Filial Correction Petition - Good or Bad Idea?

  • Thread starter Thread starter oppositeman13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You must have not read the OP - or if you did you are not responding to the idea I presented. I don’t care to discuss the media - that is not what the post is about - it’s about a prayer petition to show our concern for our church in unity.
 
oppositeman13 said:
You must have not read the OP - or if you did you are not responding to the idea I presented. I don’t care to discuss the media - that is not what the post is about - it’s about a prayer petition to show our concern for our church in unity.
Click to expand...
OK, fair enough. I was responding to something else, and I did not mean to dismiss the OP. It deserves careful consideration.
 
This is an insightful article on the issue.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/a-deeper-look-at-the-filial-correction-of-pope-francis-62895

I stand behind Pope Francis. I’m no theologian but I believe Pope Francis intended to open up dialogue and thought on the issue, not advise believers and clerics to commit heresy. Maybe people are questioning his methods and “vagueness” because they are paranoid.of uncertainty, trying to stir the pot because they want to be “right,” or just don’t like Pope Francis and are branding him a libertine because he doesn’t fit their brand of conservatism. The Church drew me in because of its timelessness but that doesn’t mean I cannot love a leader who sees a bigger vision. I think people are afraid he is trying to make a “new/worldly” Church, while I think he is trying to make the Church what it was always intended to be within the parameters of doctrine and truth. Again, I’m not a theologian but I think he is being orthodox, some just don’t know how to take his approach.

But, I also cannot judge if this correction was a good or bad thing. Who knows what God’s plan is for the issue. Whether the accusers are wrong or right, maybe there is a greater purpose to this action.
 
Most of the criticisms of the Correctio don’t even try to deal with the actual TEXT of the Correctio…they just slam the signers, or essentially argue that anything Pope Bergoglio says is inspired by the Holy Spirit and must be obeyed as the veritable Word of God.
 
I tend to agree with your assessment.
Steve Skojec is regarded as a shameless self promoter even by other Trad websites like Remnant.
They accuse him of exactly what you observe re Lifesite news - playing on the fears of the pious laity to drive up their ratings and page hits and raise their profile etc. He is the force behind 1P5.

I would personally think twice before tying my colours to the mast of Mr Skojec.

A lot of the “legit” internet stuff is simply a subtle manipulation of us the flock into the secular attitude agenda’s of a few very vocal web presences who like the Wizard of OZ seem much bigger out there than they actually are … all to the detriment of a Church whose members always used to be far more united when left to their un-manipulated selves…even if we often did bicker internally.

But not like this with lay “filial” correction of our highest Office.
Not like this.

 
Last edited:
Vadne said:
Most of the criticisms of the Correctio don’t even try to deal with the actual TEXT of the Correctio…they just slam the signers, or essentially argue that anything Pope Bergoglio says is inspired by the Holy Spirit and must be obeyed as the veritable Word of God.
Click to expand...
  • Since this involved matters of professional opinion, I do need to evaluate the signers’ credibility.
  • Some of the signers of this petition have serious credibility problems due to past history opposing Pope Benedict, for instance. This raises the question that maybe they oppose Pope Francis not because he is wrong, but because he is pope at present.
  • The extreme weakness of the credibility of a few signers does not negate the issue of alleged doctrinal/pastoral ambiguity. In the past week 2 solid local priests who I know have raised concerns over the same things the Filial does, though they have not explicitly endorsed the Filial. So, I keep an open mind on it. I do not feel theologically qualified to evaluate these issues, but would like further comment by more credible, orthodox theologians.
  • Nothing personal, but why did you call Pope Francis “Pope Bergoglio”? Do you think that practice might reduce your own credibility in posting?
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
I do not feel theologically qualified to evaluate these issues, but would like further comment by more credible, orthodox theologians.
Click to expand...
And there’s the rub.
Guess what defines “orthodox theologian” for some people 😉.
 
There is nothing wrong with calling the pope Pope Bergoglio. This is common practice in many parts of the world. Again, the obsessiveness over any hint of insult to the pope could use with a little balance in the direction of respect for the perennial teaching of the Church.
 
When a journalist uses the term “Pope Bergoglio” in an article to mix things up so that it’s not just “Pope Francis” over and over again, that’s one thing.

But when people use it often or exclusively and at the same time they are rendering a criticism, it comes across as condascending and disrespectful. I’m sure you did not mean it in that way, but do not be surprised when people interpret it that way.

It worked the same way with “Pope Ratzinger.” When used in dispassionate news articles, it comes across as verbal variety. When used in critical pieces, it comes across as an insult.
 
Vadne said:
There is nothing wrong with calling the pope Pope Bergoglio. This is common practice in many parts of the world. Again, the obsessiveness over any hint of insult to the pope could use with a little balance in the direction of respect for the perennial teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Some of the early supporters of Archbishop Lefebvre began to pay less attention to him when he started referring to Pope Paul VI as “Montini”. There is more involved here than just proper terms.

Do YOU want Your ideas to be received with maximum credibility? Just a suggestion.
 
I tend to agree with the others. Context is the key.
A secular journalist or even Catholic journalist occassionally freshening things after using the usual address for a while is one thing.
Continental use may be acceptable, literal translations into a US english not.

If we use the title Pope then it is polite only to use his first name it seems. That is his official title. And we dont even need to say “the first”.

Nothing wrong with Card Bergoglio or Card Ratzinger to refer to their words of the past. Even Fr could then be acceptable.

But to refer to PF1 as Pope Bergoglio, being aware of these customs, will come across as baiting I would think and is probably best avoided.
 
Last edited:
We are not paranoid of uncertainty, but rather well aware of the situation, namely, that catechesis has been abysmal these past 50 years, and as a result, it is not a valid assumption that the laity who hear these reports are properly grounded in Catholic teaching and thereby guarded from error. Witness the incident with Pope Benedict XVI speaking about condom use by homosexual prostitutes- any properly catechized Catholic understood what he meant, but the poorly catechized were seriously confused by it. Furthermore, the media is often hostile, quite willing to distort the words of the Pope to undermine the faith and morals of the laity. We are begging the Pope to understand that he’s not in Argentina anymore; he’s in the global spotlight, with his words being reported on global media the day he says them, and that many deliberately distort those words to subvert Catholic teaching because they hold the teachings of Christ and His Church in contempt.
 
when a reputable news source puts the pope’s words in quotes - and I realize the importance of context - the distortion comes from people and what is in their hearts - not from the news source.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top