Tuesday, November 11, 2014

IS POPE FRANCIS INTENTIONALLY BECOMING THE MOST DIVISIVE POPE IN MODERN HISTORY OR ARE OTHERS USING HIS INCOHERENCE TO FURTHER DIVIDE CATHOLICS?

 The New York Times has an article today on Pope Francis rattling the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church which you can read in full by pressing this sentence.

First, the New York Times reports on an interview of Cardinal Francis George who adds his so-called conservative voice to the other cardinals raising concern about Pope Francis' incoherence:

But now Francis’ pontificate has entered a more delicate phase, with some bishops asking whether he has a coherent vision of where he wants to take the church and a plan for how to get there.

“He says wonderful things,” Cardinal George said about Francis in an interview on Sunday, “but he doesn’t put them together all the time, so you’re left at times puzzling over what his intention is. What he says is clear enough, but what does he want us to do?”

Cardinal George, who is 77 and being treated for cancer, remains a voting cardinal until age 80 and says he would like to travel to Rome to see Francis: “I’d like to sit down with him and say, Holy Father, first of all, thank you for letting me retire. And could I ask you a few questions about your intentions?”

Then Father Thomas Reese, SJ a contributor to the ultra-left NCR, (National Chismatic Reporter) continues to use Pope Francis to divide the bishops of the Church.

First left-leaning Catholics in the media as well as the secular media, such as the New York Times, portrayed Pope Francis as the anti-Pope Benedict. Pope Benedict basically was shown as a pariah.

Now the same shameful medias are portraying the bishops appointed by Pope Benedict as pariahs who yet have saviors appointed by Pope Francis, save Archbishop Cupich, new Archbishop of Chicago. 

One way to render the Roman Catholic Church as useless as liberal Protestant denominations such as the Episcopal Church is to divide and conquer it. Then the Church can simply become a minion of the government and its secular ideologies while the Church simply becomes an NGO, a non-government organization providing services to the poor and advocating for liberal secular causes. 

This is what the shameful, divisive Fr. Reese says in the same New York Times article:

The Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and senior analyst for National Catholic Reporter, a liberal, independent news outlet, said in an interview between the sessions that this group of bishops was shaped by the popes who appointed them, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

“There is no bishop who is standing up and being the real leader of a Francis faction,” Father Reese said. “They grew up in conservative families, went to conservative seminaries and have been told not to talk to theologians who are creative because they’ve been labeled heretical. Now Francis is saying, let’s go in a different direction and let’s have a discussion. The last two pontificates, there was no room for discussion, and this makes them nervous and confused.”

Welcome back to the divisive 1970's that both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict tried heroically to lead the Church away from. 

Pope Francis wants to lead the Church forward, to walk forward as he proclaimed at his first public Mass in the Sistine Chapel after his election. However, it appears that we are going backwards to the most despicable period of Church history in the 20th Century, the 1970's. Does Pope Francis really want to lead us backwards with His Holiness' incoherence?

It is said that the last real vacation that Cardinal Bergoglio had was in 1974 and that was with his Jesuit brothers. He has never really traveled. He has never been to the USA. Has His Holiness really left the 1970's Argentina and its Peronist populism and political divisiveness based on the cult of the personality?

God spare us!Saint John Paul II, pray for us!

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to say I don't find any coherence in what Pope Francis says. I wonder if there is a very bad translation service at the Vatican these days. On the other hand, he seems to say the first thing that comes into his head and does seem to lack the formal training of the other Popes, John 23rd included.

Francis seems intelligent and shrewd, but is he just a simple soul who is in fact being manipulated by others or is he just testing the water before bringing in a wholesale liberal agenda? Whatever, it is obvious that the next synod will make or break this pontificate.

Jan

Joseph Johnson said...

I told my pastor the other day that I was still struggling to understand Pope Francis. To hear that Cardinal George is having a similar difficulty "getting" Pope Francis makes me feel a little better. . .

John said...

Liberals disapprove of the fact that, so far, God has not eliminated suffering in the world. They have decided to help things along by downgrading natural and moral laws. The justification seems to say that if mankind could do as we pleased, that if the Almighty would be a little more tolerant most suffering in the world might be eliminated.

In fact, never minds the four last things! God changed his mind about them. He has a surprise for us, at least that is what was reported about what Pope Francis said at the October synod.

Anonymous said...

If you don't know where you are going, how can you claim an action is to go "forward" as opposed to going "backward"?

That's the modern conceit - that society has a direction, that anything new is better, or anything coming from the left is axiomatically superior (intellectually and morally) to any other idea because "shut up" they'll explain.

JBS said...

As best I can tell, he wants:

A. clergy to live more simply and to visit more families in their homes,
B. the international community to establish global minimum wage laws,
C. sinners who are embarrassed but who are not yet ready to change their lives to still feel welcome at Mass,
D. public teaching on Christian hospitality and private teaching on Christian faith and morals,
E. liturgical simplicity and efficiency, resisting both the restoration of traditional elements and the introduction of further innovation.

Anonymous said...

I think there is another name to describe a pope who is trying to legitimize sacrilege (divorced "remarried"Catholics receiving communion without amendment of life and confession).

Dustbin Hoffstein said...

I looked up the definition of "incoherent" in the dictionary. It was as follows:

"Not able to talk or express yourself in a clear way that can be easily understood; not logical or well-organized : not easy to understand; lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance"

I only point this out Father because in your headline you readily admit that the pope is incoherent. This begs several questions:

Can we trust a college of cardinals that deliberately elect a pope with this defect?

Can we take seriously any assertion of concern for the Church from a college of cardinals who would elect such a man?

Can we trust as our leader someone with this defect?

Particularly troubling is the last part of the definition: "lacking orderly continuity, arrangement or relevance." Our God is a God of order. The great fathers of the Church, especially the Angelic Doctor, wrote in an orderly, clear and precise manner.

Who is the source of disorder? I am not accusing the pope of being evil. I am suggesting that maybe he is being used by the source of disorder and confusion. And disorder and Confusion does not come from God.

Jdj said...

Thanks, JBS.
I've been waiting for some clarification put in a concise, understandable verbiage without all the rancor that seems to be out there. I cannot seem to make much sense out of the Pope's utterances, and there seems to be no cohesiveness in the present or continuity with the past at times.
Perhaps JBS could become our official new papal translator? I would welcome that!

Henry said...

"However, it appears that we are going backwards to the most despicable period of Church history in the 20th Century, the 1970's."

Apparently those of us who've seen this movie before, recognize the signs (and see through the smoke) more clearly.

MR said...

Related to Francis' agenda, on a positive note, Archbp Forte lost (by a LOT) in his election for VP of the Italian Bishops Conference.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23205

Marie said...

"A. clergy to live more simply and to visit more families in their homes,"
[How much percentage of the clergy own the "palaces" they live in? Quite a number of bishops live in privately-donated mansions which they share with chancery offices and other priests. What you don't own you don't sell.
Pope Francis turned down the papal apartments for a two-story not-so-simple luxury "suite" at Santa Marta, but the vacant papal apartments still have to be maintained - expensively.

What? Your priest's broken-down car has finally given up the ghost? Sorry, he can't have a new one. Pope forbids that. So better have him walk door-to-door in visiting more families in their homes, and see how far he can go.

I remember a story of Bl. Mother Teresa told to me by a priest from India. That having had blessed a donation of several boxes of blankets, Mother Teresa gave the first blanket to the priest, saying that priests are generally poorer than the poorest among the poor.

"B. the international community to establish global minimum wage laws,"
[Easier said than done. Like, at a stroke of a pen, Francis rendered those who make the papal parchment blessings suddenly unemployed.

Some in the international community - my own third-world country, for instance] simply won't be able to afford a globally-mandated minimum wage without firing some people who are already employed. Or stealing from the rich.

"C. Sinners who are embarrassed but who are not yet ready to change their lives to still feel welcome at Mass,"
[Main trouble with the Synod is that it operates on the false premise that sinners are not welcome at Mass. But they are. It's in our Father's house, which is our house - It's yours, mine, and all sinners' house. You don't "welcome" yourself in your own house.

In fact, we are not just made welcome but are actually commanded [third commandment] by the Lord to come to Mass. Do homosexuals and shack-up couples need a special welcome ceremony at Mass, just for themselves?]

Okay, I see. They want to come to Communion. Not going to Communion is like coming to a wedding party and not allowed to partake of the food. Unfortunately, the Bridegroom requires that we all dress up in our wedding garments before we can eat. You can get your garment right there - see that confessional box? But really, you have to go, or you'll be thrown out of the party into the dark where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

"D. public teaching on Christian hospitality and private teaching on Christian faith and morals,"
[Okay, so we sinners do want a special [public] welcome rite - exactly where in the Mass should that fit? Before the Asperges? At the Offertory? During Communion?
Teachings on Christian faith and morals done privately? I thought Jesus said to "proclaim the good news?" And privately, isn't the sacrament of reconciliation set up just for sinners, complete with the seal of confessional?" What else should be done?

Marie said...

"E. liturgical simplicity and efficiency, resisting both the restoration of traditional elements and the introduction of further innovation".
Oh, no - traditional elements must be restored because in them rest doctrine. Without doctrine, we might as well do away with the liturgy, just like the pentecostals next door who merely sing and dance and gorge themselves with two-hour sermons in their Sunday gatherings. There are ancient established rules of the Mass, and if we are committed to obeying Holy Mother Church, we must obey. Even the tiniest element at a traditional Mass has meaning - The Pope only needs to study to know and appreciate.

Why does the priest pray at the foot of the altar this verse from Ps. 43, "Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God." Why does he support himself with his elbows and bends low to the Bread as he pronounces the words of the Consecration? Why does he assume the oran position at the Pater Noster but not at the Gloria in Excelsis? Why do Cardinals wear the cappa magna on high solemnities? [See Apocalypse 19:13-14] Those little gestures are biblical and they speak of beauty. "Beauty" is God's middle name, not "Efficiency." And Francis wants to get rid of beauty? Sad.

rcg said...

JBS at 08:27, pretty good summary, although I am not sure about B, D, and E as stated.

John Nolan said...

The key to renewal in the Church is better bishops. However, Pope Francis has said he does not want men of ambition or intellect. This leaves mediocrities. The problem with modern bishops is not that they aspire to be Renaissance princes, but that they do not aspire to be any more than compliant committee-men, prepared to listen to liberal lay 'focus groups' and even delegate responsibility to them, and anxious to sidestep controversial issues.

Recently an English bishop spoke out about refusing Communion to those who persist in manifestly grave sin. He was rebuked on behalf of the Bishops' Conference not by its chairman, Cardinal Nichols, but by one of its lay spokesmen.

Joe Potillor said...

John and Marie are right in their comments.

I only leave these thoughts, I do no believe the Pope to be any kind of idiot at this point. It is practically for all intents and purposes impossible for him to NOT know what's going on, and yet he continues to do it anyway.

Paul said...

Remember priests in your prayers. Whatever is thought of Pope Francis, he is still a priest.

MR said...

The CDF just made an encouraging statement on marriage:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/four-days-after-synod-closed-cdf.html?m=1