The Pope speaks with the young Franciscans of the Immaculate
#21
(06-26-2014, 08:33 AM)Qoheleth Wrote: Good morning Vox i want to say something  about the following that is a quote from you last post

"When it comes to Pope Francis, I, like you, imagine him to be quite "likeable" -- but, man, is he confusing and infuriating, and I've come to not trust his motives when it comes to Tradition and traditionalists. He's not just "a son of Vatican II"; he's its poster-child. I think he lacks mental clarity and any sense of how he comes off. And I think he wants us trads gone, for the TLM to die already so folks can get back to Kumbaya Masses and focus on social justice, chummy phone conversations that leave the world reeling, and washing the feet of Muslim women and -- whatever, which, I'm guessing, he thinks will show how "cool" the Church is so people will just flock to Her in great waves. I think he is truly, honestly bewildered that trads exist -- especially young ones. I don't think he can wrap his mind around why young people who weren't raised with it are clamoring for it, and I think their doing so really freaks him out. In any case, his pontificate makes for an interesting ride, that's fo' sho'. SIGH!"

I like most everyone else on this forum  always seem to feel off balance to say the least by what this Pope says and does.  Yes we should try to give him the benefit of the doubt but for me anyways the doubt seems to be increasing.  For instance  you say "he lacks mental clarity and any sense of how he comes off", well i  am beginning to think he really does know what he is doing and is just playing us, because no one as educated as he is can be that stupid. Also you mention "And I think he wants us trads gone, for the TLM to die already so folks can get back to Kumbaya Masses and focus on social justice,''.  Well just think about what you said  for a minute. He wants a focus on social justice. I  interprete that  as a different Gospel and that is something scripture warns us about.  All the church of nice preaches these days is a Social Gospel and  hey don't worry about hell because most  anyone will be going to heaven never mind what ever religion you belong to.   The true Gospel  always will focus on the need of saving souls at any  cost because we all know that is the only reason Jesus came, so he could save us from eternal damnation, not our social problems.  So when we see this abandoned we should really take note because i am thinking that this entire situation is coming from the father of lies.  One thing to remember about this particular  Liar and in fact any accomplished liar is you  have to tell  or represent the TRUTH most of the time enough so your victim is never really able to be certain of the deception but enough so the victims attention is diverted from reality and they become ineffective to  fight something they cant really see.  Anyway i need to cut this short  because i need to head off to work, but i think you  can see where i am going with this.


Later and God Bless

Sorry to intrude, but I think this highlighted phrase here is false. I tend to think he simply isn't that bright. His claim that the FFI should study in a pontifical seminary, and because its under the Pope its orthodox, might reveal a bit of his own poor formation. He warns us greatly about the devil, etc., so I don't think this is plain malice.

But, needless to say, I'm in no position to be an inquisitor and investigate if the Pope is an heretic or not. I just think its not the role of the Pope to cause confusion and worries. Popes should not 'shake things up'.

I must admit I didn't like him at first, but it was mainly a reaction to the media portrayal of him and the enthusiasm with which he was received by agnostics and nominal Catholics. Now, even though he is not my favorite Pope, I must say I learned what obedience is when one is in disagreement, which is a good thing (and even with all the talk of a militant Church, a rebel wouldn't really survive in a military setting). Maybe we should just bear this papacy the best way we can.
Reply
#22
(06-26-2014, 05:50 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(06-25-2014, 03:38 PM)J Michael Wrote: I wanted to like him too, at first.  My wife accuses me of being far too generous with giving people the benefit of the doubt.  Well, Pope Francis has cured me of that, at least with respect to him.  I'd better not say what I really think of him, although, on a one to one basis, as a human being, I'm sure he is quite likeable.

Giving people the benefit of the doubt is a good thing, the Catholic way. So good on you!

But, yeah, that giving of the benefit of the doubt assumes that one doesn't know and doesn't have evidence one way or another as to the "whys" of a person's doing this or that, or behaving this or that way. The thing is, though, that sometimes people act in such a way that it's no longer rational to give the benefit of the doubt overall, in terms of that person's general approach to things. I think we still have to give the benefit of the doubt (which assumes doubt can exist) in individual instances, but we can do that while also thinking that the person in question has an approach to things that is nefarious. Sometimes people do make their motives known and we don't have to guess at them.

When it comes to Pope Francis, I, like you, imagine him to be quite "likeable" -- but, man, is he confusing and infuriating, and I've come to not trust his motives when it comes to Tradition and traditionalists. He's not just "a son of Vatican II"; he's its poster-child. I think he lacks mental clarity and any sense of how he comes off. And I think he wants us trads gone, for the TLM to die already so folks can get back to Kumbaya Masses and focus on social justice, chummy phone conversations that leave the world reeling, and washing the feet of Muslim women and -- whatever, which, I'm guessing, he thinks will show how "cool" the Church is so people will just flock to Her in great waves. I think he is truly, honestly bewildered that trads exist -- especially young ones. I don't think he can wrap his mind around why young people who weren't raised with it are clamoring for it, and I think their doing so really freaks him out. In any case, his pontificate makes for an interesting ride, that's fo' sho'. SIGH!

"He's not just "a son of Vatican II"; he's its poster-child."  My sentiments, exactly!  Old Scratch, I'm sure, is grinning widely and rubbing his hands together with glee.  "Alright!!  This Pope is doing my job for me.  I'll just sit back and laugh!"

Benedict's retirement and Francis' election once again raise questions in my mind about whether or not the Holy Spirit really does guide the voting at the conclaves.  There's an old Russian saying (I'm sure many other groups have their own version of it) that goes something like, "You get the priest you deserve."  One could extrapolate that to also read, "You get the pontiff you deserve."  Oy vey!!!
Reply
#23
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014...-pope.html


The arranged photo opportunities, etc. will, in the end, not win the day. The truth WILL come out.  The pope has not met with the founders or those loyal to him; he only knows one side.

There has been an injustice here, orchestrated by a small number of friars over several years.  The FI was never 'against VII' as one of the accusations out there claims. There was never a wholesale forcing of the TLM either.

What there was and is----is a power struggle at the base of it. Some  others wanted control and things their way.  This has happened in many Orders in the past. But a new foundation cannot be built on lies, secrecy, and arranged photo ops.
Reply
#24
(06-26-2014, 08:33 AM)Qoheleth Wrote: Good morning Vox i want to say something  about the following that is a quote from you last post

"When it comes to Pope Francis, I, like you, imagine him to be quite "likeable" -- but, man, is he confusing and infuriating, and I've come to not trust his motives when it comes to Tradition and traditionalists. He's not just "a son of Vatican II"; he's its poster-child. I think he lacks mental clarity and any sense of how he comes off. And I think he wants us trads gone, for the TLM to die already so folks can get back to Kumbaya Masses and focus on social justice, chummy phone conversations that leave the world reeling, and washing the feet of Muslim women and -- whatever, which, I'm guessing, he thinks will show how "cool" the Church is so people will just flock to Her in great waves. I think he is truly, honestly bewildered that trads exist -- especially young ones. I don't think he can wrap his mind around why young people who weren't raised with it are clamoring for it, and I think their doing so really freaks him out. In any case, his pontificate makes for an interesting ride, that's fo' sho'. SIGH!"

I like most everyone else on this forum  always seem to feel off balance to say the least by what this Pope says and does.  Yes we should try to give him the benefit of the doubt but for me anyways the doubt seems to be increasing.  For instance  you say "he lacks mental clarity and any sense of how he comes off", well i  am beginning to think he really does know what he is doing and is just playing us, because no one as educated as he is can be that stupid. Also you mention "And I think he wants us trads gone, for the TLM to die already so folks can get back to Kumbaya Masses and focus on social justice,''.  Well just think about what you said  for a minute. He wants a focus on social justice. I  interprete that  as a different Gospel and that is something scripture warns us about.  All the church of nice preaches these days is a Social Gospel and  hey don't worry about hell because most  anyone will be going to heaven never mind what ever religion you belong to.   The true Gospel  always will focus on the need of saving souls at any  cost because we all know that is the only reason Jesus came, so he could save us from eternal damnation, not our social problems.  So when we see this abandoned we should really take note because i am thinking that this entire situation is coming from the father of lies.  One thing to remember about this particular  Liar and in fact any accomplished liar is you  have to tell  or represent the TRUTH most of the time enough so your victim is never really able to be certain of the deception but enough so the victims attention is diverted from reality and they become ineffective to  fight something they cant really see.  Anyway i need to cut this short  because i need to head off to work, but i think you  can see where i am going with this.


Later and God Bless

+1
Reply
#25
(06-25-2014, 03:38 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(06-25-2014, 03:19 PM)Papist Wrote:
(06-25-2014, 08:43 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I finally read the Rorate and the La Stampa pieces. Frankly this has upset me much more than I would expect.

The dishonesty of it all. Hardly no one uses the Mass of S. John XXIII as an ideological tool; not even the SSPX, from what I can tell – it would be quite offensive to the great majority of traditional minded individuals to suggest that they only go to TLMs because of political reasons. But the Mass of Paul VI and Vatican II are constantly being used ideologically. Maybe its not plain dishonesty, maybe its just narrow-mindedness: because they are almost sacrilegious using the Mass and the Council to advance ideologies they think everybody is like that.

Besides, I don't see anything wrong in celebrating the Tridentine Mass exclusively. Is that Mass so inferior that it needs to be supplemented by the new Mass? Why aren't the countless churches being punished for celebrating exclusively the new mass?
This reminds me of what some traditional-friendly priests sometimes say: we cannot just bring the Tridentine Mass back (not even saying stuff in Latin or giving the back to the almighty crowd), it will scare people. But isn't that what happened with the implementation of the new mass?

This is a mess. This sort of thing the Pope is doing is scaringly similar to what liberals did in many dioceses, subverting them from the inside – not really changing the rules, but applying them in an malicious way.

What should we do?
I really want to like Pope Francis; I really do. But, so much of what he does seems to undermine what traditional Catholics stand for. :(

I wanted to like him too, at first.  My wife accuses me of being far too generous with giving people the benefit of the doubt.  Well, Pope Francis has cured me of that, at least with respect to him.  I'd better not say what I really think of him, although, on a one to one basis, as a human being, I'm sure he is quite likeable.
Michael, I think you are wise to start out by giving people the benefit of the doubt; at least it seems like the most Christian approach a person can take. In fact, I did what I could do the same at the beginning as well. It's just that things with this pope have not worked out like we had hopped. Let us pray for His Holiness, and let us pray that he does not undo the good work accomplished by Pope Emeritus Benedict.
Reply
#26
(06-26-2014, 05:50 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: When it comes to Pope Francis, I, like you, imagine him to be quite "likeable" -- but, man, is he confusing and infuriating, and I've come to not trust his motives when it comes to Tradition and traditionalists. He's not just "a son of Vatican II"; he's its poster-child. I think he lacks mental clarity and any sense of how he comes off. And I think he wants us trads gone, for the TLM to die already so folks can get back to Kumbaya Masses and focus on social justice, chummy phone conversations that leave the world reeling, and washing the feet of Muslim women and -- whatever, which, I'm guessing, he thinks will show how "cool" the Church is so people will just flock to Her in great waves. I think he is truly, honestly bewildered that trads exist -- especially young ones. I don't think he can wrap his mind around why young people who weren't raised with it are clamoring for it, and I think their doing so really freaks him out. In any case, his pontificate makes for an interesting ride, that's fo' sho'. SIGH!
I absolutely agree! I really thought that the Church was starting to move back in the right direction, but I suppose I was wrong.
Reply
#27
(06-26-2014, 12:05 PM)Magdalene Wrote: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014...-pope.html


The arranged photo opportunities, etc. will, in the end, not win the day. The truth WILL come out.  The pope has not met with the founders or those loyal to him; he only knows one side.

There has been an injustice here, orchestrated by a small number of friars over several years.  The FI was never 'against VII' as one of the accusations out there claims. There was never a wholesale forcing of the TLM either.

What there was and is----is a power struggle at the base of it. Some  others wanted control and things their way.  This has happened in many Orders in the past. But a new foundation cannot be built on lies, secrecy, and arranged photo ops.
The problem is that modernists have the terrible habit of conflating love of the TLM and the traditions of the Church with rejection of the Vatican II and the Magiserium in general. Now there are two possible reasons why this is so. First, the modernists just aren't that bright and can't seem to make important distinctions. Second, they are purposely conflating the two, so as to make traditionalists look like rebels and to further marginalize them. Either possibility is quite disturbing, but the nefarious motives which must be the source of the second option are quite frightening.
Reply
#28
(06-26-2014, 01:26 PM)Papist Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 12:05 PM)Magdalene Wrote: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014...-pope.html


The arranged photo opportunities, etc. will, in the end, not win the day. The truth WILL come out.  The pope has not met with the founders or those loyal to him; he only knows one side.

There has been an injustice here, orchestrated by a small number of friars over several years.  The FI was never 'against VII' as one of the accusations out there claims. There was never a wholesale forcing of the TLM either.

What there was and is----is a power struggle at the base of it. Some  others wanted control and things their way.  This has happened in many Orders in the past. But a new foundation cannot be built on lies, secrecy, and arranged photo ops.

I know there was a thread on this a while back but, as Hishop Athanasius Schneider says, We are in the fourth greatest crisis of the church. It's bigger than the FFI.
The problem is that modernists have the terrible habit of conflating love of the TLM and the traditions of the Church with rejection of the Vatican II and the Magiserium in general. Now there are two possible reasons why this is so. First, the modernists just aren't that bright and can't seem to make important distinctions. Second, they are purposely conflating the two, so as to make traditionalists look like rebels and to further marginalize them. Either possibility is quite disturbing, but the nefarious motives which must be the source of the second option are quite frightening.
Reply
#29
(06-26-2014, 01:57 PM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 01:26 PM)Papist Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 12:05 PM)Magdalene Wrote: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014...-pope.html


The arranged photo opportunities, etc. will, in the end, not win the day. The truth WILL come out.  The pope has not met with the founders or those loyal to him; he only knows one side.

There has been an injustice here, orchestrated by a small number of friars over several years.  The FI was never 'against VII' as one of the accusations out there claims. There was never a wholesale forcing of the TLM either.

What there was and is----is a power struggle at the base of it. Some  others wanted control and things their way.  This has happened in many Orders in the past. But a new foundation cannot be built on lies, secrecy, and arranged photo ops.

I know there was a thread on this a while back but, as Hishop Athanasius Schneider says, We are in the fourth greatest crisis of the church. It's bigger than the FFI.
The problem is that modernists have the terrible habit of conflating love of the TLM and the traditions of the Church with rejection of the Vatican II and the Magiserium in general. Now there are two possible reasons why this is so. First, the modernists just aren't that bright and can't seem to make important distinctions. Second, they are purposely conflating the two, so as to make traditionalists look like rebels and to further marginalize them. Either possibility is quite disturbing, but the nefarious motives which must be the source of the second option are quite frightening.

I speculate that (in general) its the second alternative.
Have you seen the follow-up to this story on Rorate? Apparently someone maliciously added a phrase to the English translation of the article of La Stampa, saying that the two seminarians that left the FFI did so because they reject Vatican II. So, they were trying to make the FFI and their discomfort look rebellious. Pretty nasty; and really, it shows that the problem is not the Pope alone.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06...again.html
Reply
#30
(06-26-2014, 02:23 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 01:57 PM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 01:26 PM)Papist Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 12:05 PM)Magdalene Wrote: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014...-pope.html


The arranged photo opportunities, etc. will, in the end, not win the day. The truth WILL come out.  The pope has not met with the founders or those loyal to him; he only knows one side.

There has been an injustice here, orchestrated by a small number of friars over several years.  The FI was never 'against VII' as one of the accusations out there claims. There was never a wholesale forcing of the TLM either.

What there was and is----is a power struggle at the base of it. Some  others wanted control and things their way.  This has happened in many Orders in the past. But a new foundation cannot be built on lies, secrecy, and arranged photo ops.

I know there was a thread on this a while back but, as Hishop Athanasius Schneider says, We are in the fourth greatest crisis of the church. It's bigger than the FFI.
The problem is that modernists have the terrible habit of conflating love of the TLM and the traditions of the Church with rejection of the Vatican II and the Magiserium in general. Now there are two possible reasons why this is so. First, the modernists just aren't that bright and can't seem to make important distinctions. Second, they are purposely conflating the two, so as to make traditionalists look like rebels and to further marginalize them. Either possibility is quite disturbing, but the nefarious motives which must be the source of the second option are quite frightening.

I speculate that (in general) its the second alternative.
Have you seen the follow-up to this story on Rorate? Apparently someone maliciously added a phrase to the English translation of the article of La Stampa, saying that the two seminarians that left the FFI did so because they reject Vatican II. So, they were trying to make the FFI and their discomfort look rebellious. Pretty nasty; and really, it shows that the problem is not the Pope alone.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06...again.html

I agree with you RF, especially since, at the same time, nothing is down about this... There's a double standard.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)