|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 24, 2017 20:55:32 GMT
An interesting critique of Pope Francis's views on Matteo Ricci and other early modern Jesuit missionaries as examples for emulation. I link to this for information and don't necessarily agree with it - for example, I think she is too hard on Ricci and on the Jesuit case in the Chinese Rites controversy: www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/03/pope-francis-as-historian
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 8, 2017 20:06:07 GMT
An American conservative journalist has published a book attacking Pope Francis as (inter alia) a socialist. I have some difficulties with some of Pope Francis's attitudes, but I think the author shows the American conservative tendency to describe any form of state intervention in the economy as socialist. He also omits to mention that while JPII and Benedict XVI reined in liberation theology, they explicitly stated that some of its manifestations were valid and that it addressed genuine problems: www.onepeterfive.com/interview-george-neumayr-author-political-pope/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 1, 2017 22:39:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 23, 2018 20:27:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 26, 2018 21:26:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 24, 2018 18:29:28 GMT
Very interesting and comprehensive blog post by Edward Feser on the possibility of error on the part of a Pope, and the legitimacy of criticism (including public criticism). edwardfeser.blogspot.ie/2018/05/the-church-permits-criticism-of-popes_20.html"For so many prominent faithful Catholics publicly to criticize a pope seems unprecedented, though perhaps the criticism Pope John XXII faced from the theologians of his day was somewhat similar. However, for a pope to make so many problematic statements while persistently ignoring repeated respectful requests for clarification is certainly unprecedented. Hence the criticism is not surprising. More to the present point, it is manifest from Donum Veritatis, canon law, and the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and other approved theologians that the criticism is clearly within the bounds of what the Church permits. Those who accuse these critics of being “dissenters” or disloyal to the Holy Father are either being intellectually dishonest or simply don’t know what they are talking about." By the way, it's interesting to skim this thread from the first post soon after Pope Francis's election and see how the tone changes, as I just did.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 24, 2018 20:19:39 GMT
Indeed. I am still intent on avoiding Francis Derangement Syndrome (there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that he is the legitimate Pope, for example, and anyone who entertains the possibility that he isn't risks embarking on the Yellow Brick Road that leads to Palmar de Troya and similar destinations) but he has been spreading confusion and uncertainty in some respects. BTW it is quite correct to point out that certain people who never ceased to criticise and backbite Popes JP II and Benedict have suddenly adopted an ultra-ultramontane theory of everyday papal infallibility which would make WG Ward blush.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 24, 2018 21:56:13 GMT
Indeed. I am still intent on avoiding Francis Derangement Syndrome (there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that he is the legitimate Pope, for example, and anyone who entertains the possibility that he isn't risks embarking on the Yellow Brick Road that leads to Palmar de Troya and similar destinations) but he has been spreading confusion and uncertainty in some respects. BTW it is quite correct to point out that certain people who never ceased to criticise and backbite Popes JP II and Benedict have suddenly adopted an ultra-ultramontane theory of everyday papal infallibility which would make WG Ward blush. I've been finding it hard to adopt the right tone, too.
|
|
|
Post by annie on May 30, 2018 11:11:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 8:48:02 GMT
Jeff Mirus has an interesting commentary on the recent statements from Pope Francis and the Vatican. He basically hints that they indicate a new awareness in Pope Francis and a possible shift in direction. The Spirit certainly does move in strange ways. www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1556
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 6, 2018 13:59:27 GMT
Jeff Mirus has an interesting commentary on the recent statements from Pope Francis and the Vatican. He basically hints that they indicate a new awareness in Pope Francis and a possible shift in direction. The Spirit certainly does move in strange ways. www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1556 The analysis is interesting but notwithstanding this argument, I think Pope Francis is going to be a big disappointment to liberals
|
|
|
Post by annie on Jul 23, 2018 12:43:30 GMT
Sometimes, when people are offering a critical opinion on Pope Francis or any of his predecessors, they say that St. Paul challenged St. Peter and use that as their permission to do the same. Perhaps they are mistaken in this. Here is a blog post which sets out the case for it being a different person to our first Pope. divinefiat.blogspot.com/2015/07/did-st-paul-withstand-st-peter-to-his.html?m=1
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 26, 2018 21:08:25 GMT
This is an arguable case, but the weight of opinion seems to be on the other side. Citing a private revelation in support of the argument doesn't help. There are quite a few cases of popes being subjected to legitimate (and illegitimate) criticism by people, including canonised saints. The real problem is when people make reckless criticisms, or when they ignore the principle that the pope should be criticised only as a last resort and the onus of proof is on the critic. (An example of the wrong spirit would be Fr Paul Kramer, who in his insufferable books starts from the assumption that when he disagrees with "Wojtyla" and "Ratzinger" - as he calls them - the onus is on them to prove that he is wrong rather than the other way round.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 28, 2018 21:24:44 GMT
Recently read Douthat's book on Pope Francis - unfortunately can't put my hands on my copy at present. A few points may be worth noting. It's not a blow-by-blow account of Francis's pontificate. It's centred very strongly on Francis's apparent alignment with the "liberal" faction in the church leadership (by this is meant those who seem to want a return to the late-60s/early 70s position where everything seems doctrinally up for grabs) and how this calls into question the "conservative" narrative of Vatican II and its era (basically that the upheavals following Vatican II were based on misuse/misunderstanding of the Council, but orthodoxy will be restored from the centre out). In particular he discusses how admitting the divorced and remarried to communion is being advocated on the basis of the view "God doesn't want you to do anything that hurts" which basically treats martyrdom as a mistake if not worse, holds that even the recorded words of Jesus are not normative (it's quite clear from the Apostles' response in the Gospels "This is a hard saying, who can endure it?") and implies that the original revelation was flawed - logically leading as Douthat argues to the view that the pre-Vatican II or pre-Francis church saw God as a cruel demiurge. It's written from the perspective of a convert who thought a Third World Pope might be useful in combining religious orthodoxy with a move away from over-identification with Western laissez-faire,but who has become increasingly disconcerted. One of the book's strongest points, BTW, is that he tries to work out how the people with who he disagrees see things and to assess (critically of course) the claims that what they are advocating is a legitimate development of doctrine. He has some useful assessments of some of the analogies which they employ, e.g. conservatives as Pharisees opposing Jesus (Douthat points out that Jesus's objection to the Pharisees is not that they uphold the moral law, but that they exalt the ritual law above the moral law; a parallel I might mention would be placing the need not to give scandal and to preserve belief in the sanctity of the priesthood above the safeguarding of the vulnerable); the Jansenists did not represent a previously unchallenged consensus within the church, and the extreme laxism of some of the Jesuits they criticised had not been formally endorsed and indeed was widely condemned). I would say it's worth reading, but it needs you to think rather than simply reciting scandals.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 25, 2018 19:23:54 GMT
Just in from dropping down to College Green to see Pope Francis go by. Decent-sized crowd, a lot were from overseas. Relatively few people praying, though quite a lot of papal flags waved (including by yours truly). Wait was long, Popemobile speedy when it arrived, though surprised what a close view of the Pope it afforded. Some Trinity Trots held out a speech-bubble reading SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE from a high window of their institution as the Pope rode by, doubtless hoping it would show up in the background of photo/film coverage. Noteworthy how little impact there was outside the immediate area (most shops stayed open etc). Some souvenir shops that displayed rainbow flags not too long ago now had papal banners - that's capitalism for yeh. I went because Francis IS the Pope, and because the fewer who turn out the more the Philistines will gloat. I won't be in the Phoenix Park tomorrow because my (minor) health problems won't be helped by walking for miles and standing for hours. I'm content with my regular Sunday encounter with God in church.
|
|