Washington Post: Conservative Catholics question Pope Francis’s approach
#11
Yes indeed, you make it clear that Pope Francis is clearly building on this very important thing that BXVI invokes ...

I think the difference is that while BXVI was clearly aiming for this, he did it without causing confusion about where the Church stood on issues like abortion etc.

Obviously, the media has a LOT to answer for here.

But I also fear there is more than a grain of truth when Fr Cekada writes in another thread of the danger of:


Quote: from: FatherCekada


3. Handing the modernist faction an array of powerful weapons to use against doctrinal conservatives in the post-Vatican II establishment.


BXVI did not do this.

But it is helpful to have this debate, with your voice here Cetil reminding us of continuity, whilst others see discontinuity.

I have just started another thread about the Legacy of BXVI because - even though embarrassingly I'm promoting my own site - I really think this page of my site reviewing Charles Coulombe's book on BXVI's legacy  could be truly helpful for getting a "nutshell" of what BXVI stood for ... and what is possibly being discontinued ...

Link here again to Charles Coulombe's summation of BXVI's legacy ...

http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2013/10/...-overview/



Reply
#12
As one of the people who was a fan of Pope Benedict, I think the perspective we had and why the full blown panic that is only starting now is that we were willing to give Francis the benefit of the doubt for the last half a year. In my lifetime Pope's parrot left winged talking points all the time, Pope Benedict did with his lame "unregulated markets" nonsense we had some faith he wouldn't fundamentally change doctrine though. Also we were willing to take a wait and see approach, I mean there has to be a transition period and we thought maybe the bad signs were general confusion, media weaselry and bad translations. Now that the 6 month grace period has passed, its dawning on us that its not an image its who Pope Francis really is hence the panic now.
Reply
#13
(10-16-2013, 07:30 AM)Strategos7771 Wrote: we were willing to give Francis the benefit of the doubt for the last half a year....Also we were willing to take a wait and see approach, I mean there has to be a transition period and we thought maybe the bad signs were general confusion, media weaselry and bad translations. Now that the 6 month grace period has passed, its dawning on us that its not an image its who Pope Francis really is hence the panic now.

I agree about those comments.  I would also pay a lot to know what some of the cardinal electors, and some bishops, are thinking right now, particularly the ones who are remaining silent.
Reply
#14
From the Pope's Monday address to the Council for for Promoting the New Evangelization, some good clarifications that indicate he means what he says, contra 'conservative Catholics' who attempt to spin his various statements and actions.

"So many people have fallen away from the Church. It’s a mistake to put the blame on one side or the other, in fact, it’s not about talking about fault. There are responsibilities in the history of the Church and of her men, in certain ideologies and also in individual persons. As children of the Church we must continue on the path of Vatican Council II, stripping ourselves of useless and harmful things, of false worldly securities which weigh down the Church and damage her true face."
Reply
#15
(10-16-2013, 10:59 AM)Cordobes Wrote: From the Pope's Monday address to the Council for for Promoting the New Evangelization, some good clarifications that indicate he means what he says, contra 'conservative Catholics' who attempt to spin his various statements and actions.

"So many people have fallen away from the Church. It’s a mistake to put the blame on one side or the other, in fact, it’s not about talking about fault. There are responsibilities in the history of the Church and of her men, in certain ideologies and also in individual persons. As children of the Church we must continue on the path of Vatican Council II, stripping ourselves of useless and harmful things, of false worldly securities which weigh down the Church and damage her true face."

I think I understand the implication but I find it like everything else vague. I would be all for stripping of ideologies if it included Leftism, which has infected so many of the Hierarchy. But that will be excluded. "Certain Ideologies" means (socialism as long as we don't call it that directly is good, the real problem is traditionalists). Maybe I am wrong though I will bring up "false worldly securities" the next time Pope Francis mentions economic inequality, redistribution of wealth or predatory capitalism which you know he will, I wish they would just say what they mean but its all part of the modus operandi, that they and not necessarily Francis but people on the left believe no one can have another position and heresy is the default. Its like the lie of secularism which means (anti-Christianity) and not actual secularism, I was forced at my job to engage in Native spiritual practices and don't get me started on separation or the lack there of, of separation of Mosque and state.
Reply
#16
(10-16-2013, 07:03 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: Yes indeed, you make it clear that Pope Francis is clearly building on this very important thing that BXVI invokes ...

I think the difference is that while BXVI was clearly aiming for this, he did it without causing confusion about where the Church stood on issues like abortion etc.

Obviously, the media has a LOT to answer for here.

But I also fear there is more than a grain of truth when Fr Cekada writes in another thread of the danger of:


Quote: from: FatherCekada


3. Handing the modernist faction an array of powerful weapons to use against doctrinal conservatives in the post-Vatican II establishment.


BXVI did not do this.

But it is helpful to have this debate, with your voice here Cetil reminding us of continuity, whilst others see discontinuity.

I have just started another thread about the Legacy of BXVI because - even though embarrassingly I'm promoting my own site - I really think this page of my site reviewing Charles Coulombe's book on BXVI's legacy  could be truly helpful for getting a "nutshell" of what BXVI stood for ... and what is possibly being discontinued ...

Link here again to Charles Coulombe's summation of BXVI's legacy ...

http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2013/10/...-overview/

Pope Francis has not done it either. Father Cekada's post is largely speculative, no one has been handed anything yet.


C.
Reply
#17
The "path of Vatican II" us all we've been hearing for decades now. Unfortunately the "Council" will forever remain the north star, the magna carta, the foundation and the compass for the Church in our lifetimes. Despite the overwhelming evidence that the "renewal" has been a disaster of biblical proportions the modern popes and the Vatican will stay the course and keep repeating the party line. As long as we follow the dictates of Vatican II we will be fine, somewhere in dreamland a new springtime us just on the horizon.if only we focus on youth unemployment and getting serious about ecumenism all will be.well.
Reply
#18
(10-16-2013, 06:22 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: The "path of Vatican II" us all we've been hearing for decades now. Unfortunately the "Council" will forever remain the north star, the magna carta, the foundation and the compass for the Church in our lifetimes. Despite the overwhelming evidence that the "renewal" has been a disaster of biblical proportions the modern popes and the Vatican will stay the course and keep repeating the party line. As long as we follow the dictates of Vatican II we will be fine, somewhere in dreamland a new springtime us just on the horizon.if only we focus on youth unemployment and getting serious about ecumenism all will be.well.
I have hope that one day a new council will be called, and return to sanity will occur.
Reply
#19
(10-16-2013, 05:55 PM)Cetil Wrote: Pope Francis has not done it either. Father Cekada's post is largely speculative, no one has been handed anything yet.


C.

Cetil, as I've said I appreciate you supplying the other side to what Father Cekada is saying. Your Mueller quote and more was helpful to me. I think what you are saying is worth listening to.

At the same time, respectfully, I am a little baffled by your comment above. I would have thought a few minutes spent on the National Catholic Reporter website  would bear out his words - at least to some extent?

But perhaps we are meaning different things by "modernist faction" ...?


Reply
#20
(10-15-2013, 11:57 AM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(10-15-2013, 11:31 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: The thing is, Pope Francis came of age in the Arrupean Jesuits in the heady days of the post Conciliar chaos in a theological climate of liberation theology. Based on all that it's hard to really be surprised by his approach to the Papacy.

And based on all that, What Were They Thinking when the Cardinal electors chose him?  :crazy:

By the way, I worried about these coming-of-age factors before his election, when a Short List was being discussed in Catholic circles.  I thought:  (They can't be serious.  Unless he is very unlike his background, this spells trouble ahead.)
Maybe there was an inspiration of the Holy Spirit
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)