The pope can give the thumbs up all day long, but he refuses to bless public audiences with the Sign of the Cross for fear of offending non-believers.
Posted on 10/03/2013 6:13:38 AM PDT by marshmallow
He has unveiled the true program of his pontificate in two interviews and a letter to an atheist intellectual. With respect to the popes who preceded him the separation appears ever more clear. In words and in deeds
ROME, October 3, 2013 – The first meeting, in these days, of the eight cardinals called to consultation by Pope Francis and his visit tomorrow to Assisi, the city of the saint whose name he has taken, are acts that certainly characterize the beginning of this pontificate.
But even more characterizing, in defining its approach, have been four media events of the month just ended:
- the interview of pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio with "La Civiltà Cattolica,"
- his letter in reply to the questions addressed to him publicly by Eugenio Scalfari (in the photo), the founder of the leading secular Italian newspaper, "la Repubblica,"
- his subsequent conversation-interview with Scalfari,
- and another letter in reply to another champion of militant atheism, the mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi, this last written not by the current pope but by his living predecessor.
Anyone who might wish to understand in what direction Francis intends to proceed and in what he is separating himself from Benedict XVI and from other popes who proceeded him need do nothing other than study and compare these four texts.
(Excerpt) Read more at chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it ...
odifreddi could in no way conclude that Benedict was anything but a fully orthodox believer and Teacher of the Faith. But Scalfari wrote about his conversations with Francis..."his mission contains two scandalous innovations: the poor Church of Francis, the horizontal Church of Martini. And a third: a God who does not judge but forgives. There is no damnation, there is no hell."
If the Church offers no moral boundaries, no standards, and faith isn't important then really, what's the point if the Church?
Pope Francis is a Modernist, which was defined as a heresy by Pope St. Pius X in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” 1907.
I haven’t finished reading it, but this paragraph jumped out at me:
“38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity, and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized. The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?”
Anyone who is uncomfortable with Pope Francis should read this Encyclical and he/she will understand that those feelings are not unfounded.
How's this for a humanist:
"Our objective is not proselytism, but listening to the needs, the desires, the disappointments, the desperation, the hope. We must bring hope back to the young, help the old, open to the future, spread love. Poor among the poor. We must include the excluded and preach peace.
Francis, Bishop of Rome
The pope can give the thumbs up all day long, but he refuses to bless public audiences with the Sign of the Cross for fear of offending non-believers.
What Pope Francis is doing is simply modeling himself after the poor man of Assisi, St. Francis, whose feastday is tomorrow.
Nope. St. Francis proselytized, unlike the current Pope.
Forget the saying, “preach the Gospel and when necessary, use words.”
St. Francis. Means preach the Gospel by how you live.
Correction, rather, do not forget the saying.
The 'Spirit of Assisi' vs. Saint Francis of Assisi
St. Francis of Assisi is not the pollyanna the modernists have led you to believe he was.
You don’t think “words” are necessary now? Neither does the Pope. We talk too much about abortion and homo-marriage, right?
Think about it, though. Sixty years ago, both abortion and homo-marriage were universally illegal and considered immoral.
Now that both are legal, almost universally, now is the time to talk about it! It’s “necessary”, as St Francis says.
To correct you, St. Francis with his whole life.
Thank-you.
Let’s just say we all have different understandings of St. Francis. You have yours, I have mine.
Words are very important, but what is more important is by how we live our lives.
Yes, words are very important. And it’s a shame that the Pope talks about “making a better world” and “peace” rather than Salvation.
Now you’re sounding like the Bishop of Rome. Besides St. Francis, everyone also has their own understandings of good and evil. Right? And the Protestants have YOPIOS!
Words are important, but must be backed up by good example.
Like suppressing a religious order from offering the Latin Mass?
Like placing a beachball on the high altar?
Good find! If you rewrote this part of the encyclical in bullet list form, edited out the condemnations, and began it with “We demand,” you’d be very popular among progressive Catholics!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.