.jpg)
Saturday, January 4, 2014
THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT POPE FRANCIS DOES THAT POPE BENEDICT NEVER DID! OH, WAIT, THIS IS POPE BENEDICT! WHO KNEW?
With everyone, especially the media, gaga over Papa Francis, one would get the impression that Pope Benedict never went anywhere, touched anyone, especially the sick, poor, elderly and children and never would go to the periphery, such as to Muslims and their mosques Jews and their shrines, Protestants and their churches, athiests, dictators who hate the Church and their countries, and give interviews on jets or private interviews to journalists. There is simply no evidence that Pope Benedict did any of these things! Or is there?
.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Are people closer to Christ now than they were a year ago? That's the key evaluative question. Francis is clearly more popular than Benedict, which is fine, but what matters is the effect this popularity has on conversion of sinners and the growth in discipleship.
FrJBS, i think more are turning toward Him when they are looking at Francis. I think it is mistake to compare the Popes except to show the continuity that exists. Pope Francis clearly feels the need to emphasise parts of the flock that have run off. I really like that. He has not discouraged any of the rejuvenation that flows from Summorum Pontificum. Perhaps Benedict strengthened the inner Church and Francis the outer Church?
FrJBS, I think the effect of Francis' so called "popularity" is evident. He is getting positive attention for the Church from the "world", but many in his own flock (i.e., the traditional and orthodox) feel somewhat betrayed and perhaps even mocked by Francis. So, does Francis continue to rob Peter to pay Paul and grow the Church membership of moderates and liberals who will at best be cafeteria Catholics, at the risk of losing some of the most devout members to rift communities like the SSPX, or should Francis check his own ego and arrogance and strike a more balanced way of pastoring to his flock without all the name calling and judging of the more devout, traditional and orthodox members?
So, does Francis continue to rob Peter to pay Paul and grow the Church membership of moderates and liberals who will at best be cafeteria Catholics, at the risk of losing some of the most devout members to rift communities like the SSPX, or should Francis check his own ego and arrogance and strike a more balanced way of pastoring to his flock without all the name calling and judging of the more devout, traditional and orthodox members? No! But true traditional, orthodox Catholics like myself are not going anywhere! And Pope Francis does not need to"check his ego" because he doesnt do anything because HE needs the adulation. That is a rather insulting assumption. I love Pope Benedict. But in all honesty , the nominal Catholic and the outside world was not hearing him. The world is listening to Pope Francis, and nominal Catholics are considering the Church again! That makes this traditional Catholic very excited. The question is can he make such nominal Catholics actually consider a real relationship with Christ and His Church or will they just remain nominal, cafeteria Catholics but now just feel better about their nominal Catholicism? If, as another poster pointed out, the real measure of the fruits of Pope Francis will be whether these people will come in to real relationship with the living Church, and the living Christ! Lets all pray for that and for Pope Francis and for those traditional and Traditional Catholics who feel neglected and betrayed. While I believe there is no reason to feel this way, their needs are real as well! As for traditional Catholics like myself who love Pope Francis like we love Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we are quite excited to see a Pope who is turning heads in the secular world and completely confounding the main stream media in their attempt to tell their story instead of the truth!
I am a traditional and orthodox Catholic and I am not in the least "betrayed" by Pope Francis.
Traditionalists may feel betrayed, but not traditional Catholics. And there is a world of difference.
Pater Ignotus should be named a monsignor. I'm going to start a petition to this effect!
Certainly he looks old enough, older than old enough!
The issue with the "pope" is being blown all out of proportion anyway. Up until John Paul II a pope was rarely seen. Since JP II was turned into a rock star and so was the office of the papacy. The office of the pope has always been the rock of stability, that obviously has changed under Francis. Although Pope Paul didn't wear his tiara after the coronation and when he entered the Lateran to be enthroned as bishop he never envisioned that a pope wouldn't be crowned. John Paul I did away with the crown for good, John Paul II did away with the sedia and Benedict did away with the tiara on the coat of arms. All the trappings are gone but never has a pope wielded power in such a monarchical way than Francis. Francis is kind of smart to play to the masses who are made uncomfortable with formality, tradition and ritual, yet he wields power not seen since the times of the High Middle Ages. Pretty darn smart. But his role isn't to keep telling traditional Catholics how backward they are or to keep make everybody else comfortable in their Catholic cafeteriaism, but to pass on the Faith in totality. That's all. And to settle doctrinal disputes. We don't need to hear from him everyday or on every subject under the sun.
Pater Ignotus is 55, so he has no worries. And he would prefer to be made a Margrave, anyway.
Pater Ignotus said:
"I am a traditional and orthodox Catholic."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!! That's the funniest thing I heard in years! I needed a good laugh.
Anonymous 1:46 p.m., It seems to me that "rock star," "media darling" started not so much with John Paul II as with John XXIII, who got much more attention, in the way you mean, than Pius XII. In the United States similarly President Kennedy got much more of that sort of attention than President Eisenhower or President Truman. I and many people thought that the news media were making President Kennedy more like a king than a president of a republic. Whether the decline of our culture began with the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the First World War, the "Sixties," or more recently still (and there are things the other way, such as advances in medicine, and, I think, more-than-not better race relations and a decline in snobbery), our task is to do the best we can here and now.
-Ancil Payne (with a disapproval of nondistinctive "handles" and an ignorance of how to make a distinctive one)
Is it just me, or does anybody else think that maybe pastor Gene has gone under cover and is posting as one of us several anonymi now?
dave - Oh? Would you care to elaborate?
Who wouldn't want to be made a margrave?
Well, Anonymous at 4:51, for all I know you may be Gene. I could be Gene as far as anyone knows. Ignotus could be Gene (though he'd have to be one very sick man to pull off a stunt like that).
Gene has no reason to hide behind... anonymous names.
Gene does do 'Anonymous' at all unless his logon is broken. Even the few times he has set up an 'alter ego' post it was more 'Gene' than the real one and was used for comic effect. I think it was called 'Abusatron'.
A margrave was a count on the borderlands of the Holy Roman Empire (German, Markgraf) who had a certain autonomy. The English equivalent were the marcher lords who defended the kingdom against the savage Welsh and Scots and could raise armies on their own authority.
In 1346 the bulk of the English army under Edward III were in France giving the French a good seeing-to, notably at the battle of Crecy. The Scots seized the opportunity and came squirling and hooting over the border, only to be routed near Durham by an army commanded by the Archbishop of York and the marcher lords Neville and Percy.
Durham was a semi-independent County Palatine and the see was under a Prince Bishop until 1832. Wojtyla's predecessor in Cracow, Adam Sapieha, was a prince, and the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Schoenborn, is a count (Graf). Sadly, most of the Catholic hierarchy wouldn't make Debrett's or the Almanach de Gotha.
No, I have never hidden behind anonymous names. I believe that is cowardly unless there is a really compelling professional reason for it, and few truly have that. The "Abusatron" gig was on another forum of friends and everyone knew who I was, anyway.
I think we all have Ignotus figured out. He is the best that Vatican II can produce...
Nope. Pope Benedict never did any of those things. That's just Photoshop (by the way, interested in seeing a photo where "Ratzi the Nazi" is giving the Nazi salute?).
*SNORE.*
/snark.
Post a Comment