Posted on 10/06/2013 8:01:05 PM PDT by ebb tide
John Allen has some fascinating details about the papal election and the “mystical experience” of the night he was elected, in NCR:
(Excerpt) Read more at ncronline.org ...
It's a shame to see Catholics lie.
It's a shame to see Catholics lie.
It sounds like some of the Cardinals are speaking up in a gentle way that the Pope's account was not accurate.
This seems to indicate Francis really isn't that smart.
Why lie about an incident that was witnessed by 100+ cardinals?
Ping for later
It's not to the millions of Catholics but he's lying to God, if indeed, he is lying.
Sheds more light on some of his recent statements.
I read the article, and it doesn’t seem to me like anyone is lying. The important part of the new Pope’s experience was that before finally accepting, he took a moment for prayer, and during that moment he had an unusual experience of some sort. Now, given that he was probably in a bit of emotional turmoil at that time, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised that he mis-remembered the *place* where he prayed. His recollection was that it was a small room, whereas it seems to have actually been a back pew. But to him, the important part of that experience was the feeling that came to him during his prayer.
People who witness accidents make mistakes in their recollection all the time, because things happen swiftly, and because they are all excited and wound up. It sounds to me as though Pope Francis made a small mistake in his recollection. (Oh, the horror! ;o) A mistake is not a deliberate lie.
Because narcissists do that, and this guy, with his “we are the world,” “love love love” comments, as well as the way he talks in all those pesky interviews, is most likely one of those. In other words, he’s Obama.
In other words, he could be the FP.
Thank-you.
Are we folks perfect!? We are not!
No.
I could see in her face that she was having difficulty squaring her memory with my account of his death. She was absolutely certain that her version was correct and I am absolutely certain that my version is correct.
I have not brought it up with her since.
Why are you assuming it’s the Pope, Cardinals or a Monsignior lying?
Did you read the article?
The only way to conclude “Catholics [are] lying” is to believe all the above are liars, but not one, atheist journalist for a known leftist Italian publication.
Let me repeat that: a known leftist publication and it’s author, an avowed atheist, is assumed to have his facts right here, and thus, it’s “safe” to conclude that “Catholics [are] lying” in this instance.
Astounding. Just astounding what happens to our (justifiable) wariness about all things MSM when the topic of Catholicism is addressed in that same media machine.
Then, they are our best friends. Funny that.
I’m not assuming anything. Cardinal Dolan and Fr. Thomas Rosica both said the Pope never went into a private room. Msgr. Dario Viganò says otherwise.
Yeah, sure you're not. Read what you yourself posted again.
The accounts related by Cardinal Dolan (as later confirmed by Fr Rosica) and Msgr Vigano do not conflict.
From the article you posted "The newly elected pope never left the Sistine Chapel for a period of reflection before finally accepting the papacy," Rosica said. Note, this is also what Dolan said (link to what he recounted is also in your post). Emphasis added.
Also from the article you posted, Viganò was inside the Vatican in the moments immediately after Francis' election and before the new pope stepped out to greet the world. He says when Francis left the Sistine Chapel to walk toward the balcony, he had his eyes down, he wasn't smiling, he didn't say anything to the cardinals, and was as if he were carrying "an enormous burden."
Then, however, Francis stepped into the Pauline Chapel, where a throne had been set up for him to use for prayer. Instead, Francis asked the two cardinals walking with him, Jean-Louis Tauran (who made the "Habemus papam" announcement) and Agostino Vallini (the vicar of Rome) to sit with him in the chapel's back pew.
Again, from the article you posted and emphasis added.
No one is lying. This is all stemming from confusion resulting from sloppy reporting (at least that, if not more) on the part of the atheist at La Repubblica.
The only way to conclude “Catholics [are] lying” is to believe all the above are liars, but not one, atheist journalist for a known leftist Italian publication.
But that publication's article has been confirmed accurate by the pope's spokesman and has been posted on the Vatican website as a "speech" of the Holy Father. Maybe it's a leftist publication, but it sure seems like the pope has agreed that it printed his words accurately enough. For that reason I think we have to treat what is printed as, at least in substance, reflecting the thoughts and words of the pope.
No one is lying. Unless again, one assumes an atheist is recounting the words of Pope Francis correctly! Read the post (article) that started this thread again. It offers a reasonable explaination as to how no one in this stupidity is "wrong"
Read it with a simple desire for truth.
WHY is it seemingly so difficult for some on FR to believe a newspaper (in this case La Repubblica) might, just might, at LEAST "unintentionally" (to be as charitable as possible) get their facts wrong WRT to a known public figure in Christianity?!?
Of COURSE it's not because some simply dislike Catholicism more than leftists and their rags (ie publications). Of COURSE not!
In a statement, the Vatican has stressed that the text was an “after-the-fact reconstruction” and so “run[s] the risk of either missing some key details or conflating various moments or events recounted during the oral interview.”
It has nevertheless attested to the overall “trustworthiness” of the interview.
Hopefully this also explains the usage of the word “trustworthiness” in the Reporter article (the post that started this thread)
This should now satisfy anyone of this matter, anyone that is who values truth over hatred for the Catholic Church.
Eh, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. I do question whether he was listening to God during that “mystical experience” though. That was some weird stuff right there.
Oh, good grief. Mysticism is a pretty board term. Many “Born-again” Christians claim to have had such moments without calling it by that name. Aren’t they claiming to be talking to God? And who is to say they are not?
And, this is where you miss the real issue and allow yourself to grab onto the convenient misdirection. Imagine that Scalfari twisted the pope's words entirely, and the interview is completely unreliable. What would any reasonable person do in that situation, especially somebody whose words are heard by millions and followed by them? Would they ignore the inaccuracies? Would they, rather than issuing corrections or denials, have their people simply put it out that no recording device was used nor notes taken, without ever actually saying that anything in the interview was wrong? And would they ever go so far as to print the interview on their website as one of their own speeches? (BTW, you can see the interview here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/october/documents/papa-francesco_20131002_intervista-scalfari_it.html) No, I am sorry, but your insistence on taking the bait and assuming that the interviewer was unreliable and ignoring the fact that the interviewee has acted in every way like it is entirely accurate simply falls short of reasonable. Taken as a whole it is obvious that the Holy Father approves of this interview. That is enough for me on that point, even had the Devil himself done the interviewing.
And, btw, I am Catholic and have no dislike whatsoever for Holy Mother Church.
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.