|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 25, 2014 14:46:06 GMT
Stramentarius offers some critical thoughts on Pope Francis's handling of the Synod and treeatment of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and ends with an exhortation to trust in God, pray, and not succumb to panic. Again, this is offered for consideration only. www.stramentarius.com/november-24-2014/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 30, 2014 21:38:25 GMT
An odd little piece of evidence. I was at my school class reunion this weekend. There is a tradition that the Pope is toasted at the dinner (the school was historically run by a religious order) but when I was at a similar function 5 years ago the toast to Pope BEnedict, though listed on the menu, was omitted because the organisers thought he was too unpopular (particularly in relation to the scandals, in which some members of the order were implicated). This of course was grossly unfair to Pope Benedict (I would have toasted him on my own if I had realised in time what was going on) but I suspect it reflected how a lot of people felt, however unreasonably. This year they toasted Pope Francis quite happily. The big question is, what does this mean? Will people who wouldn't have believed Pope Benedict if he recited the two times tables, because they had been so effectively poisoned against him, be open to the Gospel message when they hear it from Pope Francis? Or do they toast Pope Francis because they project their own attitudes onto him? A bit of both, I suspect - there are opportunities and dangers. In the meantime, it's best to remember why St John XXIII had a particular devotion to Bl. Pius IX - because it reminded him that his immense popularity as Pope might dissipate as fast as it arose, and that a Pope can be eulogised one minute and reviled the next. Pray for Pope Francis, and remember that every Pope's burden includes the crown of thorns and the chalice of tears.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2015 21:18:22 GMT
Caroline Farrow offers some explication of Pope Francis's unfortunate remarks about "breeding like rabbits" carolinefarrow.com/2015/01/20/francis-catholic-families-and-rabbit-gate/Incidentally, she has an interesting analysis of how on such occasions Damian Thompson runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds. With the greatest respect, I must say that the Holy Father can sometimes be too spontaneous for his own good, Let's also recall, however, that Pope Francis on his recent journeys delivered a strong defence of HUMANAE VITAE and described gay "marriage" as violating God's plan, to the dismay of various commentators who believe their own publicity about him. Today's GUARDIAN, incidentally, has a snarky piece by one of their journalists, of Irish origin, comparing Pope Francis' enthusiastic reception in the Philippines to her memories of the 1979 Papal visit here and insinuating that in 36 years the Filipinos will have reached our present happy state of impending "marriage equality" and the like. Alas.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 30, 2015 21:08:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 30, 2015 21:28:16 GMT
BTW here is an unforeseen use of Solovyev's Tale of the Antichrist - some radtrads are quoting its description of the Antichrist as a great humanitarian to imply that Pope Francis is Antichrist! (These people obviously are not familiar with post-Reformation explications of why the Petrine guarantee makes it impossible that an individual Pope should be Antichrist - which was not so clearly understood in the mediaeval period - nor with the Tale itself, which is quite orthodox on this point and in which Antichrist does not claim the Papacy. I will not enlarge further on the Tale's handling of this point, for fear of being misunderstood.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 19, 2015 20:30:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 26, 2015 19:03:50 GMT
CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT has a very interesting, and edifying, analysis of a recent Pope Francis interview given to a MExican journalist, including some profound thoughts on the significance of Our Lady of Guadalupe for Mexico. He sees some of MExico's current problems as the devil's vengeful resentment at Our Lady's appearing there - something to bear in mind next time you visit Knock: www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4115/revisiting_the_popes_mexican_interview.aspx
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 24, 2015 21:59:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 14, 2015 12:22:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 13:53:12 GMT
I'm always cautious to delve into the realm of conspiracy theories, but it seems that someone may be trying to push the idea of Pope Francis having a short reign on the throne of Peter. Some time back - I can't remember where I read it - I saw something about a person on the "inside" claiming Pope Francis will resign in 2016. Now on Sky News there is a story about him having a brain tumour: news.sky.com/story/1573477/vatican-denies-reports-pope-has-brain-tumourOf course, they say that it is a treatable tumour. But still, it could be seen as the Pope being in poor health. Has anyone else heard these rumours about the Pope resigning? I don't believe them myself, but I'm curious as to why someone is making the claim.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 2, 2015 22:39:02 GMT
The Pope's visit to Africa as come in for some criticism in some quarters for purporting to dismiss Catholic sexual teaching as unimportant and calling conservative Catholics "fundamentalists": www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-attacks-fundamentalist-catholics-dismisses-condom-ban-as-unimpMeanwhile, said interview can be read in full at the Catholic News Agency(http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-popes-in-flight-interview-from-africa-to-rome-48855/) where this is what he really said: "Fundamentalism is a sickness that exists in all religions. We Catholics have some, not just some, so many, who believe they have the absolute truth (LSN has "in" where "they have" should be.) and they move forward with calumnies, with defamation and they hurt (people), they hurt. And, I say this because it’s my Church, also us, all of us. It must be combatted. Religious fundamentalism isn’t religious. Why? Because God is lacking. It’s idolatrous, as money is idolatrous. Making politics in the sense of convincing these people who have this tendency is a politics that we religious leaders must make, but fundamentalism that ends up always in tragedy or in crime, in a bad thing comes about in all religions a little bit." Now I can't see anything wrong per se with that statement as reported by CNA, and I notice that LSN has been pushing a consistent anti-Francis agenda for a very long time. Why? Who knows? As for the condom bit, I concede that he could have been more forthright, but he didn't deny the Church's teaching on the matter, nor would I even countenance that he would. All I think is that surely the Pope (life everyone else) is entitled to the assumption of good faith, and should not be accused of undermining the Church's teaching without good reason. It's possible that his actions could have (unforeseen) negative consequences in the Western Church, but that is very different from repeatedly portraying him in a negative light as LSN appear to do (save for the odd positive article, where even then there are posters in the comboxes who question whether Francis is a real Pope or not). OK, rant over. But this constant criticism of the Pope is getting tiresome IMHO, especially since much of it is based on misunderstandings of what he actually said.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 3, 2015 10:28:54 GMT
The position with Pope Francis is problematic and it is an indication of the need of a lot of Catholics to practice what they preach, but instead it shows something quite different.
The National Catholic Reporter is a case in point. After three and a half decades of rubbishing post-Humanae Vitae Paul VI, JPII and BXVI, it suddenly adores Francis and exhorts all Catholics to give him loyalty in everything he says. This is problematic in its own right, but its not what the NCR thinks, as it is clearly presenting a view of Francis that it wants to.
And a lot of conservative journals presented JPII and BXVI in the same way. They made the same exhortion and presented both popes highly selectively.
The fact, however is that there is a continuum between the teachings of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I. There is a lot of difference in style - even between JP II and BXVI. Francis has a marked cultural difference to the other four for obvious reasons. I agree with Young Ireland totally about the benefit of the doubt, though the Pope can irk and doesn't seem to have the same measure of the western secular media and western liberal dissenters. But what trads are doing is different. First of all, they had constructed Benedict as a traditionalist that he wasn't - Benedict was a much deeper thinker than many of his admirers could appreciate and the hermeneutic of continuity meant the tradition of the Church from Pentecost up to the present, challenging day. Insofar as it was traditionalism, it was quite in keeping with the traditionalism of Lammenais in the 19th century. A lot of people who call themselves traditionalists are snapshot traditionalists, who might elevate the 13th century or the Baroque period or the pontificate of Blessed Pius IX above others.
In a way the 60s liberals in the NCR and Tablet are also snapshot traditionalists who glorify the era between the opening of the Second Vatican Council to the disappointment of the promulgation of Humanae Vitae. The election of Francis has given them a new lease of life, but again they are looking at him through rose coloured glasses. And traditionalists are doing the opposite.
Part of the problem is that both groups are ultramontanists who want a Pope after their own heart. It's when they don't have such that they appeal to Lord Acton. I repeatedly advised caution in regard to reading of Benedict's views and I do the same with Francis for a different reason. Not that the gulf is so wide as perceived. In the case of Francis, there is a need to sift through his statements carefully and as the late Malachi Martin preached (whether he practiced it or not is another matter) in relation to JPII is that we have to begin with a prejudice in his favour.
One of the buzz words of the 1980s and 90s was the existence of the "parallel magisterium" - i.e. the consensus of academic theologians throughout the Catholic world. My response was that they had less to say about their own parellel inquisition which ensured the that consensus would be maintained, regardless of what was coming from the CDF. I would warn traditionalists to be extremely cautious.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Dec 3, 2015 14:39:30 GMT
I agree with Alaisdir very much, and I suspect ultramontanism is actually at the root of a lot of Catholicism's problems. I think the reduction of Catholicism to papal authority suggests a certain insecurity at the level of faith.
Papal authority is more complex and multi-layered than either its 'conservative' cheerleaders or its ‘liberal’ detractors allow (although they now seem to have switched positions with one another). One thing it does not mean is that the Pope can summon doctrine out of thin air, or make it disappear with a flick of his pen. If this were the authentic Catholic position, Catholicism could hardly be the authentic version of Christianity. Surely faith means being willing to accept that in the past Popes have been, and in the future may well be, stupid, incompetent, or positively wicked, in the knowledge that ultimately this does not matter, because the Pope is a father figure, not an oracle. The very fact that we are encouraged to pray for him should make this clear.
Yes, a certain filial piety towards the Pope is an important virtue for Catholics, and one to be expressed by being positively prejudiced in his favour and generally trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, as you would your own father, whatever you knew his faults to be. I would gladly genuflect before the Successor to St Peter or kiss his ring, for example, in acknowledgement of his superior role within the mystical body of Christ and its unique nobility. The sedia gestatoria wouldn't even bother me to be honest. Yet I must say that I find a lot of contemporary devotion to the Pope (JPII, BXVI and Francis alike) to be really excessive and fawning. The hanging on his every casual word, the sort of saccharine affection one is expected to stir up within oneself... I can barely manage to stir up the interest most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 3, 2015 15:53:53 GMT
The Pope can't create doctrine, but he has an enormous role in interpreting it.
I don't consider myself an ultramontanist, but I do actually think an emotional (even maudlin) attitude towards the Pope is appropriate. I think Catholicism is a very emotional religion and the New Testament itself drips with sentimentality-- "greet each other with a holy kiss", etc. I suppose I am influenced by many of my favourite Catholic writers, such as G.K. Chesterton (who could not do any work for the rest of the day after meeting the Pope, and was genuinely awestruck) and St. Josemaria Escriva: "Your deepest love, your greatest esteem, your most heartfelt veneration, your most complete obedience and your warmest affection have also to be shown towards the Vicar of Christ on earth, towards the Pope. We Catholics should consider that after God and the most Blessed Virgin, our Mother, the Holy Father comes next in the hierarchy of love and authority."
I'm not criticizing anyone with a different view, though.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Dec 3, 2015 17:32:36 GMT
I didn't intend to criticize sincere emotional attachment to the Papacy as an office or to a Pope in particular, nor would I ever. It is an expression of Christian family love captured beautifully in that quote from St Josemaria. The problem is when an assumption arises that the Pope's will is necessarily in line with those above him in the 'hierarchy of love and authority'. If St Paul had taken such a view in Antioch, how many of us gentiles would be Christians?
The act of defying the Pope is surely different in kind, not just in degree, from defying Mary or God Himself.
|
|