Skip to comments.Is Pope Francis a fraud? (That didn't take long)
Posted on 03/17/2013 9:59:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Its easy maybe too easy for people with progressive political views to dismiss the Roman Catholic Church as a vile anachronism, a nightmarish patriarchy of aging pedophiles, woman-haters, homophobes and/or closet cases that can offer nothing of value to the contemporary world. When it comes to the church hierarchy, and especially the Roman Curia, the corrupt and labyrinthine Vatican bureaucracy that makes the Soviet-era Kremlin look like a model of transparency, that point of view seems more than justified.
But the church is not just the hierarchy, and as the spectacle of the last several days has demonstrated, there are millions or billions of people around the world Catholics and non-Catholics alike who wish the newly elected Pope Francis well and yearn to see in him the possibility of hope and renewal for this ancient, powerful and heavily tarnished institution that claims direct succession from the apostles of Jesus. As the first Latin American pope and the first Jesuit pope, Francis represents a break with tradition in several ways. Both the name he has chosen and his personal modesty and humility are meant to recall St. Francis of Assisi, one of the most adored figures in the Christian tradition, and no doubt also St. Francis de Sales, a 17th-century mystic, author and ascetic known for his devotion to the poor.
But the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio emerges from a Jesuit order that has been largely purged of its independent-minded or left-leaning intellectuals, and his reputation at home in Latin America is decidedly mixed. While Francis seems to be an appealing personality in some ways albeit one with a shadowy relationship with the former military dictatorship in Argentina, along with a record on gay rights that borders on hate speech.....
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Just have to laugh at these people. It’s pathetic.
People who want the Catholic Church to change its positions...
They want confirmation of their beliefs because deep down they know they’re wrong.
Of course. The proponents of SSM, married clergy, women priests, etc. don’t want to reform the RCC - they want to destroy it.
And to my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, I say -No matter what you think about transubstantiation, the primacy of the papacy, Marian aspects of the RCC etc., if the Pope and the RCC were gone, who can rally the world on behalf of the Culture of Life?
Tried to comment on Salon.com and you cannot unless you are one of the anointed.
And these are the people who belittle birthers? Well, obviously Pope Francis must be a fraud because he has failed to issue an encyclica proclaiming the Divinity of the Most Holy Barack Obama and canceling Easter since the Christ has been reincarnated.
The ‘free press’ is amusing.
But, dang-it-all, that Holy Spirit keeps interfering and messing things up!
Ummm..the Holy Spirit? Who needs no help from any man regardless of his title.
He is a strong Christian.
That will bug a great many posers.
As Fox and many other Catholic and ex-Catholic dissidents see it, Vatican II marked the moment when the church had the chance to reinvent itself as a flexible moral and spiritual force in a rapidly changing world. Indeed, it briefly seemed to do just that and its important to understand that Bergoglio, like Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla before him, was part of the right-wing counterrevolution within the church that aggressively rolled back those changes, crushed dissident thought and reasserted the absolute power of the pope and his hierarchy.
Compare this with some observations made by Benedict XVI in his "farewell" meeting with Roman parish priests on 2/14/2013:
I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers the real Council but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media. Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers was conducted within the faith it was a Council of faith seeking intellectus, seeking to understand itself and seeking to understand the signs of God at that time, seeking to respond to the challenge of God at that time and to find in the word of God a word for today and tomorrow while all the Council, as I said, moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of the journalists, naturally, was not conducted within the faith, but within the categories of today's media, namely apart from faith, with a different hermeneutic. It was a political hermeneutic: for the media, the Council was a political struggle, a power struggle between different trends in the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of those who seemed to them more closely allied with their world. There were those who sought the decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the expression "People of God", power for the people, the laity. There was this threefold question: the power of the Pope, which was then transferred to the power of the bishops and the power of all popular sovereignty. Naturally, for them, this was the part to be approved, to be promulgated, to be favoured. So too with the liturgy: there was no interest in liturgy as an act of faith, but as something where comprehensible things are done, a matter of community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a tendency, not without a certain historical basis, to say: sacrality is a pagan thing, perhaps also a thing of the Old Testament. In the New Testament it matters only that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, in the profane world. Sacrality must therefore be abolished, and profanity now spreads to worship: worship is no longer worship, but a community act, with communal participation: participation understood as activity. These translations, trivializations of the idea of the Council, were virulent in the process of putting the liturgical reform into practice; they were born from a vision of the Council detached from its proper key, that of faith. And the same applies to the question of Scripture: Scripture is a book, it is historical, to be treated historically and only historically, and so on.
We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.
Seems like Mr. Fox is a proponent of the "council of the media".
The LSM is always shocked, shocked I tell you to find out the Pope is (gasp) Catholic......
I’m not a Catholic so will tread lightly, but I fail to see why people like (ex Catholic, now Episcopalian) Rev. Fox think that becoming more like the Episcopalians is the way to make the Roman Catholic Church more relevant.
These articles can be used as a hedge against the great toilet paper shortage.
I’m constantly amazed at those are aren’t even Carholic offering opinions and ideas on how the Church should be..
Not legitimate? Gee, where have I heard that before?
Scoreboard: “Progressive” governments 100,000,000 dead
Catholic church ?
Vatican II was meant to keep the wheat and throw the chaff to the wind—not in terms of people but in terms of practice. Then the unchanging moral precepts of the Church would stand out nice and clear. Eventually. And that is what is going to happen now. Nice quotes from Benedict farther up the thread that say this in a different way.
The primacy of conscience should be understood on an individual level only, IMHO, and conscience has to be more scrupulous, not less, than that which conforms with Church teaching to the letter. With no one to tell you it’s all OK, you’d better be darn sure you’re right.
Good point. I think a lot of these old liberals just don’t realize how irrelevant they are becoming over time because the press and Democrats still worship them.
It always amazes me that these learned people fail to comprehend that there are foundational principles in any religion that can not be challenged. These principles are call doctrine.
For the Christian faith these principles are for the most part specifically stated in the Bible. They can not be questioned because the Bible says that these things are so.
The Bible says that homosexuality is a great sin and an abomination before God. That can not be questioned regardless of the principle of freedom of conscience, the principle that theologians have a right to think.
Certainly theologians have a right to think. Theologians have the right to question things that are open to question. But some things are not open to question. Some things can not be changed because if those things were to be changed the Church would no longer be the Church.
You can not rip out your houses foundation and have your house remain standing.
The Holy Spirit.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Nothing for their itching progressive ears to hear from the new Pope?
Exactly as I predicted. The left couldn’t wait even a week to show their fangs.
Makes me happy to see raging fang-tooth feminazis having a conniption over Francis.
Which protestant church has stood as steadfastly for life as the Catholic Church? Which protestant church has not capitulated on gay marriage, contraception, abortion, etc....?
And it's even easier to dismiss people with "progressive political views" as freedom despising, God-hating, baby killing, homo-loving wallowers in sin, who offer destruction to the contemporary world.
The Pentecostals, for one.
Re #27- I wanted to go on Salon to post that to their forum, but you have to sign up to do so. No thanks!
The Church, whether or not it has a “label” (Roman Catholic, Baptist, Assembly of God, Lutheran, Orthodox, et al), stands against the tide. It is an institution that is universal; it is a body of believers and followers of the Way of Jesus. It is not to be divided up into merely geographical or cultural groupings. That is why, I believe, that the brother mentioned that the Holy Spirit leads believers against the wickedness of the world. It is definitely true that the Roman Catholic Church has maintained a consistent stance that is pro-life; however, it does not mean that other believers cannot do the same with constancy.
At the end of the day, even the Roman Catholic Church could be led astray by an imposter who would cast aside this cherished principle. At that point in time, if it were to happen, the individual believer would have to decide what the Holy Spirit, in light of Scripture, says about the sanctity of life. And, that decision is a no-brainer for the follower of Christ; LIFE is from God, and we value it above any challenging philosophy.
Which Catholic church has not predictably voted for and self-identified with Democrat candidates?
Not true The Pentecostals I have met all permit the use of contraceptives specifically condoms.
You have it exactly backwards. The RCC will never be led astray, individuals may be, but never the Church herself.
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Individuals may but the Church itself does not.
Lots and lots of individuals. A predictable majority of Catholic individuals, priests, and bishops.
You wrote: “Scoreboard: Progressive governments 100,000,000 dead”
Environmentalism and Human Sacrifice
The Obama administration allies itself with extremist adherents of a false religion.
By Dennis Prager http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341519/environmentalism-and-human-sacrifice-dennis-prager
Let him who is with out sins cast the first stone.
Which protestant is a beta orbiter?
How about very nearly half? Consistently.
Even the so' called "Affordable Care Act" had wide support --- until certain items of the fine print began to show themselves as consequence --THEN there was opposition. But it seems too late, for the damage is done, in that the Act is not overturned, and the little "adjustments" to placate the dissenting RC'ers (whom could give the Dem party trouble if they could be united in voting, rather than split) are not so much written into law, as the adjustments are more like promises from the mouths of politicians of the worst sort.
I assume that you can do simple Math. The Catholic Church in the U.S. represents about 5% of the Catholic worldwide population. Whatever American Catholics think in terms of Polls, or how they vote is “not relevant” to what the Catholic Church teaches “definitively” on Faith and Morals.
We have had legalized abortion in this country since 1973, euthansia is being pushed by many U.S. States, it is legal in some countries, re-defining marriage is an ongoing battle and unfortunately, many U.S. Catholics have wed themselves to the “spirit of the age” [to borrow from G.K. Chesterton] but the Catholic Church in union with the Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, as not wavered on her teachings and will not.
Whether you admit it or not, Protestantism, with its elevation of each person and his or her Bible as the sole determiner of Truth can not sustain itself, what will happen as groups democratically align themselves together to vote on “stances to take” with regards to moral questions, Protestantism will continue to fragment at the confessional level to more and more different groups.
While there are many dissenting Catholics in this country, that is precisely the point, they are “defacto heretics” in that they are rejecting revealed Truths of the Catholic Church.
Too much of Protestantism and its Individualism, i.e. Me and my Bible and personal relationship with Jesus is in reality me and my Bible and a relationship with his or her on theology which in the end is a relationship with one’s on mind. Yes, there are many good Christian people in many of the various protestant ecclesial communities but that does not change the fact that Protestant ecclesiology, basec on its own principles, will always be subject to democratic forces among its believers who can vote on their own pastor, and its own theological beliefs.
So I am asking for documentation, yes.
I also assume that you can do simple math. If a majority of any organizations self-identifies with and vote for liberal politicians and liberal causes, the majority position serves to define the identity of the organization. What the Catholic Church teaches definitively on the subject of faith and morals is not relevant as any proponents of those teachings are in a distinct statistical minority.
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
(You) Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
-- James 2:14,18b
“Im constantly amazed at those are arent even Carholic offering opinions and ideas on how the Church should be..”
Fill in the blank:
Opinions are like ________ everybody’s got one!
Kudos, spoken like a Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. I have to agree with you, many of these dissident Catholics are being blinded by the spirit of the age. You will not get any push back from me on this one. However, one can “hope” as that is among the 3 theological virtues as St. Paul noted in his First Epistle to the Corinthians that these folks will seek God’s Mercy and reform their ways.
So the fact that some Catholics are seeking to be seen as relevant by the “world’s standards” is disappointing and sad, but that is a separate issue from what the Catholic Church clearly teaches. You have been here long enough and have started more Catholic threads than I have so I think if you would be honest with yourself, you have a pretty good idea what the Catholic Church teaches on Faith and Morals and thus realize that these Catholics who are supporting abortion, euthansia, re-defining marriage are “defacto schismatic” Catholics and are dissenters.
Priests and bishops you ask? How many were for Obamacare before they were against it? Investigate such things yourself, and you may find the answers you seek.
54% for the "R" presidential candidate might be a bit better than the general populace, but not much. Still, that beats out the "progressive" Episcopalian & Unitarian sort, I get the impression.
We know that the members of the Catholic denomination vote for abortion and gay power in almost every election, and that the members of the second largest denomination, the Southern Baptists, vote about 80% pro-life and anti-gay power.
We know that while the Catholic voters are almost always choosing the pro-abortion democrat, Clinton, Al Gore, Obama, that the democrats have only won the Protestant vote 3 times, 2 of those in the 1930s and the last in 1964.
If you want a church that produces pro-life and marriage supporters, the Catholic church isn’t it.
Persoanlly I would like to see the Bidens Pelosi's, Kennedys, Cuomos, etc... all excommunicated, but no one has given me a vote on the matter.