Criticizing the Pope
#21
(03-03-2016, 02:06 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(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...

Beware of old men in lamb skins! :grin:
Reply
#22
I was also quoted and I am also not a kook.

It may have been a bit of hyperbole but I do stand by the initial sentiment: how are people standing by him? How are they not throwing him out?

When I went through RCIA  the priest had started off with a bit of an introductory speech and he then asked if we had any questions. We had none so he quipped : "You're going to make great Catholics!" 

While that was very funny (at least to me) it seems to be true. While Catholicism can really engage your mind, if you let it, far more Catholics just blindly follow. They follow their baser passions and convince themselves that all is ok and they can follow poor catechetical teaching telling themselves all is ok.

I would much rather that Pope Francis be less popular and stand firm in the faith than have him tuck his crucifix in for a rabbi or stand with an  abortionist and act like all is well.
Reply
#23
I'm looking at my original post.  I didn't call anyone a kook.  I said that such comments have "gotten Trads labeled as kooks and troublemakers by the hierarchy".  This is undeniably true.

(03-03-2016, 02:13 PM)AugustineNYC Wrote: How are they not throwing him out?

Because the Church isn't a Democracy and we don't have votes of no confidence on the occupant of Chair of Peter.
Reply
#24
Then what should be done?  I do understand where your coming from. The truth is I do respect Pope Francis but while the Church is not a democracy we live in a democracy.

For a while now I have been meeting with a few of the older parishioners from my church and it makes me sad to see older Catholics trying to perform verbal Judo to make the Pope Francis' actions fit into their Catholic view. It's true If I said to a particular older gentleman "throw him out" he would probably be devastated, but time and time again when I ask him about Francis this or that he seems to disapprove. But over all he's in love with his Pope.

There is a weird disconnect in this poor man's mind and he's not alone. The words and the actions have to line up and it seems that they are not many times. Do I continue to pray for Pope Francis? Yes and his intentions and I would still encourage all to do so. But I won't turn a blind eye to what's going on for proprieties sake. That's folly at least to me.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone with my hyperbole, I will try to keep in under control.
Reply
#25
It's not a problem to disagree with the Pope.  It's not a problem to disagree strongly with the Pope.  It's a huge problem to disrespectfully disagree strongly with the Pope.

Listen, either we believe that Francis is the Vicar of Christ and treat him with the respect that entails

OR

we drop all pretenses and embrace sedevacatism or Orthodoxy.

You can't have it both ways.
Reply
#26
I cannot understand how it would ever be impermissible to point out that someone is wrong simply because that person happens to hold a particular office.  Offices do not stop people from being wrong.  In fact, the higher the office and the greater the reach of the office, the greater the impact of the officeholder's wrongness.

It seems to me that many people seem to conflate the ideas of manners with "respect."  If you really think that the pope is wrong, then it is he that is disrespecting his office.  To respect the office, then, might require a rather forceful and unmanned refutation of his errors.
Reply
#27
That's correct dcmaccabees

We don't always have to agree with the Holy Father but we must respect him.
Reply
#28
(03-03-2016, 03:26 PM)ermy_law Wrote: I cannot understand how it would ever be impermissible to point out that someone is wrong simply because that person happens to hold a particular office.  Offices do not stop people from being wrong.  In fact, the higher the office and the greater the reach of the office, the greater the impact of the officeholder's wrongness.

It seems to me that many people seem to conflate the ideas of manners with "respect."  If you really think that the pope is wrong, then it is he that is disrespecting his office.  To respect the office, then, might require a rather forceful and unmanned refutation of his errors.

"President Obama, your attempt to appoint a replacement for Scalia is an overreach that we cannot condone"

VS

"Listen you closet Mohammadian!  If you think that we'll let you appoint anyone then you're an even bigger idiot than we thought!"
Reply
#29
(03-03-2016, 02:19 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote: I'm looking at my original post.  I didn't call anyone a kook.  I said that such comments have "gotten Trads labeled as kooks and troublemakers by the hierarchy".  This is undeniably true.

(03-03-2016, 02:13 PM)AugustineNYC Wrote: How are they not throwing him out?

Because the Church isn't a Democracy and we don't have votes of no confidence on the occupant of Chair of Peter.

Am I incorrect in understanding that an ecumenical council can remove a pope?
Reply
#30
(03-03-2016, 03:34 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote:
(03-03-2016, 03:26 PM)ermy_law Wrote: I cannot understand how it would ever be impermissible to point out that someone is wrong simply because that person happens to hold a particular office.  Offices do not stop people from being wrong.  In fact, the higher the office and the greater the reach of the office, the greater the impact of the officeholder's wrongness.

It seems to me that many people seem to conflate the ideas of manners with "respect."  If you really think that the pope is wrong, then it is he that is disrespecting his office.  To respect the office, then, might require a rather forceful and unmanned refutation of his errors.

"President Obama, your attempt to appoint a replacement for Scalia is an overreach that we cannot condone"

VS

"Listen you closet Mohammadian!  If you think that we'll let you appoint anyone then you're an even bigger idiot than we thought!"

I like the 2nd option. :grin:  But then, no one ever accused me of having too much couth. :LOL:

Besides,  the first option ain't an option.  I don't think anyone seriously said that.  But, that's for other threads...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)