Environmental manifesto may confirm Pope Francis as ‘Benedict 2.0’
My comments first: Let's face it, blogdom, no matter the ideology, is but a small, microcosm of the worldwide Church. Some bloggers, excluding me of course, in all humility, take themselves way too seriously. Even if a blog gets several thousands hits that is but a drop in the bucket of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world.
I am astounded, though, even now, that some who comment on my blog are so anti-Pope Francis. It is an oxymoron to call oneself Catholic and at the same time anti-Pope Francis. This tells me that some who comment on my blog are indeed in schism. Others who are anti-Pope Francis and comment on my blog are at heart Protestants who may have been received into the full communion of the Catholic Church but really did not embrace all that Catholicism is, especially respect for the Magisterium of the Church--the living Magisterium, which is the pope and bishops in union with him.
I'm not speaking of an ultramontane approach to the papacy or to Rome here. I'm not saying one can't critique some aspects of a pope or the papacy in a respectful, charitable way. But I am saying that an honest to God, true Catholic must have respect for the papacy and the pope even if one personally dislikes a pope outright or one or another aspects of his papacy.
Those who seek to restore to the Church the dignity she had prior to Vatican II but in a post-Vatican II sort of way, what I shall call sound-minded orthodox Catholics who love the liturgy because it is the means to a mystical relationship with the Most Holy Trinity, have and or had a golden opportunity to show how true Catholics respect the pope.
Let me explain. Pope Benedict XVI was lambasted by heterodox Catholics in the most vile way and the secular media did the same thing. The two were in cahoots. These progressive Catholics despised Pope Benedict and let their venom out regularly on the more liberal blogs.
But now, and there are those who comment here, we have so-called orthodox, conservative or traditional Catholics do the same to Pope Francis. You would have thought they would have shown the world that they weren't like the progressives and would arise above petty anger and shrill arguments about this pope. But no, they showed themselves to be just like the progressives but with a different ideological bent, but make no mistake, just like the progressives in their vile ugliness.
John Allen has a good article on the similarities between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis when it comes to the environment. Pope Francis is more effective because of his personality but their theologies are the same:
Mythology and media narratives to the contrary, Pope Francis has far more in common with Pope Benedict XVI than whatever separates them. Francis probably could be better understood as “Benedict 2.0,” supplying a warmer and more populist package for the same basic positions espoused by his more cerebral predecessor.
The release on Thursday of Pope Francis’ highly anticipated encyclical letter on the environment, Laudato Si, may well be the latest proof of the point.
First of all, it’s hardly as if embracing the cause of fighting climate change, saving the rainforests, and otherwise protecting the environment is somehow a break with Benedict. On the contrary, Benedict was famously the pope who installed solar panels atop a Vatican audience hall and signed an agreement to make the Vatican Europe’s first carbon-neutral state in order to back up his strong ecological concerns.
In a speech to the German parliament in 2011 – a speech, by the way, that probably meant more to the German pontiff than most he delivered during his eight-year reign – Benedict said the rise of Germany’s Green movement in the 1970s was “a cry for fresh air, a cry that cannot be ignored or put aside.”
Yet Benedict also tried to paint a distinctly Catholic shade of green in the way he approached environmental questions, and Francis recently provided a hint he’s thinking the same way.
In brief comments to reporters aboard the papal plane returning from last Saturday’s trip to Bosnia, Francis said his forthcoming environmental encyclical will deal, among other topics, with relativism, which he described as a “cancer of society.” (In the same breath, Francis also called consumerism a “cancer.”)
It might seem odd for Francis to use an environmental tract to bring up a debate over moral philosophy, but that’s where understanding the mind of Benedict XVI helps.
For Benedict, secular environmentalism is the most promising route for recovery of a strong sense of “natural law,” meaning the idea that right and wrong, truth and falsehood, are real qualities which exist in nature, and which human beings can discover using their reason and conscience.
Many Catholic thinkers, prominently including Benedict XVI, worry that natural law has been supplanted in the popular mind either by relativism or by positivism, the idea that moral rules are imposed by human authority and thus more akin to the speed limit than to gravity – something invented, instead of being given in nature.
Benedict believes that environmentalism is leading people back to the idea of natural law, because it proves that limits on what human beings can do without paying a price aren’t just arbitrary but absolutely, objectively real.
“Everyone can see today that … we can’t simply do whatever we want with this earth that has been entrusted to us, we have to respect the inner laws of creation, of this earth, if we want to survive,” Benedict said in 2007.
His comments on relativism last Saturday indicate Francis is likely to make a similar point, treating environmentalism not just as an important social cause, but also a moral teaching moment.
One could go on cataloguing the links between Francis and Benedict. This week, for instance, Francis devoted one of his morning homilies to insisting that Christians must not “weaken or water down” their identity, warning against the influence of “modern Gnostics” and an “insipid religion of just prayers and ideas.”
Through the history of salvation, Francis said, God has led the Church progressively from “ambiguities” to “certainties.” Close your eyes, and you easily could have believed you were hearing Benedict XVI.
In most of the ways that matter, what’s changed from Benedict to Francis isn’t the lyrics but the music. Instead of Wagner, people today seem to hear a saucy Latin rhythm when the pope speaks, often making the message easier to take.
Last week, for example, Francis met the bishops of Puerto Rico in the Vatican, presenting them with a speech blasting gay marriage and “gender theory” in exactly the same terms Benedict XVI would have used. Francis did it, however, while inviting the bishops to join him for lunch, joking that “a little wine will loosen the tongue and you can tell me the truth.”
The real difference between the two pontiffs may lie in reach and effectiveness, not content. Francis has succeeded in convincing a wide swath of people, especially those outside the Church, that he values their experiences and cares about their perspectives. That impression makes them more inclined to view his take on things with sympathy rather than skepticism.
Warmth, in other words, isn’t just about packaging and tone. It also translates into power, meaning the ability to shape opinion and to win hearts and minds where others have failed.
Laudato Si seems destined to be the latest chapter in this bond between Benedict and Francis, with the key question being whether Francis’ more enchanting presentation once again allows his “2.0” version of the message to pack a greater punch.
My final comments: Just as Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are on the same page when it comes to the environment, so too, it is now appearing, that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are on the same page as it concerns the liturgy as proven by the choice of Pope Francis for the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, African Cardinal Robert Sarah.
I've said all along and having personally witnessed it at the Vatican, that the liturgies of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are almost identical except for one or two things. The choir under Pope Francis has improved in quality. Pope Francis prefers a simpler, less ostentatious approach to the liturgy in vestments mostly or in anything that calls attention to the pope in the liturgy.
Let's face it, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, Pope Benedict loved the Baroque in vestments. But the Baroque in Roman vestments does have a small group of admirers and a larger, larger group that find it distasteful.
Pope Francis vestments are semi-modern, but tasteful, austere and lack ornateness. His vestments are improving with time and certainly under the tutelage of Msgr. Guido Marini.
I suspect, too, that Pope Francis has a great respect for Msgr. Guido Marini and has learned from him a great deal about papal liturgies. I suspect too that Pope Francis for the most part respected what Cardinal Ratzinger and later Pope Benedict tried to do with the liturgy in restoring dignity to it worldwide.
There was real fear that the other Marini, Archbishop Marini would be named the prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship. Rather, we got a Ratzinger Cardinal who is even more like Ratzinger than Ratzinger ever was.
There is a paradox here and the symbols of Pope Francis speak very loudly for those who can read and hear his symbols!
Finally, I believe that Pope Francis is a genius. He wants to be inclusive in a purified Catholic way. He wants to make Catholicism attractive to outsiders, secularists, non-believers, to draw them in and then allow God's grace to do the rest. He trusts in God's grace.
He wants to pull the progressives, the heterodox in too, but he wants God's grace to purify them too. He trusts in God's grace.
As for the so-called traditionalists? He's separating the sheep from the wolves. And God's grace will do the purifying. You can read some of what the wolves think in the comments on my blog.
God bless Pope Francis! Long live the Pope! Viva il Papa!
53 comments:
"Finally, I believe that Pope Francis is a genius. He wants to be inclusive in a purified Catholic way. He wants to make Catholicism attractive to outsiders, secularists, non-believers, to draw them in and then allow God's grace to do the rest. He trusts in God's grace."
Pope Francis called a Synod with the express intention of permitting sacralige and acceptance of sodomy. This was made evident by that scandalous report that was published worlwide, WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL. He didn't care that the bishops actually at the synod didn't write it or approve it. It was written, probablly before the synod even began because all the translations were waiting and ready to be publish. He appoints men like Kasper, Daneels and Baldassari to this synod. Men who have been proven to be liars, racists and theives ( stealing the book on marriage written by the 5 cardinals). Francis has allowed the impression that immoral and evil actions and beliefs are up for discussion. Francis is NOT confirming the bretheren in the Faith.......still silence on Ireland turning awy from Christ. Francis has been a cause of chaos and scandal from the moment he wlked out onto that balcony. Francis DAILY calls traditional orthodox Catholics the most uncharitable names possible. He does this publicly, during the Mass, and every day! He kneels before protestants, bows to receive their "blessing" and does not call them to conversion to the Truth. Catholics who actually believe and try to live the Catholic Faith are somehting he despises. You need to speak the truth Father and stop abussing faithdul Catholics.
Distrust and suspicion regarding one Pope does not equal a disrespect for the Papacy.
I am telling the truth and you prove my point by your ugly one sided comments. You are in schism. Simply admit it and stop commenting here. I'm more like Benedict than Francis is allowing for such rubbish!
When someone says he "would not follow the pope except out of curiosity" as Gene (Angry Augustinian/Jolly Jansenist) has, he has shown complete disrespect for Pope Francis and for the papacy in general.
This is not expressions of "distrust and suspicion," but of rejection of the Petrine Office.
"I am telling the truth and you prove my point by your ugly one sided comments. You are in schism. Simply admit it and stop commenting here. I'm more like Benedict than Francis is allowing for such rubbish"
Really. Francis says Jews and Muslims don't need to convert to the Gospel and I'm in schism. That is rich.
AND as usual Father you CANNOT REFUTE what I wrote in my comment above. It's all true.
TRUE FACTS, NOT OPINIONS.
1. Francis has remained silent on the entire country of Ireland embracin sodomy.
2. Francis personally invited Cardinal Kasper to speak at this synod and said the book he wrote calling for sacraligious communions "theology done on ones knees".
3. Francis specially appointed Cardinal Daneels to the synod. There isn't enough paper to write about a man like Daneela.
4. Francis calls for open discussion but tried to silence the synod fathers when they didn't follow his lead amd evencha ged the rules mid way in order to publish that scandalous ratio.
And the list could go on. All true. 100% TRUE. And you can't refute it You judge and condemn me publicly for pointing out the truth. How merciful and charitable of you Father. But I could care less what you think. But for god sake stop with the emotional attacks and face and defend the ctual a tions of that man. He did everything that I said he did and everybody knows it. He ridiculed faithful Catholics who sent him a spiritual boquest of prayers and yet invited, embraced a woman who mutilated her body nd pretends to be a man and is "married" to another woman. He invites people like tht and embraces them and ridicules faithful Catholics who dodn't rationalize sin but pick up their criss and carry it.
Your schismatic hatred of the Holy Father rivals that of the dastardly Chic publications and fundamentalists with whom no dialogue is possible because of their preconceived ideologies about the pope and true Faith.
Everything you have enunciated is enunciated in a shrill way by the right wing schismatic branch of Catholicism, everything and nothing is said, as in the Crux article by John Allen of what the pope has actually done and where he is going.
Stop it or else I'll need to exorcise you!
"Stop it or else I'll need to exorcise you!"
But father weren't you ordained after Pope Paul VI abolished the ancient, ancient, ancient, ancient minor order of exorcist? That's why the demons aren't afraid of you.
The demons are brilliant fools.
Of course the demons are afraid of me, i'm charismatic.
Honestly Fr AMJ, the comments these Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists make are vile and assisting Satan in his consolation of claiming souls After Christ's death. They should all seriously ask whether they want to be in the Church, and if the Hate Pope Francis so Much they should leave the church and choose eternal damnation for themselves. The only place to go is out the door and not even the SSPX has any sacramental ministry in the church. Guys if you hate Pope Francis and the church, leave this blog and the RCC, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. At least you will be honest about yourself.
"Guys if you hate Pope Francis and the church, leave this blog and the RCC, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. At least you will be honest about yourself."
Who are you to judge and condemn?
And newsflash telling people to leave the Church is the Devil's work. And telling them to not "let the door hit you on your way out" isn't exactly nice. Is it Father? It sounds kind of shrill to me.
And another newsflash the Church did not begin and end with Francis. Soon he will be dead and rotting in the ground and the Church will continue. And why do we have a problem and yes dislike for Francis? Is it because he is upholding and teaching the Catholic Faith or because he isn't. It's not rocket science. And I understand all you modernist liberals think this is the moment when you will finally change the Church. But it won't happen. The Church is being brought to the brink of destruction by Francis but God will not be mocked by this man. The cross will triumph in the end. So embrace sacralige and sodomy in the name of false mercy. Christ has already won, and you will be judged as will Francis.
Once again nobody will refute the 100% truth that Francis was and is silent when an entire country turned it's back on Christ and His Church and embraced sodomy. Francis' duty is to confirm the brethren in the Faith. How is he doing that on such an important moment? Answer the question modernist. You won't because you can't. His silence is on a level of betrayal not seen in the Church since Judas. Go ahead Father don't publish my comment just because you can't deal with the truth and you can't argue your points rationally. We don't have a problem with Francis because he dresses like a hobo but because he does not teach and uphold the Catholic Faith as it has always been done by popes. It not so much what he says but what he doesn't say. To not address what happened in Ireland is beyond scandalous.
"Benedict was famously the pope who installed solar panels atop a Vatican audience hall and signed an agreement to make the Vatican Europe’s first carbon-neutral state in order to back up his strong ecological concerns."
>Even many of those who are indifferent or cynical towards the ecological movement, have no problem with these kind of things.
"It might seem odd for Francis to use an environmental tract to bring up a debate over moral philosophy, but that’s where understanding the mind of Benedict XVI helps."
>Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, who is head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, is a philosopher/ theologian.
"From there, Benedict said, we may learn to listen to human nature as well, discovering moral laws that stand above our own ego. Benedict called all this a “secular path” to the formation of conscience."
>There is always hope.
an “insipid religion of just prayers and ideas.”
> I do sometimes wish the Holy Father would be more charitable in his use of language (although there is the translation factor to consider). I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did not intend "insipid" in its most unkind application. While some may have a problem with his choice of words and interview venues, he has not erred in matters of faith (Church teaching) and morals, which is what really matters.
Whatever your persuasion, traditional or progressive, you can still pray for the Holy Father.
Kavanaugh, Once again, you twist what people say, which is characteristic of you. I said I would only follow THIS Pope out of curiosity….and it was humor. But, it doesn't matter. You continue in your deceitful ways. I still talk with people in Augusta who were at MHT under you. They and the people at St. Jo's who have dealt with you all think your name should be Richard.
The Pope thinks the earth is too hot,
So he's putting the Church on the spot
To make us look fools
As Sierra Club tools,
While Satan is laughing a lot.
So... I can't comment here because I'm schism (or so y'all say)!?
You know, Julian, two priests on here absolutely insist I don't do exactly what you've written. Naturally, I don't think I'm 'choosing eternal damnation for [myself]'. On the other hand, I was never a 'Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists', so your comment really isn't for me.
Lol, Angry Augustinian... like Luther?
The Pope says that warming is true
And this means that sinners like you
Might be reconciled
If they live in the wild
And live off a diet of tofu.
Angry Augustinian,
I like your new name. But I don't suppose it would make sense for someone to be called "Happy Go Lucky Augustinian". Unless, of course, one were referring to the hermits who bear his name.
Gene seems to have a real "thing" about sodomy...talks about it a lot...
Gene: "Show me the places where I have talked about sodomy."
Me: You look them up,JJ.
Hypothetically, imagine a pope who is taking actions to subvert the Catholic faith, must one remain silent about that in order not to be a schismatic? If not, what is the proper response? Does pointing out such a problem make one anti-papacy?
How is it not the case, in such a hypothetical, that one exhibits love for the Church and her doctrines and institutions by pointing out one who is undermining and destroying those doctrines and institutions?
For example, if you love your mother and you find that your sibling is stealing from her, does saying nothing about the theft make you a good son or a bad son--are you a good sibling or a bad sibling?
Well Dialogue, it seems Jolly Jansenist only brought me accusations of heresy so, since Jansenism is largely extreme Augustinianism, I decided upon Angry Augustinian…no, happy-go-lucky Augustinian just doesn't make it. Yes, Flavius, now that you mention it, Luther was an angry Augustinian. Calvin was an austere Augustinian but, you have to admit, the Church bred some pretty good heretics.
Anonymous talks about sodomy
But, he really needs a lobotomy,
Since he has no brains
All that remains
Is a mental episiotomy.
Angry Gene - No Catholic says I will follow THIS pope only out of curiosity. By your subsequent comments regarding Pope Francis, it is plain to any honest reader that you did not mean it as "humor."
You try to weasel out of all your un-Catholic, un-Christian statements. You trumpeted skipping mass when you are out of town, you refer to African-Americans as a "feral minority," you call the President the "Head N----r In Chief" because all your "intelligent" friends do the same, you call for the slaughter of innocents through bombing the cities of mecca and medina, etc.
Would someone so opposed to Pope Francis please explain to me how certain events could not possibly occur at the synod on the family (where lots of Cardinals are running around doing their own thing as I suspect they have usually done at such gatherings throughout the history of the Church) without Pope Francis’s approval, but the Holy See’s Secretary of State (who is presumably directly answerable to Pope Francis) can call the vote in Ireland a “defeat for humanity” without Pope Francis’s approval? Explain it to me like I was a four year old.
When I read the comments in this thread by those uttering protestations (I use the word deliberately) attacking Pope Francis I notice a deafening silence in them about “green” Pope Benedict. As I have pointed out many times before on the Blog, Pope Benedict’s environmental credentials (and indeed those of Pope St. John Paul II) are another of those “inconvenient truths” that just mess up the nice little narrative “Two legs Francis baaaad; four legs Benedict gooood.”
As regards Francis bashing more generally, when did all those attacking Pope Francis suddenly become experts in Church politics?
AA:
I have been a St. Joseph’s parishioner for 35 years. I know (“have dealt with”) Father Kavanaugh. First, you do not speak for me, nor I suspect for many others at St. Josephs. Second, what on earth are you talking about?
I am now bracing myself for your next ad hominem attack on me.
Anonymous 2, are you addressing anyone in particular? I don't know that anyone would say they are simply "opposed to Pope Francis." Many people, myself included, are concerned about this pope, just as we were concerned about the last pope and the pope before him. That concern is based on our loving concern for our Holy Mother the Church and the salvation of our fellow humans.
Regardless of what the pope is or is not doing, it is necessary at all times for Catholics to present the truth. To the extent that presenting the truth appears to be bashing the pope, I would ask you to consider whether it is the truth that is wrong or the pope.
I stand with the Church. The pope and the Church aren't synonymous.
Lefebvrian:
My comment was addressed to all those attacking Pope Francis.
Your reply is non-responsive to my comment. I am still waiting for an explanation like I was a four year old.
I do not doubt the good faith or the good intentions of many (but I suspect not all) of those who attack Pope Francis; however, I do question their wisdom in doing so and their apparent belief that they possess all the relevant necessary knowledge upon which to base a judgment. And please consider that not everything that has been done in the name of “our loving concern for our Holy Mother the Church and the salvation of our fellow humans” has been good.
Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia
Well, that was a pleasant read.
Anonymous 2, we know the Truth because we know what the Church teaches. When someone says something that is not true, someone else should make sure to say what is true. This does not change when it is the pope who is saying something that is not true.
It is possible for a pope to say things that are not true, and just because a pope says something doesn't make it true. That is why we pray constantly for the pope to uphold the Catholic faith. If it were impossible for the pope not to do so, we wouldn't have this prayer handed down to us through the centuries.
And finally, to say that a pope is saying something not true is not an attack on the Church or the papacy, it is just an observation on the existent state of affairs in the world. It's merely the inverse of praising the pope when he says something that is true, which we see a lot of from several of the commenters here and our host.
Really, though, isn't everyone here judging the pope? It's just that we are coming to opposing conclusions in some instances. When people praise him, they are also making a judgment -- they like what he is saying and they judge his actions to be good.
Finally, I believe that Pope Francis is a genius. He wants to be inclusive in a purified Catholic way. He wants to make Catholicism attractive to outsiders, secularists, non-believers, to draw them in and then allow God's grace to do the rest. He trusts in God's grace.
He wants to pull the progressives, the heterodox in too, but he wants God's grace to purify them too. He trusts in God's grace.
As for the so-called traditionalists? He's separating the sheep from the wolves. And God's grace will do the purifying. You can read some of what the wolves think in the comments on my blog.
The above comments seem to imply that the pope trusts in God's grace for all but "so-called traditionalists," as the phrase "he trusts in God's grace" does not appear in the section that references the "so-called traditionalists."
So, there you have it.
Everyone is within reaching distance, "gays," abortionists, communists, atheists, anti-Catholic Protestants, et cetera, because we can trust in God's grace for them but not for "so-called traditionalists." They are outside the pale. That's why the pope makes no efforts to reach out to them. They are not worthy of his consideration; rather, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized from the Church.
Lefebvrian:
No, when people defend the Pope against attacks they are not necessarily praising him or judging his actions to be good. They are challenging those who think they know enough to judge his actions to be bad. Protestants and schismatics attack the Pope, Catholics defend him.
I may not like this, that, or the other thing the Pope says or does but, to quote a phrase, “Who am I to judge?” And I may_think_I know what the Church teaches, in all its complexity, but do I really? Do I know the Truth better than the Pope and the magisterium? Get with the program.
DJR:
Why did Christ have His harshest words for the self-righteous Pharisees? Was it because He did not love them too or was it because that is what they needed to hear to get through to them?
Anonymous 2, let's try a clear hypothetical to illustrate the point, if the pope said that the Blessed Virgin Mary wasn't immaculately conceived, what would the appropriate response be?
Aside from that aspect of our discussion, if the Church's teaching is as subtle as you imply, aren't we all just Gnostics? In fact, the Church's teaching is clear. It is only people with an agenda who try to make it appear that we don't or can't know what the teaching is. If we can't know the doctrine, the Church has failed in Her mission.
Anon 2, you have an obligation as a believing Christian to make judgements regarding false teaching which, as Lefebvrian explains, can be discerned through doctrine which is very clear. We were also warned about wolves in sheep's clothing and, in your case, sheep in sheep's clothing.
Lefebvrian:
The Pope would never say that. Case closed.
Okay, explain to me how you know someone is in mortal sin – explain it like I was a 4 year old (I’m still waiting for the other explanation requested in my earlier comment yesterday buy the way).
Correction of typo – by the way.
Jolly Angry Genesenist,
You’re just trying to get my goat.
Protestants and schismatics attack the Pope, Catholics defend him.
Well, I don't think *this* schismatic has ever 'attacked the Pope'.
Anon 2, it was a thought experiment. I am sure you understand the concept.
Anonymous 2,
Let's try a different hypothetical. If a pope were to say that those that die in the state of grace do not bear witness to the beatific vision until the Last Judgment, what would the appropriate response be?
Anonymous 2, I apologize but I forgot where our other discussion is. Can you point to the post so I can try to respond to you over there? Lots of good discussions going on today! Thanks.
Lefebvrian:
What has Pope Francis said about this topic?
Jolly Angry Genesenist,
Yes, I understand the concept. I also understand their rhetorical uses and the concept of a rhetorical gambit.
Anonymous Anonymous 2 said...
DJR:
Why did Christ have His harshest words for the self-righteous Pharisees? Was it because He did not love them too or was it because that is what they needed to hear to get through to them?
Who says Christ reserves "His harshest words for the self-righteous Pharisees"?
That's a truncated reading of Sacred Scripture, of which Christ, being God, is the Author.
You may want to read what Christ had to say, either by His own mouth or through the sacred writers, about sodomites, adulterers, Judas (a bishop no less), and other non-Pharisees.
It is beyond absurd to think that "so-called Traditionalists" are a major problem in the Church, their numbers being so few.
You've never heard about abortion-promoting nuns, practicing homosexual Jesuits, heretical Franciscans, communist priests, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (in the words of Yul Brynner)?
The hypocrisy in the Church is shocking. For those who want to complain about a few hurting "so-called Traditionalists," let them get back to us once they've complained about, and done something about, all the heretics and evildoers in the Church. Then perhaps "so-called Traditionalists" can take what they say seriously.
Ok, Anonymous 2, I'm done.
DJR:
“Who says Christ reserves ‘His harshest words for the self-righteous Pharisees’?”
Oh, I don’t know, pretty well everyone I have read.
That is a nice move about a “truncated reading of Sacred Scripture” but it doesn’t work: There is a clear distinction between the direct words of Christ Jesus in the Gospels (or as close to direct as we can get) and the “inspired” word of God spoken through others. It is very clear that Christ Jesus reserved His harshest words in the Gospels for the Scribes and Pharisees. It doesn’t get much harsher than “hypocrites,” “serpents” and “brood of vipers.” However, as I said, this does not mean He did not love them too. Jesus often used hyperbole to make a point and to get through to people – it is a pity poor old Origen, for example, didn’t understand that and instead took Jesus’s words literally. =)
A few similar words do not make them the same.....
I had a problem with the "go green" stuff under Pope Benedict XVI, just as much, if not more so than I do under Pope Francis. I have some serious questions about this so called climate science, I almost wonder if any of the climate scientists forgot to read about the first law of thermodynamics. Even we consider the mass of the earth with respect to the average mass of the total amount of humans on the planet, the numbers are a severe order of magnitude off to consider a significant contribution to the system. It'd be a shame for someone with a degree in Chemistry (Pope Francis) to forget this simple principle from the laws of physics (which they also teach in Chemistry).....but alas, who am I to judge? TM
Pointing out different things that Pope Francis has done does not necessarily in of itself make someone an enemy of Pope Francis, or against him. I make no secret I'm not a fan of him, but I will come to his defense when necessary. (Most of the time it isn't, I believe Pope Francis' words can speak for themselves and do not need extra help)...He's done a great job in condemning gender theory, and mentioning that usury is a sin. Other things, not so much.
Pope Francis on the Liturgy for the most part is as Fr McD describes. Sober, no craziness...(still no explanation for not genuflecting, but a metania will suffice, I do think he has some sort of leg problem, yet at the same time that doesn't explain why he goes to the floor on Holy Thursday for Mandatum gate with relative ease....but, hey, whose counting?)
I think that for those that point out the mistakes of Pope Francis it is not easy for them to do so. I know it is not easy for me, I love the Church, I'm trying really hard to love Pope Francis, I could definitely do so better, but it's not easy, chances are if I met him in person, I would not get along with him, for various reasons. It is a tough line to determine where it's alright to criticize Pope Francis, and where it's crossed the line. While I do much appreciate the defense of Pope Francis on various occasions, it seems to me counter productive to try to make everything he says into something perfect. He screws up, and it's not the end of the world. In a way, the Pope is forcing the Bishops to do their job, and that perhaps is a good thing because we all know the Bishops' and their infamous record of behaviour for the past 40 years + (collectively, not necessarily the individual Bishops that have been marvelous)
We can't kid ourselves there's a ton of hypocrisy (maybe it's not intentional) in the Church. It's hard to take the Church seriously (even though I do so) when the liberal Sr Mary pantsuit nuns, and the liberal orders are not being dealt with.
I hardly think Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI are the same, personality wise or substance wise. They may converge on a few points (such as this here, on which I disagree with both of them), but that's about it.
That said, I'll wait for the official encyclical to come out before making a judgement.
I don't know who Anonymous at 6:23 am is but I have to say that what he has said about the synod - all I have read - including comments by Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider and a journalist who recorded Cardinal Kasper's racist comments - supports what he is says and is accurate.
The fact that Pope Francis personally appointed three liberal bishops to a position at the synod where they could write such a scandalous mid-term report does not augur well for the upcoming synod. I believe that showed where Pope Francis stands on the issues more than anything he has said.
I sincerely wonder what will happen at the next Synod on the Family. If Pope Francis does come out and support communion for adulterers, where will those who seem to be supporting Pope Francis unequivocally stand then? Will there be apologies made for condemning those Catholics brave enough to speak up for truth?
Jan
Reading the comments on here, I have to say that the finger seems to be being pointed solely at ultra-traditionalists for expressing concerns about Pope Francis but, be assured, that isn't the case. Many ordinary Catholics that I know, who would never consider going to a traditional Mass, are expressing concerns and asking questions about Pope Francis. Many ordinary Catholics in the pew, who would not normally expresss any sort of opinion, are feeling uneasy. That is the truth of the matter. It is simply nonsense to say it is only coming from ultra-traditionalists.
Would Julian Barkin tell Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider or Cardinal Muller, among others, to leave the Church and not worry about the door hitting them on the way out? Seriously, where have you people been, since the election of Pope Francis, that you don't seem to realise that there is a deep divide in the Church and that those who are expressing the most concern are not radical Traditionalists at all but ordinary mainstream Catholics?
The fact that Cardinal Burke and a number of other clerics felt compelled to write a book defending marriage - Remaining in the Truth of Christ - and now Bishop Schneider has also written in support of marriage should surely give people the idea that something is seriously wrong. Many here seem to be in self-denial about the serious attack that has been mounted against the Church by Cardinal Kasper and other liberals or is the truth that you believe that communion should be given to people living in adulterous and homosexual relationships? It is certainly not the time to be remaining silent in the face of such a vigorous campaign to overturn Church teaching.
Jan
Excellent post, Jan. What you say matches my experience in talking to "ordinary Catholics." I think the shepherds would do well to prepare their people for these difficult times instead of acting like everything is fine. This is a time of great temptation to leave the faith, either for the liberal errors or for the sedevacantist movement. The solution is to know and believe the Catholic faith and to trust in our Lord and our Blessed Mother.
Who can deny that there have been anti popes? If, prior to being elected pope, one is not in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, then the election of that particular anti pope is not valid from the start. (see page117 of the book, On Heaven and Earth)
Post a Comment