A
AlbMagno
Guest
Yes, that was the point that I was trying to say. That’s why the rhetoric of Pope Francis “disastrousness” don’t make sense to me.
- Status
S
stpurl
Guest
I went through the original posts and what I saw was not that the speaker said Pope Francis was the worst of 266 Popes in history, but rather that he was worst in their opinion at SHEPHERDING the people.
I don’t agree because as others noted there have been some pretty terrible Popes in their ‘secular’ kinds of actions (Popes who kept mistresses, had illegitimate children, even taught heresy though not ex cathedra, authorized personal vendettas, etc., but I’m thinking that these people might be looking back less over ‘all history’ and more over the last say 150 years, when we had a succession of Popes who were for the most part remarkably clear spoken and outspoken. For them, Pope Francis is just too ambiguous, too inclined to speak of secular things, too much on the very worldly ‘life on earth’ and not nearly enough of the ‘life in heaven’. Of course they haven’t really listened to the Pope (or they dismiss what doesn’t fit their narrative) because Pope Francis is very, very much speaking of the ‘hereafter’, Pope Francis is strongly aware of the supernatural nature of evil and devils and warns us of such, etc.
If there is one aspect of God bringing good out of evil with this pandemic it is that I believe that Pope Francis’ true goodness and strength are much clearer to the whole world (including those who for whatever reason—and it is NOT ‘traddies’ for the most part, or even just the rads, or rads and atheists—have had questions about him. You simply cannot see and hear him in these last weeks and not realize his care and concern and his deeply CATHOLIC faith.
I don’t agree because as others noted there have been some pretty terrible Popes in their ‘secular’ kinds of actions (Popes who kept mistresses, had illegitimate children, even taught heresy though not ex cathedra, authorized personal vendettas, etc., but I’m thinking that these people might be looking back less over ‘all history’ and more over the last say 150 years, when we had a succession of Popes who were for the most part remarkably clear spoken and outspoken. For them, Pope Francis is just too ambiguous, too inclined to speak of secular things, too much on the very worldly ‘life on earth’ and not nearly enough of the ‘life in heaven’. Of course they haven’t really listened to the Pope (or they dismiss what doesn’t fit their narrative) because Pope Francis is very, very much speaking of the ‘hereafter’, Pope Francis is strongly aware of the supernatural nature of evil and devils and warns us of such, etc.
If there is one aspect of God bringing good out of evil with this pandemic it is that I believe that Pope Francis’ true goodness and strength are much clearer to the whole world (including those who for whatever reason—and it is NOT ‘traddies’ for the most part, or even just the rads, or rads and atheists—have had questions about him. You simply cannot see and hear him in these last weeks and not realize his care and concern and his deeply CATHOLIC faith.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It’s weird. Why are all the titles listed as “historic” but “Patriarch of the West,” one of the actual historic titles, is not?
If not the bishop of Rome, which bishop is now the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province? Which is the primate of Italy? These are not just honorary titles, but deal with hierarchical organization and prerogatives.
If not the bishop of Rome, which bishop is now the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province? Which is the primate of Italy? These are not just honorary titles, but deal with hierarchical organization and prerogatives.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
They are for their local Churches (and always have been) as Lumen gentium 27 notes. But the Pope is for the universal Church as well. Lumen gentium uses the term “Vicar of Christ” for the Pope as more than a title, but the substance of his office:
That being said, Pope Francis has never been shy about flexing his jurisdictional muscles all over the universal Church, titles or not.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
Jesus didn’t need to be top heavy with titles to have authority.
G
Genesis315
Guest
He actually had/has many titles, below is a link with over 150 of them found in Scripture. Many are very “top heavy,” like “King of kings” and “Lord of all.” In fact, He was crucified because He bore some of these titles.
Last edited:
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Didn’t Benedict XVI suppress that one (Patriarch of the West)?
G
Genesis315
Guest
Yes, which is why it was already “historical.” That’s why it’s weird it was not included. It actually makes me think these aren’t intended to be suppressed, since the actual suppressed one doesn’t appear. I mean, even servant of the servants of God is listed as historical. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Emeraldlady
New member
He didn’t sign off with any of them alluding only to being the Son of God. He was a very simple Shepherd walking among the people without any airs and graces. Tradition has added titles to Him down the centuries but they were later add ons.Emeraldlady:
He actually had/has many titles, below is a link with over 150 of them found in Scripture. Many are very “top heavy,” like “King of kings” and “Lord of all.” In fact, He was crucified because He bore some of these titles.
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
From this Orthodox’s perspective Pope Emeritus Benedict’s suppression of “Patriarch of the West” does not help ease the Orthodox attitude towards the Papacy and the Latin Church. It would have made more sense to keep the title, “Patriarch of the West”, to show his historical continuity with the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
If the 150 titles are ALL found in Scripture, and Scripture is “God-breathed”, and Jesus is the Second Person of the GodHead, then he did “sign off” on all of them.Genesis315:
He didn’t sign off with any of them alluding only to being the Son of God. He was a very simple Shepherd walking among the people without any airs and graces. Tradition has added titles to Him down the centuries but they were later add ons.Emeraldlady:
He actually had/has many titles, below is a link with over 150 of them found in Scripture. Many are very “top heavy,” like “King of kings” and “Lord of all.” In fact, He was crucified because He bore some of these titles.
As for being “a very simple shepherd,” that isn’t exactly all of the meaning behind “the good shepherd.”
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
Scripture conveys a the very clear reality of Jesus as a simple shepherd without any airs and graces. It is not out of step with tradition to represent Jesus in that light by the modern papacy.
S
stpurl
Guest
Jesus was a rabbi. A rabbi was by definition able to read and write and had a status in society beyond ‘simple shepherd’.
This is not to criticize the view of our Lord as humble. Certainly He was humble; He humbled Himself to be born as a man.
But Jesus is also God.
Just as it would be wrong to portray Jesus (as the Jansenists did) as ONLY ‘King, God, untouchable, removed from sinful people”, it is I believe equally wrong to portray Jesus as only ‘simple shepherd or even ‘simple rabbi’.
The first ignores Jesus’ humanity, but the second, and it is used to a great extent today, ignores Jesus’ Divinity.
In a world where everybody is an individual, everybody is his or her own ‘Pope’, chooses what he or she wishes, and ‘everybody’ is ‘as good as the next man” and humility often is the ‘false humility’ of denigrating oneself so that the admiring throngs will praise one up, “Oh look how simple and HUMBLE this person is” and one winds up preening oneself for being so much BETTER than everybody else who ISN’T so ‘humble’, I think that ignoring Jesus’ divinity is a far greater danger.
*I know some might think that I am targeting Pope Francis, who is well known to have a lot of people publicly commenting on how humble he is. I categorically state that I am NOT doing so and that there is a huge difference between Pope Francis’ own actions and the loud sycophant crowd of Uber Papalists. It is not Pope Francis’ fault, or through any wish of HIS, that people praise him; in fact it makes him uncomfortable. And Pope Francis makes certain sure that he gives GOD the praise and glory. Pope Francis, if he mentions Jesus as a humble man, makes sure he gives praise to Jesus’ humility as even more striking because He is also King of Kings and Lord of the Universe.
This is not to criticize the view of our Lord as humble. Certainly He was humble; He humbled Himself to be born as a man.
But Jesus is also God.
Just as it would be wrong to portray Jesus (as the Jansenists did) as ONLY ‘King, God, untouchable, removed from sinful people”, it is I believe equally wrong to portray Jesus as only ‘simple shepherd or even ‘simple rabbi’.
The first ignores Jesus’ humanity, but the second, and it is used to a great extent today, ignores Jesus’ Divinity.
In a world where everybody is an individual, everybody is his or her own ‘Pope’, chooses what he or she wishes, and ‘everybody’ is ‘as good as the next man” and humility often is the ‘false humility’ of denigrating oneself so that the admiring throngs will praise one up, “Oh look how simple and HUMBLE this person is” and one winds up preening oneself for being so much BETTER than everybody else who ISN’T so ‘humble’, I think that ignoring Jesus’ divinity is a far greater danger.
*I know some might think that I am targeting Pope Francis, who is well known to have a lot of people publicly commenting on how humble he is. I categorically state that I am NOT doing so and that there is a huge difference between Pope Francis’ own actions and the loud sycophant crowd of Uber Papalists. It is not Pope Francis’ fault, or through any wish of HIS, that people praise him; in fact it makes him uncomfortable. And Pope Francis makes certain sure that he gives GOD the praise and glory. Pope Francis, if he mentions Jesus as a humble man, makes sure he gives praise to Jesus’ humility as even more striking because He is also King of Kings and Lord of the Universe.
Emeraldlady
New member
This thread is about Pope Francis though, being attacked for relegating a range of document sign offs, to historical titles. There is no mention of whether he did it to rob the papacy of its traditional authority or to rob Jesus of divinity. Inspired by the trials of dear Cardinal Pell today, I’ll wear your accusation of sycophant uber papalist without a defense and feel at peace that I can one day stand before God with a clear conscience for speaking against the anti Francis attacks.
S
stpurl
Guest
I did not and will not ‘accuse’ you of anything, least of call sycophant Uber Papalist. For heaven’s sake, my dear, my posts are not aimed at attacking YOU. Or Pope Francis. Or even anybody who might think they were being targeted as sycophant Uber papalists (or rad trades, or whatEVER).
I was just trying to express my opinion that we need (as Pope Francis does) to give Jesus the glory of His humanity and His divinity. I wanted to stave off anybody (and I wasn’t thinking of you either) who would claim that Pope Francis ‘only’ focused on humble Jesus by stating that he always gave Jesus glory on both aspects. I wasn’t criticizing you for saying Jesus was a simple shepherd as I noted He surely was humble, but trying to give my opinion, as OTHERS did, that along with your perfectly correct notice of His humanity and humility, it was also a good idea to make sure His Divinity was given an equal share.
And I too rejoice at the vindication of Cardinal Pell.
I was just trying to express my opinion that we need (as Pope Francis does) to give Jesus the glory of His humanity and His divinity. I wanted to stave off anybody (and I wasn’t thinking of you either) who would claim that Pope Francis ‘only’ focused on humble Jesus by stating that he always gave Jesus glory on both aspects. I wasn’t criticizing you for saying Jesus was a simple shepherd as I noted He surely was humble, but trying to give my opinion, as OTHERS did, that along with your perfectly correct notice of His humanity and humility, it was also a good idea to make sure His Divinity was given an equal share.
And I too rejoice at the vindication of Cardinal Pell.
Emeraldlady
New member
You don’t understand. I am everything that you think is a sycophant Uber Papalist. I’m not ashamed of that but that is not how I would describe myself. My entire life and faith have a foundation on the authority of the Pope regardless of his flaws and failings. If he decrees a focus or gives ideological guidance, I trust in that implicitly. So much so that if Cardinal Burke were elected the next Pope, decreed the installation of the Tridentine Mass as the Ordinary, brought back all the pre Vat II Church practices, I would humbly conform and would never publicly question or denounce that. I do not like or trust Burke but if he was elected Pope, I would obey without any other agenda.
That’s the Catholic that I’ve been raised to be and will always be however you describe that sort of trust.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Wait, what? I’m not presuming to call you names, I’m not describing how you practice your faith, and I’m not denigrating your faith or your trust.
I keep trying to say that I am just stating my opinion about a general concept, not attacking certain posters.
OK?
I keep trying to say that I am just stating my opinion about a general concept, not attacking certain posters.
OK?
M
Maximian
Guest
Everyone has the authority to question the Pope.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Since when do ‘simple’ shepherds claim the authority to judge all the nations at the end of time? Coming on the clouds of heaven and sitting at the right hand of power doesn’t exactly translate to “without any airs and graces,” does it?
And coincidentally, Jesus uses that word “shepherd” while he “comes in glory” with “all the angels” as he sits on the “throne of his glory.”
I dunno. Not exactly a 'simple shepherd" being portrayed there.
Last edited:
catholic03
Well-known member
I trust in the Pope.
I trust his word on controversial issues.
If the Holy Father went away tomorrow and said that ‘contraception is okay’ (which no Pope will ever do), then no, I would not obey him.
Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals are in a much better position to question the Holy Father than I am. Cardinal Burke is one of my favourite prelates. He has the authority to question the Pope, but I don’t think that I do.
I am a layperson. Unless the Pope does something clearly against Church doctrine (which he has not done and won’t do), then I will obey him.
- Status