's plan.  As the gentleman in the video points out, be sure you're not leading souls away from salvation. 

Like telling Muslims to stay in their faith?  Unfortunately almost everything Francis believes, says, and does accomplishes exactly what you are saying not to do. 

---I am unable to locate a source, either in video or text, where the Holy Father told muslims to stay in their faith.  Link please, or I assume it is another diabolical statement that has no merit.---

Grace is what brings a person to the Church.  By exposing people who are not Catholic to the Mercy and Charity of Christ and the Catholic Church, we allow the Holy Spirit to work wonders in the hearts of men, and women.

Not trying to build a straw man argument, but would you prefer the Pope to greet these people by saying "You Godless worshipers of a fake prophet, woe be unto you if you don't instantly change your faith, bow down and beg for your souls, because you will spend eternity in the unquenchable fires of hell if you are too stupid and ignorant to understand you're worshiping a false god!"

Yes, because the above paragraph is how you win friends and influence people.  I trust in the Holy Spirit and Christ's Bride.  Do you?

I do trust in both the Church and the Holy Ghost, which is why I have to outright condemn falshood.  It is not the Pope's job to win friends and influence people.  It is his job to save souls from hell and to point out error.  Yes, that does include seeking the coversion from false relitions which is something that Francis is outright against. When the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia came to the Vatican and showed off the new printing to St. Pope Pius X, he threw it on the floor and simply said "Modernist."  He didn't give a damn about human respect.  The fact that the media loves Francis as much as it loved JPII should tell you something.
Pages: 1 2 3 4