The Horror: This is Why Catholic Traditionalist Fear Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter trickster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, we’re big boys. We accept that we are ALWAYS wrong and the popes are ALWAYS right. This is what St. Francis commanded us to believe under pain of grave sin. This command has not gone away. Ask the FI. We are happy to do whatever the pope says that we must do and stop whatever he says we must stop. We’re happy to change and modify what he says to modify and to keep what he says to keep. It is our hope that the laymen, diocesan priests, and religious from other communities who work alongside us in this ministry will learn from our witness. We’re not in this just to stop abortion. We’re in this to live the Gospel in a very particular way and nothing would make us happier to see others learn to live the Gospel the same way.

So where’s the problem? 🤷
Brother, respectfully, this is not true. We are required to obey the Holy Father in all that is lawful. When it comes to what he commands us to do, yes, he is always right. However, he is infallible, not impeccable. The Holy Father is only always right when speaking on behalf of the whole church on a matter a faith or morals with the weight of tradition, scripture, and the magisterium of the Church behind him. It’s easily possible for a Pope to be unscrupulous, a personal heretic, and pursue policies detrimental to the Church and its faithful.

I absolutely agree with much of what you have said. We must avoid an unhealthy attachment to the idea of Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy. We also must be willing to accept and obey the leadership and direction of Papa Francesco. However, in pastoral and prudential areas, we are free to disagree with the Holy Father so long as we are not being disobedient. He (not specifically Papa Francesco - any Pope) is not always right in these matters.
 
Brother, respectfully, this is not true. We are required to obey the Holy Father in all that is lawful. When it comes to what he commands us to do, yes, he is always right. However, he is infallible, not impeccable. The Holy Father is only always right when speaking on behalf of the whole church on a matter a faith or morals with the weight of tradition, scripture, and the magisterium of the Church behind him. It’s easily possible for a Pope to be unscrupulous, a personal heretic, and pursue policies detrimental to the Church and its faithful.

I absolutely agree with much of what you have said. We must avoid an unhealthy attachment to the idea of Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy. We also must be willing to accept and obey the leadership and direction of Papa Francesco. However, in pastoral and prudential areas, we are free to disagree with the Holy Father so long as we are not being disobedient. He (not specifically Papa Francesco - any Pope) is not always right in these matters.
Again, Brother JR was referring to his community, his Franciscan family.
 
Brother, respectfully, this is not true. .
If you go back and very carefully read what I wrote, I am speaking of what is absolutely true for Franciscan men. I respectfully request that one who is not a Franciscan try to understand our perspective before telling us what is and is not true about our relationship with the papacy and what our aspirations are for the people we serve.

As the example that I gave, that of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, is a perfect example of our (Franciscan) witness to assent to the popes, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, as long as they are not asking us to violate the Commandments.

It was the wish and command of our Seraphic Father that we submit to the popes, bishops and to him in all things, without making these fine distinctions that others make: fallible and infallible; doctrinal and disciplinary; ordinary magisterium and extraordinary magisterium and so forth. If was also the desire of the Seraphic Father that we live this way in a very public manner and encourage the laity and the secular clergy to follow suit, not because it is some kind of divine imperative, but because it is an act of total poverty and total dependence on Divine Providence. It was also the Seraphic Father’s vision that his sons would be the peace keepers in the Church, especially in times such as our own. Keeping the peace often requires embracing the cross by accepting or giving assent to that with which we may disagree or which is not required of us, but not to do so would simply encourage and even prolong conflicts and debates that interfere with the perfection of fraternal charity.

To go back to my original statement, we (Franciscan men) take the position that while we may disagree with the pope or the bishop, we do not engage with them in such discussions unless invited to do so by them. Rather, when dealing with the public, we answer questions in a very detached and pastoral manner, always looking for the positive in the actions, words, and choices of the hierarchy. We do not do this just for our sake, but as a teaching for all Catholics who may be observing us.

You will find that among us, while there are always those brothers who cave in to their opinions, these are the minority and are quickly penalized to the severest extent commanded by St. Francis and St. Clare and allowed by Canon Law and civil law.

This being a forum for Catholic traditions and Catholic customs, I felt that it would be a good place to share a tradition that is very Catholic and also very old. It goes back to the year 1209. Until the French Revolution we taught this manner of personal discipline to the lay faithful and the diocesan clergy inspiring many and helping some to become great saints, among them men like St. John Vianney, St. Francis de Sales, St. Thomas More, St. Vincent de Paul, Bl. John XXIII, Ven. Pius XII and St. Pius X, all of them appreciated this form of poverty and humility so much that they all became professed members of our secular order.

There is much more to this than obedience to what a pope says. It’s all about embracing poverty or total detachment from things, persons, places and even our opinions when these will only aggravate rather than help. This last part is very important. There are times when our opinion will help. The we have a moral duty to offer it. But even then, our Seraphic Father gave us a method. One did not just post one’s opinion. In those days it would not have been the Internet. Maybe it would have been something like Luther, a paper on a door or some such thing. In any case, one did not just publicly state one’s opinion, which one knew would be helpful. One asked for permission to speak one’s mind. There was a protocol of courtesy which is lacking in today’s Church.

There are too many people with opinions, too many opinions that only aggravate rather than help, expressions of opinions in places where they will not be helpful at all, and a lack of restraint in opining. One must be disciplined in speech as one would be in diet. Yet, people seem to take greater care of their diet and their fitness than they do of their tongue. This is does not help. I believe that it frightens sensitive souls.
 
I like the big picture. Looking at the last three Holy Fathers, we see John Paul II, yes, as an intellectual, but also as a mystic, whose spirit had an almost hard-wired connection to God. We next see Benedict XVI as the intellectual theologian, known for his incredible mind. Now, we have Francis, who seemingly eschews both high theology as well as mysticism in favor of pouring his heart into the job. When we examine the most prominent traits of those three: spirit, mind and heart, we see a completed set of the human intangibles - perhaps even a reflection of the Godhead.
 
But it’s no surprise that he gets paraphrased and contextualized and nuanced and blatantly misrepresented by some vested interests.
Indeed. It happens all the time in all fields, the other main one being politics. The only way to avoid it is to shut up.

It happened to Pope Emeritus Benedict as well, when he mused about potential licit uses of condoms in certain limited circumstances. Here’s a sample headline, from the BBC:
Pope condones condom use in exceptional cases - book
Then from left-leaning Guardian:
Pope Benedict says that condoms can be used to stop the spread of HIV
Then the NY Post:
Pope: Condoms OK — for male prostitutes
Then from “The Age” in Australia:
Pope lifts ban on condoms
Do you see where I’m headed on this?

And this was something the holy father wrote in a book, not an off-the-cuff interview.

Now where is the indignation from certain quarters stating that the Pope should have been more careful about what he says and does not know how to write? Instead they blamed the media for misrepresenting the Holy Father.

Now we have a similar situation, and we are blaming the Holy Father!

And I’m accused of rash judgment because I sense an agenda at play here?
 
So this idea that “its all in your head” is not really a valid argument, if that is what you are trying to say.
I didn’t say that, now, did I? You said “the evidence affirms it” as though that were a flat statement of fact. It’s not, it’s a statement of your opinion. Which you are absolutely entitled to; just don’t make it sound like a universal conclusion. There are many who disagree with you.
 
Gawd my friend…you sound like a fundamentalist republican from the tea party…where`s your Canadian moderation 🙂
This proves the point and confirms the reality of the concern. A child in the womb is a human being and that human being is being arbitrarily exterminated for the crime of being a human baby. That’s a crime and a crime against humanity.
I think to simplify the issue on gay rights, abortion as simply a matter of popular trends it to miss the point of gay activists and pro-choice people.
But it is simply and demonstrably a matter of a popular trend. I have heard ad nauseam the sometimes blatantly absurd or otherwise contradictory “points” made by gay activists and pro-arbitrarily-exterminating-a-human-being people. Their “points” collapse into and are exposed as mere emotion very quickly; and emotion is what motivates a popularly trending mob, not civilized democractic thinking and never justice.

Finally, the villainization of helpless children and morally straight people does nothing to further the cause of justice in any country and it, too, also needs to stop.
 
I like the big picture. Looking at the last three Holy Fathers, we see John Paul II, yes, as an intellectual, but also as a mystic, whose spirit had an almost hard-wired connection to God. We next see Benedict XVI as the intellectual theologian, known for his incredible mind. Now, we have Francis, who seemingly eschews both high theology as well as mysticism in favor of pouring his heart into the job. When we examine the most prominent traits of those three: spirit, mind and heart, we see a completed set of the human intangibles - perhaps even a reflection of the Godhead.
I like this paradigm very much.

Now here’s another that we were discussing among the brothers the other day.

We don’t know exactly when, but at some point in his life St. Francis had a vision that he shared with Br. Giles. In the vision he saw the throne of God and a long line of Franciscans that seemed to go on forever.

In his usual way, Francis interpreted it very literally to mean that he would have many sons and daughters, as did Abraham. However, there was also a message in the vision. He heard the voice of Christ promising him that he (Francis) would be an instrument of reconstruction. Francis could not find the connection between the vocal message and the image, so he shared with Br. Giles who was himself a great mystic. In fact, he is a Blessed.

Br. Giles was one of the original brothers. He remembered Pope Innocent’s dream. Pope Innocent reported that he watched as St. John Lateran was about to crumble and along came Francis, leaned against the basilica and grew into a giant, holding it up.

Pope Innocent had the same dream twice. The second time that he had it, he saw Dominic, but propping up the Basilica of St. John Lateran from the other side.

Br. Giles thought about Francis’ vision and Pope Innocent’s dreams and started to connect dots. He told Francis that it was true that God would give him as many sons and daughters as he had given to Abraham. He said that it was also true that God would protect the Dominicans and the Franciscans from extinction and that both would see the Second Coming.

Here is the curious part of this legend. Br. Giles thinking was that Dominic and Francis would die physical deaths, like everyone else. However, they would never die in the life of the Church. They would not just be remembered on their feast days, but they would play key roles in the reconstruction of the Church throughout her history and they would prop her up until Christ came back. Br. Giles also believed that Dominic and Francis would not fade into memory, but their presence would be strong in the Church.

Now, remember that this is legend. Most of this is an oral tradition, except for the actual dream of Pope Innocent and the vision of St. Francis. Apparently, St. Dominic had a similar dream. The legendary part is the dots that Br. Giles connects. No one really knows whether Br. Giles ever connected these dots or whether they were connected over the centuries, because neither Francis or Giles every wrote this down.

However, we (the brothers) were discussing the other day our plans for this Thursday, October 3, the Transitus of St. Francis from earth and October 4, his entrance into Glory. We remembered the story. We found it kind of interesting that all of this attention is going toward a pope named Francis, precisely as the Church prepares to celebrate his solemnity. We found it interesting that the legend says that Francis would remain alive and be known as one of two supporting pillars of a Church in danger. In other words, he is not just another saint on the calendar, but his name would become a household word, for believers and non-believers. God would use him to draw people’s attention to Christ’s Church at a time when people are turning away from the Church.

The other part of our musings is the fact that the last time that the Church went through such a turbulent period it was St. Pius V who was pope. Pius was a Dominican friar. Dominic’s presence was strongly felt in the Church, so much so that to this day, popes dress in “Dominican White”. The pope’s cassock today is a redesign of the Dominican habit worn by Pope Pius V, even the shade of white is the exact shade of the Dominican habit. Dominic’s spirit of preaching, teaching and charity were key qualities of St. Pius’ papacy. God used Pius’ papacy to protect the Church from the gates of hell so that Christ words would be fulfilled. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against her.” God used Pius’ papacy to bring order to the Church. The Dominican school is well known for order and balance between liturgy and preaching.

On the other hand, the Franciscan school is well known for simple outreach to the most sinful and the poorest, but without proselytism. The Franciscans convert by our example and through fraternal dialog and it has been a policy since the time of Francis never to preach to anyone who does not want to be preached to, but to quietly leave and simply ask the person to pray for us.

I’m not saying that any of this is some extraordinary sign from heaven. I’m no mystic. But there were four of us planning this celebration for October 3 & 4 and all of us had the same thought about all of this hooplah, a pope named Francis and the creation of the Council of Cardinals.

All I can say is that God has very sneaky ways of bringing home the lost sheep. I know, because I never chose to be a Catholic. God duped me as kid hanging a candybar on a fishing stick and making me follow it. When I realized it, I was inside and the Venus Fly Trap shut and here I am, many many many years later.

Never overestimate the weakness of man. God will not be outdone in Wisdom.
 
I didn’t say that, now, did I? You said “the evidence affirms it” as though that were a flat statement of fact. It’s not, it’s a statement of your opinion. Which you are absolutely entitled to; just don’t make it sound like a universal conclusion. There are many who disagree with you.
You have to make a distinction between opinion and fact. Opinions tend to be conclusions one arrives at that cannot be backed by evidence.

For an example, if I were to say I am of the opinion that Apples are red, that is saying I have not done any verification but am speculating. On the other hand, if I say all Apples are red, I am stating a fact that follows from empirical deduction or some other form of analysis.

In the same way, when I say that most people have misread and misinterpreted the words of the Pope, that is not an opinion. That is a fact. A fact that can be backed by evidence such as the NARAL “Thank you!”.

Therefore, I fail to see your insistence that “its just my opinion”.
 
Let’s back it all up a bit.

I will agree with you, at least to a limited extent about the Pope making an issue between Doctrine and Morals, and mercy.

My recollection is that he is not the first to do that (although, the first to do it so explicitly from a position such as his for some time).

The first person to do that?

The first person was Christ, and He was doing that throughout the Gospels. Every time He took issue with the Pharisees, the scribes and the Sadducees, that was at the bottom of the issue.
I believe you are incorrect.

Jesus did not pit the moral law against God’s mercy and love. The reason for Jesus taking issue with the Scribes and Pharisees was because they were hypocrites. They manufactured rules to protect themselves. Jesus himself said to follow the teaching of the Pharisees but to not imitate them.
The Pharisees were in particular excellent about knowing doctrine; and they parsed morals down to the finest jot and tittle. And Christ was less than meek and mild in condemning them for putting form over substance, and for being experts at knowing what the law was, but having no clue why the law was. Christ Himself repeatedly violated the letter of the Hebrew law (remember issues about Sunday: about purity laws concerning who you sat with, ate with, conversed with - a prime and astounding example was His speaking with the woman at the well).
Again you are incorrect. Christ wanted the Pharisees to not only just follow the law but to have a circumcision of the heart. An inner conversion that will make them not only follow the law but also go beyond the tenets of the law.

Christ in no way created a tension between moral law and God’s love and to say so is incorrect.
Francis is not saying, and has not said, that the law - doctrine or morals - is of no importance, should be ignored, or should be overturned.

Francis is not saying that the woman who obtains an abortion is guilty of nothing; but what he is saying is something the Church has said (and which many are not aware of, or understand very little about) is that a) that woman still is a child of Christ’s; b) has not committed a sin which cannot be forgiven; c) is in dire need of compassion and understanding as opposed to condemnation - or worse than that, abandonment- d) may not have been completely culpable, and e) needs our mercy if she is to find God’s mercy.

There are any number of people who get a bit quakey when dealing with anything except absolute black and white. Rather than reaching out to those in dire need, they retreat to the solace of absolute laws, and often are quick to question why, for example, there are not more excommunications. Out on the street, application of black and white simply drives people further away.

Sadly, there are many who only know the application of black and white; and when one is driven away, too often we hear something to the effect "Well, they hated (the Church) (Christ) (the priest) (put your example here…). Without getting to know the one in trouble, they label and move on.

There is a time for rules; and the Pope is clearly one who knows and fully supports the rules.

But like Christ, he wants us to understand the other part - the part about mercy - and apply it. What Christ tried to teach, and what the Pharisees too often didn’t get, is that one can apply mercy without getting rid of the rules.

Just as some will find a conspiracy where there is none, there are those who will find ambiguity where there is none. The ambiguity lies not in the message or the messenger, but in the hearer.
This too is incorrect. A good comparison for you would be the post Vatican II Church in Africa in comparison to North America. The North American Church has been following the acceptance adage for fifty years. People still hate the Church. The ideas such as “Church is too strict” the “Church is too harsh in criticizing sinners” are all excuses to veil ones pride (which is a sin in itself) and to express ones unhappiness with the teachings of the Church.

Sure enough, the Atheist who attacks the Church today is not an atheist because he thinks the Church is too strict. The Atheist attacks the Church because it is an institution based on “superstition” that burdens the people with “moral laws” that have no empirical basis. For them, there is no alternative “soft Church policy” that makes them happy. Either the Church revokes it’s stance or shutdown.

Now if you were to look in comparison at Africa, the Church is very rigorous and the legal system of some of the countries put ban homosexuality. Yet people love the Church and attend Church services unlike North Americans.

Therefore this idea that a strict Church drives people away is a myth. It has no evidence to support the claim other than those who complain that the they do not like the moral teachings of the Church. But that group of people are concerned about abolition of the moral position rather than the strictness.
 
I like this article:

catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/news-flash-jesus-of-nazareth-tolerant-of-adulterers

While I like it, I can only pray that I myself, stay away from phariseeism. As soon as I feel like I conquer one area of sin (through Christ only of course), I find myself becoming a pharisee in that same area. Oops I just did it again 🙂
The article is mistaken on multiple levels. Jesus did not abolish the law. He fulfilled it. Jesus did not tolerate adulterers. He accepted them when they repented and certainly did condemn sinners (Example: Hypocrite Pharisees).

The article makes a mockery of Jesus and his teaching.
 
One morning I’m going to get up and while having my coffee and reading the CAF I’m going to see a thread that reads “Pope Says He’s Not Infallible”.
 
Christ wanted the Pharisees to not only just follow the law but to have a circumcision of the heart. An inner conversion that will make them not only follow the law but also go beyond the tenets of the law.
Correct and incorrect. Living the law deeply did not mean “going beyond the tenets.” It meant actually living the Law, because the Law was deep in that it required comprehensive and interior fidelity, not superficial obedience. 🙂
Christ in no way created a tension between moral law and God’s love and to say so is incorrect…The ideas such as “Church is too strict” the “Church is too harsh in criticizing sinners” are all excuses to veil ones pride (which is a sin in itself) and to express ones unhappiness with the teachings of the Church… this idea that a strict Church drives people away is a myth. It has no evidence to support the claim other than those who complain that the they do not like the moral teachings of the Church. But that group of people are concerned about abolition of the moral position rather than the strictness.
👍
 
Correct and incorrect. Living the law deeply did not mean “going beyond the tenets.” It meant actually living the Law, because the Law was deep in that it required comprehensive and interior fidelity, not superficial obedience. 🙂
Yes, I should have clarified what I meant by beyond. I included that phrase to indicate the situation of Divorce where Christ asked that we revert back to the full law of how things should be rather than settling for the Mosaic law that allowed compromise.
 
You have to make a distinction between opinion and fact. Opinions tend to be conclusions one arrives at that cannot be backed by evidence.

For an example, if I were to say I am of the opinion that Apples are red, that is saying I have not done any verification but am speculating. On the other hand, if I say all Apples are red, I am stating a fact that follows from empirical deduction or some other form of analysis.

In the same way, when I say that most people have misread and misinterpreted the words of the Pope, that is not an opinion. That is a fact. A fact that can be backed by evidence such as the NARAL “Thank you!”.

Therefore, I fail to see your insistence that “its just my opinion”.
Opinions are conclusions, whether they are backed by evidence or not.
if I say all Apples are red, I am stating a fact
No, you are not stating a fact. You are stating an opinion based on faulty evidence, as all Apples are not red. Saying that all Apples are not red is also an opinion. In the human condition, there are no facts. Only opinions that a majority of people agree upon.
 
Opinions are conclusions, whether they are backed by evidence or not.
If you count that there are two Apples in a bag, are you saying that is an opinion?
No, you are not stating a fact. You are stating an opinion based on faulty evidence, as all Apples are not red. Saying that all Apples are not red is also an opinion. In the human condition, there are no facts. Only opinions that a majority of people agree upon.
Hmm? So I presume Jesus died and rose from the dead is just an opinion to you?
 
The article is mistaken on multiple levels. Jesus did not abolish the law. He fulfilled it. Jesus did not tolerate adulterers. He accepted them when they repented and certainly did condemn sinners (Example: Hypocrite Pharisees).

The article makes a mockery of Jesus and his teaching.
Now this at least is certainly incorrect.

Certainly you know that the Lord had and has both patience and certainly at least “tolerance” for sinners (e.g., adulterers); but not adultery (i.e. sin). We are all of us sinners ; and Jesus not only “tolerates” us, but He moreover and in fact actually and actively loves us (something a little more than tolerance again). Indeed,

Rom 5:8
But here, as if God meant to prove how well he loves us, it was while we were still sinners that Christ, in his own appointed time, died for us.

In fact Jesus loves all humanity; or as the Apostle Saint Paul again put it, though this time to his disciple, Timothy:

1 Tim 4:9-11:
[H]ow true is that saying, and what a welcome it deserves! It is for this that we endure toil and reproach, our hope in a living God, who is the Saviour of mankind, and above all of those who believe in him.

Such is the charge, such is the doctrine thou art to deliver.

Now going out of your way to die for and saving sinners - mankind - is something more than mere tolerance, I think.
 
Now this at least is certainly incorrect.

Certainly you know that the Lord had and has both patience and certainly at least “tolerance” for sinners (e.g., adulterers); but not adultery (i.e. sin). We are all of us sinners ; and Jesus not only “tolerates” us, but He moreover and in fact actually and actively loves us (something a little more than tolerance again). Indeed,

Rom 5:8
But here, as if God meant to prove how well he loves us, it was while we were still sinners that Christ, in his own appointed time, died for us.

In fact Jesus loves all humanity; or as the Apostle Saint Paul again put it, though this time to his disciple, Timothy:

1 Tim 4:9-11:
[H]ow true is that saying, and what a welcome it deserves! It is for this that we endure toil and reproach, our hope in a living God, who is the Saviour of mankind, and above all of those who believe in him.

Such is the charge, such is the doctrine thou art to deliver.

Now going out of your way to die for and saving sinners - mankind - is something more than mere tolerance, I think.
I am honestly unclear as to what you are trying to say. Are you aware that God loves those in hell? So I fail to see any point here that you are trying to make.

The article was incorrect in that it suggested Jesus had no problem with adultery and was tolerating of it. He was not. He surely spoke out against it considering he spoke out against divorce.

EDIT: God loves the devil too as a creature he created. Does it mean you should too?
 
The article was incorrect in that it suggested Jesus had no problem with adultery and was tolerating of it.
But this is not what you had originally said and complained of. Originally you accused the author of the article of having the audacity (in your mind) to claim that Christ tolerated sinners (“adulterers”). That is not news and certainly not cause for scandal.
EDIT: God loves the devil too as a creature he created. Does it mean you should too?
Christ did not humble himself, lay down his life, suffer and die for the devil. He did, however, for adulterers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top