(Excerpt from the Daily Beast)
Francis can easily choose to ignore the mad chatter against him, even as it grows louder. In fact, there are whispers of a schism and deep fractures within the clergy. But the bottom line is that Francis still enjoys considerable popularity among regular Catholics who quite like the fact that the circumstances of their complicated lives at least seem to be more easily accepted by the Catholic Church under his direction.
My brief comments: Gone are the days when the pope, bishop or priest didn't really matter (especially when the Mass was ad orientem). Who counted was Jesus Christ and His Church making the sacrifices necessary to please Him by knowing, loving and serving Him through His Holy Church.
I think we have to admit that it was the former stage actor, become pope, Pope St. John Paul II who brought about a kind a celebrity pope, or pope of the personality cult. This is in line with the modern Mass's emphasis on personality, be it the bishop, priest, deacon or the congregation. In fact, don't people now join Catholic parishes because they like the people of the parish or the gregarious personalty of the priests on the staff?
Thus, in keeping with popular personalities, one should read this story from the Daily Beast (and no, the writer isn't 666):
Is the Pope Catholic Enough for Conservatives?
The Daily Beast
ROME—Popes have had many enemies over the centuries. They have
been poisoned, strangled, clubbed to death, and one supposedly was
smothered with a pillow. Even in our supposedly more civilized era the
last two popes of recent memory had detractors. It was just that the
whispers of dissent were often just that, low voices from fringe groups
that no one took very seriously. Now, in the era of fake news and
alternative facts that has brought organizations like Breitbart to the
mainstream (and has former Trump adviser Steve Bannon critiquing church
doctrine), even fringe groups in Catholic circles are increasingly
making their voices heard. That’s exactly what happened over the weekend
when a group ...
AND YOU CAN READ THE YAHOO ROUNDUP OF VARIOUS STORIES ON THE POPE'S HERESIES HERE.
27 comments:
"In fact, there are whispers of a schism and deep fractures within the clergy."
I am not privy to said whispers among clergymen. Among several parishes familiar to me, I don't have sense that a schism is on the horizon.
During sermons, I have heard "conservative" priests and deacons reference His Holiness Pope Francis in positive fashion. The priests and deacons in question have employed Pope Francis' to support Catholic teachings.
The "filial correction" is a dead, meaningless document to 99.9999 percent of Catholics.
The "tremendous, historical, fantastic filial correction...this is it, we have called the "Evil Clown" out...we have discredited and destroyed his 'heretical' Pontificate"...is of value only to a microscopic amount of right-wingers who hate Pope Francis.
Said folks dwell within a right-wing fantasy world where "someday", Vatican II will be condemned...the Novus Ordo will be condemned and discarded...post-Vatican Popes will be condemned...
...where the "Evil Clown" will 'outlaw" Summorum Pontificum...where Jews control the Vatican and world...where secret FEMA concentration camps are ready to house millions of American patriots who will be imprisoned and exterminated by the leaders of the New World Order...
...where the Trilateral Commission, Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Illuminati, and Bilderbergers abound...
...where homosexuals and communists control each Catholic diocese on earth...
That is the fantasy populated by the Filial Correction Club who have welcomed the "correction."
The "correction" is a meaningless document to 99.99999 percent of Catholics.
Sadly, there is only serious consequence that the "correction" will set into motion:
Rational traditional Catholics who, in holy fashion, express their concerns about the about the liberal and detrimental direction in which the Church has traveled since the Pontificate of Pope Venerable Pius XII will suffer.
The "correction" will taint rational traditionalists as they will be lumped with right-wing, "the Evil Clown is a heretic," "traditionalists who hate Pope Francis...who misrepresent him daily.
The "correction" has z-e-r-o chance of being taken seriously throughout the Church.
The "correction" is a disaster to the Traditional Catholic Movement.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The author is delusional. Pope Francis is popular with secular lefties for his imprudent support of Global Warming and Open Borders (to date, The Vatican has not cut off its air conditioning, torn down its wall, and allowed unfettered immigration into Vatican City). With faithful Catholics, it appears many have grown indifferent or disgusted with Santita. Sunday Mass attendance continues to decline, vocations are down, and churches are closing. But to secular lefties, that is all welcome news.
I said earlier..."The "correction" has z-e-r-o chance of being taken seriously throughout the Church. The "correction" is a disaster to the Traditional Catholic Movement."
Among the reasons is that the folks behind the "correction" made major mistakes.
Just a couple of examples:
1. They permitted the SSPX to be associated with the "correction." As long as the SSPX remains within its current irregular state, the Society will be viewed in a negative light by the majority of Churchmen.
In turn, the SSPX's link to the "correction" will diminish whatever credibility that may have been attached to the "correction"...which, to begin, was about z-e-r-o.
2. The lengthy "correction" descends rapidly into nonsense.
Example: The great "scholars" associated with the "correction" insisted that His His Holiness Pope Francis has given cause to "faithful" Catholic who "doubt the validity of the renunciation of the papacy by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI."
Why on earth did the great "scholars" behind the "correction" link themselves to the above nonsense.
There are right-wingers who insist that the great "scholars" and "experts" behind the "correction" have not only "normalized" the argument that Pope Benedict XVI is the "real Pope," but insist that the "correction" has made it clear that Pope Benedict XVI is the "real Pope."
The "scholars" behind the "correction" made a dramatic, horrific mistaken when they permitted themselves to be used by right-wingers who advance the bizarre conspiracy theory that Pope Benedict XVI is the "real Pope."
Even I, a lowly, dumb nobody, can spot the "correction's" major problems that will damage whatever credibility that the "correction's" authors had hoped to obtain via their document.
The "correction" is filled with nonsense.
The "correction" is a piece of trash...utter garbage...that will only make life difficult for traditional Catholics.
The "correction" is a major setback to the Traditional Catholic Movement.
The TLM's enemies will employ the piece-of-trash correction to discredit the movement to restore Holy Tradition throughout the (Latin) Church.
What a shame.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
No. You are dead wrong. Pope Francis' pontificate is a disaster for the Catholic Faith. He's done a great deal of damage just like Paul VI did. Pope's are human, they have flaws. Do you think Rodrigo Borgia was great for the Church or Leo X?
First, I think he can and will ignore it. I think traditionalists will, contrary to characterisations, will stay around. Probably fumi g, but will stay. The article dealt in stereotypes from the world view of liberals: e.g. the break away sect of SSPX. They were kicked out for disobeying, but did not break away.
Second, I would be very careful not to push Pope Francis too hard. He is likely to respond badly in any number of unhelpful ways.
The Traditional Catholic Movement is in sorry shape if the folks behind the "correction" represent said movement's finest "scholars" and thinkers.
Leading right-winger bloggers who have promoted the "correction" to the hilt also discredit (on a daily basis) the Traditional Catholic Movement.
How is it possible that at least in regard to news media coverage, Rorate Caeli, for example, possesses greater clout than the FSSP...or ICK?
Rorate Caeli, for example, is the go-to "traditional" Catholic source that news media outlets reference and quote.
The FSSP's voice is silent when it comes to being quoted via news media reports.
In regard to news media presence, right-wing bloggers are (pretty much, anyway) the voice and face of "traditional" Catholicism.
That which the FSSP has to say about the "correction," as well as additional Catholic matters, should possess greater public clout than, for example Rorate Caeli's endless anti-Pope Francis declarations.
However, that is not the case.
Again, the unfortunate reality is that right-wing bloggers and "filial correction" folks, as compared to Cardinals, bishops, the FSSP, ICK...etc., are the perceived face and voice of "traditional" Catholicism.
That is the fault of Churchmen who refuse to involve themselves with the TLM...who hamper the implementation of the TLM...who deny at parishes the rights of holy Catholics to worship God via the TLM.
In effect, our anti-TLM Churchmen have granted control of "traditional" Catholicism to "fringe" folks and groups.
Our Churchmen have permitted right-wing, everybody-outside-our-group-is-a-heretic-Pope-Francis-is-an-Evil-Clown folks, to control the TLM Movement.
If parishes offered at least one TLM each Sunday, the overwhelming amount of Catholics who worshiped via the TLM would hear the voice of their bishops/parish priests.
If dioceses would support the FSSP, ICK, and additional holy TLM priestly societies, then the TLM and "traditional" Catholicism would, to a tremendous extent, be snatched from the hands of "fringe" groups and folks.
But as long as far too many Churchmen continue to deny accesses to the TLM at one parish after another, then right-wing "fringe" folks will remain to a great extent the face and voice of "traditional" Catholicism.
Again, the "correction," as well as the "we've just stuck it to the heretical Evil Clown" right-wingers who've seized control of the "correction," are a combined disaster to the Traditional Catholic Movement.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM said..."Mark Thomas, No. You are dead wrong. Pope Francis' pontificate is a disaster for the Catholic Faith. He's done a great deal of damage just like Paul VI did. Pope's are human, they have flaws. Do you think Rodrigo Borgia was great for the Church or Leo X?"
I realize that sound, constructive discussions are warranted in regard to the disastrous route that we've traveled since Pope Venerable Pius XII unleashed the "modernization" of the Church.
We are, of course, in the midst of an ecclesial disaster throughout much of the Catholic world. The Roman Liturgy is in shambles almost everywhere one turns.
The Mass, Friday penance, the Holy Sacrament of Penance, awareness of fasting...virtually every aspect of Church life is in shambles.
But the holy and proper Catholic, charitable, sober manner in which to discuss and extricate from our ecclesial disaster is not found in that piece of trash known as the "filial correction"...
..which devolves into such garbage as to the notion that Pope Benedict is the "real" Pope.
Why on earth did the authors of the "correction" veer into the direction of that preposterous, bizarre conspiracy theory.
There are right-wing bloggers who have seized upon that to "prove" that the "correction" supports the belief that Pope Francis is an heretical, "false" Pope...that Pope Benedict XVI is the "real" Pope.
Then there is the SSPX's connection to the "correction."
Sorry, bit in one way after another, the "correction" is a disaster...a setback to the Traditional Catholic Movement.
The "correction" has confirmed and embolden right-wingers, particularly such blogs as Rorate Caeli, who hate and disseminate fake news 24/7 about His Holiness Pope Francis, as well as anybody who doesn't march in lockstep with right-wing nonsense.
The "correction" also has confirmed and emboldened those opposed to the TLM.
The correction is a piece of trash.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, the validity of the correction has nothing to do with the renown of the authors. The Pope might wonder if he should address every question regardless of the source. Due to the like this correction has with the Dubia he might consider addressing that initial document and fold responses to the recent document into that response. I do not think he will respond at all.
Mark Thomas,
Are you a left-wing blogger?
Hey I say follow the Pope's example and ignore him.
Mark Thomas: "The 'correction has z-e-r-o chance of being taken seriously throughout the Church."
Crux Magazine 9/26/17 (USA): "Retired Texas bishop signs 'filial correction' of Pope Francis."
National Catholic Register 9/26/17 (USA): "Cardinal Müller Suggests Pope Francis Appoint Group of Cardinals to Debate His Critics."
National Catholic Reporter 9/25/17 (USA): "Scholars say correction of Francis for 'heresy' marked by hypocrisy, lack of signatories."
Catholic News Agency 9/24/17 (USA): "Scholars, clergy sign letter accusing Pope Francis of 'upholding heretical positions'."
The Tablet 9/26/17 (Great Britain): "Cardinal Müller calls for pope to debate with his 'honest critics'."
Catholic Herald 9/24/17 (Great Britain): "Sixty-two scholars and priests issue ‘correction’ of Pope Francis."
Religion Digital 9/26/17 (Spain): "Müller reta al Papa a un debate formal sobre 'Amoris Laetitia'."
America Magazine 9/23/17 (USA): "Pope Francis critics continue to seek answers on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ in ‘filial correction’."
La Croix 9/24/17 (France): "Une pétition accuse le pape de sept « hérésies » dans Amoris laetitia."
Others:
Orthodox Church Media Network 9/25/17: "Why 62 Catholic Theologians Have Accused Pope Francis of ‘Spreading Heresy’."
Africa News 9/24/17 (Republic of Congo): "Pope Francis accused of spreading heresy."
Christian Radio 9/25/17 (United Kingdom): "Pope accused of heresy again."
Philippine Daily Enquirer 9/25/17 (The Philippines): "Why is the Pope Being Charged with Spreading Heresy?"
Christian Today 9/24/17 (Australia): "Pope Francis is leading the Church to heresy, say Catholic scholars in extraordinary rebuke."
Would be great if there was some way to separate the wheat from the chaff. This gets to be overwhelming.
TJM,
Hello.
I am not a blogger. I post to Father McDonald's blog. I thank, Father, for that privilege. I post sometimes to a Canadian Catholic blog. I post to a right-wing blog whose author is attached to the SSPX, but insists that Pope Benedict XVI is Pope. I post sometimes to a blog that is run by two people attached to the SSPX.
I believe that that is that.
I am neither right-wing nor left-wing. I am Catholic. I submit to Pope Francis.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
=======================================================
Suggestion:
When Bishop Fellay and the SSPX respond to the Holy Mother Church's correction to obtain regularization from the True Church...then His Holiness Pope Francis will respond to the "filial correction."
DJR, where is the serious discussion in question? You posted several news reports. Big deal.
Example: Philippine Daily Enquirer 9/25/17 (The Philippines): "Why is the Pope Being Charged with Spreading Heresy?"
Again, that's just a newspaper report. That isn't the Pope and the Church responding formally to the "correction."
===================================================================
-- Christian Today 9/24/17 (Australia): "Pope Francis is leading the Church to heresy, say Catholic scholars in extraordinary rebuke."
Again...just a news report about the "correction" story. That isn't the Church responding to the "correction."
====================================================================
Africa News 9/24/17 (Republic of Congo): "Pope Francis accused of spreading heresy."
Christian Radio 9/25/17 (United Kingdom): "Pope accused of heresy again."
Again...news reports about the "correction."
=====================================================================
The only citation that you posted that may be of interest is the following:
-- The Tablet 9/26/17 (Great Britain): "Cardinal Müller calls for pope to debate with his 'honest critics'."
Other than that, your citations don't support the notion that the citation has been taken seriously throughout the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR, please notify me when His Holiness Pope Francis declares the following to his right-wing critics:
"You are correct. I am a heretic. I resign the Papacy...if I'm even Pope as we know that Pope Benedict XVI is the real Pope. Anyway...Amoris Laetitia is heretical. I'm heretical..."
DJR, notify me of the above please. Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Suggestion:
When Bishop Fellay accepts the True Church's correction to obtain regularization, then Pope Francis would respond to the "filial correction."
Any word as to when Bishop Fellay will accept the full-communion correction offered to him by the True Church?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It was 29 years ago when Bishop Fellay was first corrected by the True Church to spur him to return to full-communion with God's Holy Church.
Why has Bishop Fellay refused to accept merciful correction from God's Holy Church?
After all, Bishop Fellay believes in "corrections"...he wants His Holiness Pope Francis to accept "correction."
Again, when will Bishop Fellay's accept the correction presented to him by Holy Mother Church?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
In Paul Vi's darkest days, no one accused him of leading the Church into heresy. So Pope Francis is really in a league of his own. If any Pope should resign for incompetence it's Francis
Actually, as Fr Hunwicke points out, the fact that Bishop Fellay (not one of the originators) added his support is indicative of the fact that the SSPX sees its place in the mainstream of the Church. It does not simply inhabit a liturgical ghetto.
I suspect FSSP and ICKSP do not want to do anything that might embarrass the bishops, who (in England at least) have recently been very generous to them.
What Müller could do is to publish all the corrections made to AL by the CDF which were dismissed out of hand by Francis and his 'kitchen Cabinet'. He won't do so, since he is a man of honour.
Mark Thomas: "Other than that, your citations don't support the notion that the citation has been taken seriously throughout the Church."
Catholic news agencies throughout the entire world are reporting on a document signed by a handful of people.
Catholics (aka "the Church") are commenting on this document in country after country. They are talking about it; they are reacting to it.
Bishops, some of whom are cardinals, are publicly stating that the pope needs to address the issue presented in the document.
If that does not represent the fact that "the Church" is taking this seriously, I don't know what would.
You yourself have posted almost three dozen separate posts in three separate threads, just on this blog alone, commenting about this insignificant document.
And you have done that because... you don't take it seriously?
DJR: "You yourself have posted almost three dozen separate posts in three separate threads, just on this blog alone, commenting about this insignificant document."
I haven't read the posts you refer to, but surely someone who writes 3 DOZEN posts on the same topic in a brief period must either (1) take it as serious as a heart attack or (2) obsess about it to the point of psychosis or (3) both.
147 names now, and counting ...
DJR said..."You yourself have posted almost three dozen separate posts in three separate threads, just on this blog alone, commenting about this insignificant document. And you have done that because... you don't take it seriously?"
I may have posted 1,000 such comments. That doesn't maen that I take the "correction," which I believe is a piece of trash, seriously?
Throughout my adult life, I have offered countless comments to people who've rejected the belief that the Catholic Church is the True Church. Does that signify that I take their arguments in question seriously?
I have had many discussions with people who've claimed that Pope Venerable Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope"...that Catholicism fueled Nazism. Does that demonstrate that I take that claim seriously?
Now, on certain Catholic blogs, such as Father McDonald's, the "correction" is a hot topic. The fact that I discuss that topic doesn't mean that I take the "correction" seriously.
==========================================================================
By the way, right-wing folks, such as those at the Remnant Newspaper, who support the dubia and "correction," have acknowledged that the vast majority of Catholics do not share their negative beliefs about His Holiness Pope Francis.
They acknowledge that among the vast majority of Catholics, His Holiness Pope Francis is held in high regard.
Anyway...they acknowledge that they are all but alone among Catholics in their negative view of the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
The overwhelming amount of Catholics do not believe the "correction's" nonsense about Pope Francis and his supposed connection to heresy.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
The vast majority of Catholics no longer profess their faith. The small majority who do attend Mass on Sunday do not, in the main, read the Catholic press or visit Catholic blogs.
Those who troop up to Communion do so as a matter of routine; they do not visit the confessional and if they are in irregular situations they are not bothered. What they know about Pope Francis is mainly from the secular media who originally proclaimed him as an easy-going guy who is not going to get in their way.
They have certainly not read a word of what he has written. Even I have persevered with him, but find myself singularly unenlightened - and we now know that large parts of AL were ghost-written by an extremely dubious Argentine theologian.
This does not seem to matter to you; I might ask why, and please, pretty please, discipline yourself to construct a post of reasonable length and intellectual clarity. Are you capable of this?
"The vast majority of Catholics no longer profess their faith."
I, John Nolan, of course do.
The small majority who do attend Mass on Sunday do not, in the main, read the Catholic press or visit Catholic blogs.
I, John Nolan, of course, do.
Those who troop up to Communion do so as a matter of routine; they do not visit the confessional and if they are in irregular situations they are not bothered. What they know about Pope Francis is mainly from the secular media who originally proclaimed him as an easy-going guy who is not going to get in their way.
I, John Nolan, understand the Eucharist fully and have a complete and total grasp of the reigning pontiff.
They have certainly not read a word of what he has written. Even I have persevered with him, but find myself singularly unenlightened - and we now know that large parts of AL were ghost-written by an extremely dubious Argentine theologian.
I, John Nolan, determine who is "dubious" nd who is not.
This does not seem to matter to you; I might ask why, and please, pretty please, discipline yourself to construct a post of reasonable length and intellectual clarity. Are you capable of this?
If it does not matter to you as it does to me, John Nolan, then there's something wrong with you.
Bean, is this what passes for logical argument in your parallel universe? One cannot counter the proposition that 'the vast majority of Catholics do not profess their faith' by saying 'but I do'. So, as it happens, do I - but this proves nothing.
If you have 'a complete and total grasp of the reigning pontiff' then you have remarkable insights not shared by many in quite senior positions. Rather than trying (and failing) to rebut my assertions (which are hardly controversial) perhaps you would consider sharing your inside information with Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller, or any of the 150-odd signatories to the 'correctio'.
Let's have your views on Victor Fernandez, and while you're at it get a dictionary and look up 'dubious'.
Your last sentence makes no sense at all. The original question was directed at Mark Thomas, and asked him why certain things that are of considerable moment appear not to matter to him. HIM, not ME and certainly not YOU.
If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then kindly put a sock in it.
Bean, the above comments are predicated on a literal reading of your text, namely that the repeated first person pronouns refer to yourself, and the repetition of 'John Nolan' is a rhetorical device known as an apostrophe; a sudden turning away from the ordinary course of a speech to address some person present or absent.
However, since I am dealing with a semi-literate individual, I cannot discount the possibility that, despite the absence of inverted commas, you are resorting to the childish and impertinent device of pretending to be me and inventing words to put into my mouth. One may well ask what is the purpose of this. I can only assume it is to compensate for the fact that your own opinions are not worth stating.
On reflection, the latter interpretation seems more likely, although it hardly redounds to your credit.
Post a Comment