Irony.
OK, defenders of all things troubling in the present papacy. You told me I’m not allowed to believe that Pope Francis scorned the spiritual bouquet he received; you said that I could not believe he told Tony Palmer and Rt. Rev. Greg Venables and Brian Stiller and Antonio Scalfari and Rabbi Abraham Skorka that they don’t need to convert and/or he doesn’t want to evangelize them; that I’m not allowed to believe he told Marie Collins that she doesn’t have to come to Mass to be part of the Church; that I can’t believe he told Jacqueline Sabetta Lisbona that she could receive communion despite being in an adulterous marriage; and you insisted that I mustn’t believe he told Archbishop Jan Graubner that the traditional Latin Mass is just a fashion that doesn’t need much attention.
You said because none of this came directly from the pope’s mouth to your ears that it was “hearsay” and not trustworthy, no matter how credible the witness.
So guess what? That means you don’t get to believe this and tell everyone the matter is settled.
Tit for Tat…..I do believe, however, that he may keep his word if in fact this really IS his word. What concerns me now is what will receiving our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament really look like after all is said and done for those of us who are ‘eligible’ to receive? As you know Archbishop Cupich has been chosen to head the Archdiocese of Chicago. (mine) I heard on EWTN (of all places) last night that he required the Congregation to STAND during the Consecration, and they were NOT to kneel. I wonder in a short time to come what kind of mockery the progressives will make out of the already slaughtered Novus Ordo Mass. I did hear prior to this that he is a proponent of ‘tweaking’ the Mass, because he doesn’t think Vat ll went far enough. Hmm……are we back to ‘Clown Masses’ or ‘Liturgical Dance’ maybe? (maybe worse) One consolation I have is that he is coming to Chicago that has a fair amount of TLM’s and a fair amount of traditional Catholics. If anyone knows anything about Chicago, there is no lack of ‘true grit’ among Catholics here. I am hoping if this all happens here, he will have a ‘run for his money.’
Just a follow up observation…….since I heard this on EWTN, the Catholic media outlet that seems to be in complete denial of the left wing take over of the Church, I wonder if they are starting to come out of their ‘fog’?
The entire “Church teaching can’t change!” line is pure misdirection. Almost no-one in the Church thinks that the Holy Father is just going to come out in open contradiction to the clear words of Christ.
What we panicky bedwetters are actually concerned about is the likelihood that our hierarchy will loudly affirm the indissolubility of marriage even as they start long-run historical processes … that give birth to new historical dynamics that will, in practice, empty the doctrine of all practical force. We see this in Cardinal Kasper’s Commonweal interview, in which he takes several opportunities to affirm indissolubility while going on to advocate that the Church recognize of the second, non-sacramental marriage as “the best possible situation.”
The blogger Bonald, at Throne and Altar has called “Kasperism” the ultimate heresy, building as it does upon Modernism:
Kasperism: Religion exists to validate our emotional impressions and make us happy. The foulest, most degrading form of heresy, far worse than honest atheism. “Phenomenological” impression–e.g. feeling that one’s marriage is dead, whatever the hell that means–must inform doctrinal “ideas”. Because these phenomenal states are basically feelings and desires, and therefore neither logical nor universal, theology itself must jettison logic and embrace a sentimentalism in which the one who hypocritically poses as the most “humble” and “merciful” carries the day. Thus, the Church’s teaching and discipline are not officially rescinded, but they cease to have any connection to anyone’s actual life, bound as the latter is in its phenomenal bubble.
I have no trouble believing Bishop Fernandez’s account of the pope’s statement, but it’s beside the point.
I was just reading your comments about Pope Francis, now but I thought I would add mine at this time.
I too feared the worst, of course I tend to be pessimistic, but during my long life it appears that when one thinks things can’t get worse, they get worse. So when I heard Pope Francis was our new Pope and wasn’t it great that someone from the New World was elected Pope, I feared for the worst. My fears increased at his sailing under the banner of humility while he made a public effort to reject and thereby cast aspersions on rituals that had served Popes for many, many years.
I also someones complaint that e have witnessed serious, church going Catholics turn on each other with some animosity. I have noticed this and I often wonder why this has happened. One guess is that living in a democracy, particularly a two party system a polarization is spawned. One part begins to attack the other party, until this is absorbed by everyone. We tend to demonize those we disagree with. I wonder if this might be a fruit of a secular democracy. It is something to wonder about. I see a lot of it in some Catholic blogs. Of course I believe there are professional provocateurs that troop these blogs, too.
Finally though I do not believe that poverty, unemployment, wages and other social justice issues are the biggest challenges facing the Church today, I d believe they are legitimate issues for the Church. Because Democrats and liberals and Pope Francis are championing these issues, is no reason for traditionally minded Catholics to ignore them.
I couldn’t agree with you more Robert. On every point. And on the issue of poverty that the current Pontiff is now championing, it’s hard for me to wrap my head around the reasoning of his NEVER ending mantra. One might think if looking from the outside in, that the Church MUST HAVE done a terrible job in reaching out to and ministering to the poor for over 2,000 years now. Seems all he does is berate people for walking around like ‘proud peacocks’ (his words) flaunting their ‘riches’ and ignoring those in need. I’ve always wondered who in the heck he’s talking about? Sure, there are some that fit that profile, but is it a majority? I’ve never seen it. What I’ve seen are soup kitchens, community outreaches for the poor and homeless, sponsored by none other than the Church of course, hospitals, schools, and whatever Diocese I have been in, ministering to the poor as being their main goal. What in the world is he talking about??? I’m sorry, I just plain don’t understand where he’s coming from.
Not only does this anecdote not make everything okay, to the contrary, it demonstrates further that Francis is a slippery fish; a deliberate schemer whose modus operandi is ambiguity and plausible deniability. The man keeps going on and on about how he wants shepherds who “know the smell of the sheep”. Well, let me tell you something, Holy Father, here is one sheep who thinks that you and your shepherds smell like a pack of wolves.
In other words Brian…….he is a modernist.
(Que Rogers & Hammerstein): He is the very model of a modern papal modernist!
Gilbert & Sullivan.
I’m fine with the bishops deciding what direction to take.
An Open Letter to Pope Francis by Dr. Kelly Bowring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcV8eivedAE
Well atsa4you, he may not have it all correct, we won’t know for a while, but he has some of it really nailed down. We will see what we will see after this Synod.
It helps to assume that the image of the Church in Pope Francis’ mind is that which he formed during his childhood, e.g. South American cultural Catholicism seen through the eyes of a child: oppressive, authoritarian, ceremonial, doctrinal, moraline, provincial, segregated. When he criticizes the Church, this is what he has in mind, and he sees the contemporary movement to return to Tradition as an attempt to re-institute that kind of Catholicism – which is why he fights against it at every opportunity. Like so many of his generation, he equates Church Tradition with what was really a very specific cultural manifestation of it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Read in the context of 50 or 60 years ago, the Pope’s homilies make much more sense. But as it stands, he’s half a century behind the curve, and governs accordingly.