Criticizing the Pope
#11
I still call him th' Googlio Monster. He is just a sock-puppet (willing or not) who interprets everything Christian according to the dictates of fashionable Materialism (unrestrained Modernism if you prefer a silly euphemism).

As far as "criticising the Pope" goes, well, St Paul started it: "I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed".

Lots of other saints have continued this venerable tradition.

Then, if we are to not criticise the Pope because it "sends out bad vibes" to the anti-Catholic (anti-Christian) Establishment then you are playing right into their hands. They have, for centuries, been trying to justify themselves (and recruit numbskulls) by cultivating the idea that Catholicism is defined and determined by the fads and fancies of the Pope.

That a pope has the God-given power to infallibly settle disputes about matters of Faith and Morals with a very, very SPECIFIC AND FORMAL PRONOUNCEMENT  on a debateable matter he has no power whatsoever to change, add to, or delete one jot or tittle of the Apostolic Faith.

Th' Googlio Monster may delude himself and his materialistic sycophants that "I am the Church" but I suspect that he'll be in for a rude shock come Judgement Day.

Edited to add; the "little ones" will only be scandalised if Catholics don't stand up for Christianity in the face of Ecclesiastical pomp and secular impositions. Young, egomaniacal, impressionable sycophants will eventually have to face some kind of reality check. If they have no realistic absolutes lurking in "the back of their minds somewhere" they can only imagine that there are none... perfect recipe for hopelessness and despair.
Reply
#12
The first (and hopefully only) point I would add to this conversation is a clarification.

When we say "criticize the pope," we should remember and clarify in our minds that this is shorthand for saying "criticize the ERRORS of the pope" and doesn't mean that we criticize the person himself. It's a peculiar English way of phrasing things, and I don't know how it is in other languages, but once we realize that it is shorthand for criticizing the errors and not the person, that distinction I think clears up pretty much all of the problems here.

Criticizing the person would perhaps look like attacks on his character, motive, and anything intrinsic to his personhood. And perhaps we might legitimately criticize his character, so we can't say that criticizing the person is always wrong, even if it happens to be the pope.

On the other hand, there is a real danger of SACRILEGE here. Yes, we can commit the sin of sacrilege by rashly criticizing the pope by virtue of his papal office, which deserves our honor. Catholic Encyclopedia, "Sacrilege": "Personal sacrilege means to deal so irreverently with a sacred person that, whether by the injury inflicted or the defilement caused, there is a breach of the honour due to such person."
Reply
#13
I agree with you Vox. Knowing there are people like us that don't like him helps keep me from going Sede. Honestly I have sede friends and politically they are really similar to me, so it's gold I have this place or I might fall due to association.

As someone who so heavily invested in political circles I don't find much time to criticize the Pope because I'm too busy criticizing or talking about the problems with modernity, or the modern nation state, or this or that. For me people like Pope Francis are just products of a modern form of thought, so I don't really end up attacking a single person a lot. More the current trends in general.

I think it's important to call out the Pope on his B.S. And there is something different between disrespecting the Papal office and calling a spade a spade. If I were to meet the Pope I would most certainly be respectful!

P.S. I didn't think the SSPX are considered schismatic? Aren't they just considered canonically irregular?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#14
(03-03-2016, 02:04 AM)DeoDuce Wrote: P.S. I didn't think the SSPX are considered schismatic? Aren't they just considered canonically irregular?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a litmus test which was done to Bishop Fellay of the SSPX this past week.
Don't be surprised one bit that is has to do with the upcoming "Unilateral Recognition". Truly, it seems it is one test
he needed to pass in order to get the grade for acceptance.
Reply
#15
Romans 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers."


Why don't these journalists go after Talmudists and hold their feet to the fire?

Nevermind. I already know the answer. But it gets really, really old seeing Catholic teaching crapped on while post-Temple Judaism gets not only a free pass, but obeisance.

Anyway, that interviewer in that video is acting like a jerk and seems to be not bright at all. And don't you just LOVE how all of these non-Catholics, progressive Catholics, and cafeteria Catholics are all of a sudden alllllll about not honoring the Pope and true obedience, but outright papolatry? My gosh, can they BE any more obvious?

Didn't it tick you off how the interviewer asks him, "What are your sins?" -- and then just stares at him, looking at him like he wants to kill him? His game was to be silent in the hopes that he'd just ramble. Annoying. If he'd done that to me, I think I'd have said, after 5 seconds of silence, "Ah, so we're done then? I'll be going! Have a great day!" and walked out. Or just sat there and stared back at him in the same way. Or just yawn and start examining my cuticles. Or close my eyes and watch a movie in my head.

Reply
#16
Oh people, this is 2016 abd you're still talking about SSPX in schism ??  Sticking tongue out at you

No they're not in schism. Its just that some anti-sspx people want to be more Catholic than the popes.

Reply
#17
(03-03-2016, 03:29 AM)Truecharity Wrote: This is a litmus test which was done to Bishop Fellay of the SSPX this past week.
Don't be surprised one bit that is has to do with the upcoming "Unilateral Recognition". Truly, it seems it is one test
he needed to pass in order to get the grade for acceptance.
Poor ole +Bernie. He's cornered into trying to defend Christianity according to the terms dictated by the enemy. He has fat chance of ever doing that because their rules change to suit their convenience.

"Who is not with Me is against Me". Semitic (Jewish and  Muslim) persecution of Christians is constitutionally enshrined in their method and purpose. Poor ole +Bernie will never appease them by pampering their demands because their aim is the total annihilation of Christianity. One demand acquiesced is but one step on their march to the complete subjugation of Christianity to Satan. You think that Jesus' temptations in the desert are irrelevant to today? Think about it!
Reply
#18
By the way, just saw the interview. The quintessential modernist journalist. All thr diabolical disorientation and lies of the media distilled in a 20min interview.

I could almoat wish bishop Williamson were the one in the intetview. Fellay seemed too timid.
Reply
#19
(03-02-2016, 08:02 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Since I was quoted I must respond : not a kook. And yes, I'd not let my children near him.

Also, good luck trying to look good for mainstream culture.

Like I said in my original post, it's not "mainstream culture" that such comments alienates us from.  It's our [b]FELLOW CATHOLICS.  Crass, reflexive criticism does nothing to remedy the situation we find ourselves in and only serves to provide a caricature for progressives to point at as evidence of our uncharitableness.  There are a number of bishops in the US that distance themselves from the EF simply because of the bad example given by a vocal minority of Trads.
Reply
#20
(03-03-2016, 12:50 AM)Oldavid Wrote: I still call him th' Googlio Monster. He is just a sock-puppet (willing or not) who interprets everything Christian according to the dictates of fashionable Materialism (unrestrained Modernism if you prefer a silly euphemism).

As far as "criticising the Pope" goes, well, St Paul started it: "I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed".

Lots of other saints have continued this venerable tradition.

Then, if we are to not criticise the Pope because it "sends out bad vibes" to the anti-Catholic (anti-Christian) Establishment then you are playing right into their hands. They have, for centuries, been trying to justify themselves (and recruit numbskulls) by cultivating the idea that Catholicism is defined and determined by the fads and fancies of the Pope.

That a pope has the God-given power to infallibly settle disputes about matters of Faith and Morals with a very, very SPECIFIC AND FORMAL PRONOUNCEMENT  on a debateable matter he has no power whatsoever to change, add to, or delete one jot or tittle of the Apostolic Faith.

Th' Googlio Monster may delude himself and his materialistic sycophants that "I am the Church" but I suspect that he'll be in for a rude shock come Judgement Day.

Edited to add; the "little ones" will only be scandalised if Catholics don't stand up for Christianity in the face of Ecclesiastical pomp and secular impositions. Young, egomaniacal, impressionable sycophants will eventually have to face some kind of reality check. If they have no realistic absolutes lurking in "the back of their minds somewhere" they can only imagine that there are none... perfect recipe for hopelessness and despair.

I'm willing to be instructed.  What saint referred to a sitting Pope as something along the lines of the "Googlio Monster"?  I've heard plenty of sedevacantists and their fellow travelers say such things, the Dimond Brothers for example, but I don't recall a saint doing so...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)