I don't get this Pope
#41
Choice quotes on Pope Francis from this thread..
(11-05-2013, 05:53 PM)Sister Terese Peter, OSB Wrote: I have serious concerns about the mental stability of this pope.
(11-05-2013, 05:53 PM)Sister Terese Peter, OSB Wrote: Who does he seem to think he is, Chris Matthews??   
(11-05-2013, 07:04 PM)christulsa123 Wrote: He is overweight and looks tired
(11-05-2013, 10:39 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [Pope St Pius X] would punch Francis in the face.
(11-06-2013, 06:55 AM)Sbyvl36 Wrote: He reminds me of Arius.

[Image: 3ae24691c60e7f496fd95342ca8a943b.jpg]
Reply
#42
(11-06-2013, 11:09 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: (snip)

Instead of attacking the Holy Father, listen to his daily homilies on YouTube. He's not teaching heresy; he's teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Stop reading articles by atheists about the pope, instead listen to the pope himself in his daily homilies through the lens of the New Testament and the Magisterium of the Church.

Respectful criticism and expressing concerns about the Holy Father are perfectly legitimate -- key word being "respectful," which means giving him the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, not assigning nefarious motives to him, interpreting his words to mean the best possible meaning, etc. It's OK to be concerned about an apparent lack of prudence and a lack of "media savvy" and such. Talking about these things doesn't amount to "disobedience" at all.

That said, there is a problem in some parts of the trad world in which some people don't talk about their concerns with respect. It's ugly and not allowed here. I also think there's a focus only on the more perplexing things the Holy Father says, as opposed to also on the nice daily sermons you mention, etc. Focusing only on the negative isn't a good thing.

The prayer you quote, while beautiful and attributed to St. Francis, actually wasn't written by St. Francis. It's only as old as 1912.
Reply
#43
I think a good rule of thumb is to discuss the faults of the Holy Father the same way you would (read: should) discuss the faults of your natural father. Not with relish or pride or in the absence of good cause, but carefully, humbly, and charitably (in the ways Vox listed).
Reply
#44
(11-07-2013, 12:09 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Hey, among other things, my conscience compels me.  This pontiff has indicated that one should follow one's conscious - regardless of whether or not it is correctly formed.

See, he never said "regardless of whether or not it is correctly formed." He said atheists should obey their consciences, which they should. Granted, atheists' consciences wouldn't be correctly formed, but what you seem to be implying with how you wrote what you wrote is that the Pope doesn't give heed to the idea that conscience should be formed, even while encouraging people who don't believe to follow the consciences they have.  He said this in an Angelus address in June:

[html]
Quote: So we also [like Jesus] must learn to listen more to our conscience. Be careful, however: this does not mean we ought to follow our ego, do whatever interests us, whatever suits us, whatever pleases us. That is not conscience. Conscience is the interior space in which we can listen to and hear the truth, the good, the voice of God. It is the inner place of our relationship with Him, who speaks to our heart and helps us to discern, to understand the path we ought to take, and once the decision is made, to move forward, to remain faithful.

Pope Benedict XVI has given us a great example in this sense. When the Lord had made it clear, in prayer, what was the step he had to take [i.e. to resign the papacy], he followed, with a great sense of discernment and courage, his conscience, that is, the will of God that spoke to his heart – and this example of our father does much good to all of us, as an example to follow.

Our Lady, with great simplicity, listened to and meditated deep within herself upon the Word of God and what was happening to Jesus. She followed her Son with deep conviction, with steadfast hope. May Mary help us to become more and more men and women of conscience – free in our conscience, because it is in conscience that the dialogue with God is given – men and women able to hear the voice of God and follow it with decision.
[/html]

As an aside, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this about conscience: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzcons.htm

Reply
#45
(11-07-2013, 12:34 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(11-06-2013, 11:09 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: (snip)

Instead of attacking the Holy Father, listen to his daily homilies on YouTube. He's not teaching heresy; he's teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Stop reading articles by atheists about the pope, instead listen to the pope himself in his daily homilies through the lens of the New Testament and the Magisterium of the Church.

Respectful criticism and expressing concerns about the Holy Father are perfectly legitimate -- key word being "respectful," which means giving him the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, not assigning nefarious motives to him, interpreting his words to mean the best possible meaning, etc. It's OK to be concerned about an apparent lack of prudence and a lack of "media savvy" and such. Talking about these things doesn't amount to "disobedience" at all.

Quite agreed.  A lack of respect for any person, for any reason, is, of course, a sin.  (And, for the record, it was those who engaged in personal attacks against the holy father, with bitterness and venom, who I had the most friction with when I posted here years ago.)

I would add that bluntness is wholly independent of a lack of charity, yet sometimes mistaken for it, especially in the written word where tonal & facial cues are absent.  I must assert that bluntness is not only prudent but *necessary* in these times & circumstances.

May I presume, this being a Traditionalist forum, that you are would agree that the sort of critique published in The Remnant and Catholic Family News, those bastions of Traditionalism, are within your rules, in general, in content and tenor?

Thanks.
Reply
#46
(11-07-2013, 12:19 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(11-06-2013, 11:09 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: While praying at the Church of San Damiano,St Francis heard Christ speak to him saying, “Francis, repair my church.” Francis went back to San Damiano and rebuilt the church with his own hands not realizing that God did not mean the church at San Damiano but rather the universal church that was suffering from inside scandal, avarice, division and disobedience.

Once he realized this he preach about a return to God and strict obedience to the Church and began following the Gospel literally preaching love for one another and

For your information, I, like any good Catholic, greatly admire St. Francis, who, according to St. Pio, another immense saint, was the greatest saint who ever lived (other than the Blessed Virgin and possibly St. Joseph).  I have visited the birthplaces of both saints and know a great deal about both of their lives.

I am well aware of Francis' beautiful concern for the poor and downtrodden, mirroring that of Our Blessed Lord.

I am also aware that corporal works of mercy, far from being in friction with the truths of Catholic dogma, as you seem to think, uphold them.  Here's a quote from St. Francis that I suspect you have not heard, or don't think about much:

"Therefore all those who saw the Lord Jesus according to His humanity and did not see and believe according to the Spirit and the Godhead that He is the true Son of God were condemned.  And now in the same way, all those who see the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which is sanctified by the words of the Lord upon the altar at the hands of the priest in the form of bread and wine, and who do not see and believe according to the Spirit and the Godhead that is truly the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, are doomed.

Now, how does that jive with statements heaping scorn on proselytizing, on the Great Commission itself, now in very de-facto denial?  How does it square with the modern ecumenical orientation?

"Proselytizing" has connotations that "evangelizing" doesn't. To give the Pope the benefit of the doubt, which we should give him, means recognizing how that word is typically used relative to the word "evangelizing." What the Pope clearly seemed to be saying was akin to St. Francis's "Preach the Gospel; use words if necessary" -- i.e., asking Catholics to do more than use their mouths in spreading the word, but using their hearts and hands as well. It's extremely important to not treat the Faith like a mere philosophy, and I think it's this that this Pope is concerned about. And I agree with him on that. I still lament his lack of media savvy and his off-the-cuff remarks that lend themselves to being so easily twisted and misunderstood, but credit where credit's due, man.


Reply
#47
(11-07-2013, 12:59 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(11-07-2013, 12:09 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Hey, among other things, my conscience compels me.  This pontiff has indicated that one should follow one's conscious - regardless of whether or not it is correctly formed.

See, he never said "regardless of whether or not it is correctly formed." He said atheists should obey their consciences, which they should. Granted, atheists' consciences wouldn't be correctly formed, but what you seem to be implying with how you wrote what you wrote is that the Pope doesn't give heed to the idea that conscience should be formed, even while encouraging people who don't believe to follow the consciences they have.  He said this in an Angelus address in June:

The problem is exactly that he did NOT qualify his comment, leaving it very open to the very reasonable interpretation that one should follow his conscious no matter what.  That is indeed how it was interpreted, and *not* just by people of ill will.  And we have seen this type of thing again and again.

I do not at all believe this pope is so dimwitted or un-savvy as to be completely unaware that these things are going to occur with the statements he makes - which are, in many cases now, simply scandalous.

I am also aware that at other times he says things that indicate something different.  He didn't do that in THIS widely-publicized interview, despite having ample opportunity.  

If I may:

http://abyssum.org/2013/09/21/pope-franc...omment-858

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/201...wesome.htm

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/2a60c...f-151.html

These criticisms are entirely accurate.
Reply
#48
(11-07-2013, 01:02 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Quite agreed.  A lack of respect for any person, for any reason, is, of course, a sin.  (And, for the record, it was those who engaged in personal attacks against the holy father, with bitterness and venom, who I had the most friction with when I posted here years ago.)

I would add that bluntness is wholly independent of a lack of charity, yet sometimes mistaken for it, especially in the written word where tonal & facial cues are absent.  I must assert that bluntness is not only prudent but *necessary* in these times & circumstances.

May I presume, this being a Traditionalist forum, that you are would agree that the sort of critique published in The Remnant and Catholic Family News, those bastions of Traditionalism, are within your rules, in general, in content and tenor?

Thanks.

Bluntness in itself is neutral. The effects of and point in using blunt words are what need to be considered, and that goes to prudence, which entails, in part, in this context, knowing your audience:  I Corinthians 9:13-23 "For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me: for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.  For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed to me:  What is my reward then? That preaching the gospel, I may deliver the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.  For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more.  And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:  To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all.  And I do all things for the gospel's sake: that I may be made partaker thereof."

I haven't read the Remnant or CFN in a long time so can't comment on them. (I used to subscribe to the Remnant a long time ago and miss it)
Reply
#49
(11-07-2013, 01:04 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: "Proselytizing" has connotations that "evangelizing" doesn't. To give the Pope the benefit of the doubt, which we should give him, means recognizing how that word is typically used relative to the word "evangelizing." What the Pope clearly seemed to be saying was akin to St. Francis's "Preach the Gospel; use words if necessary" -- i.e., asking Catholics to do more than use their mouths in spreading the word, but using their hearts and hands as well. It's extremely important to not treat the Faith like a mere philosophy, and I think it's this that this Pope is concerned about. And I agree with him on that. I still lament his lack of media savvy and his off-the-cuff remarks that lend themselves to being so easily twisted and misunderstood, but credit where credit's due, man.

"Proselytizing" has a bad connotation now that the world very much dislikes to be told things like "Those who hear and do not believe will be condemned".  I think it is splitting words to make such a lexical distinction (again, without providing that clarification).

Since this pontiff also engages in behavior that directly fosters religious indifferentism, such as accepting a blessing from a Protestant minister, and celebrating Old Covenant ceremonies with Jews, I think those who suggest that he actually *did* mean that we should not preach conversion to the one, true faith have a point.  Since Cardinal Kasper has for years been directly dissuading people from converting to Catholicism, with no rebuke or correction of any kind, doubly so.  And I could go on and on and on.

This is the new orientation of Vatican II.  The new pope has said he's disappointed that it hasn't progressed faster.  He is taking the Church to new places.
Reply
#50
(11-07-2013, 01:10 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Bluntness in itself is neutral. The effects of and point in using blunt words are what need to be considered, and that goes to prudence, which entails, in part, in this context, knowing your audience:  I Corinthians 9:13-23 "For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me: for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.  For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed to me:  What is my reward then? That preaching the gospel, I may deliver the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.  For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more.  And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:  To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all.  And I do all things for the gospel's sake: that I may be made partaker thereof."

I haven't read the Remnant or CFN in a long time so can't comment on them. (I used to subscribe to the Remnant a long time ago and miss it)

I certainly agree that the cardinal virtue of prudence has its place as well.

As for The Remnant and CFN, I did provide a link from both above.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)