Why are Catholics so disrespectful towards Francis -- and how to react?

[Contarini]

But do you know what they did to one another? War against and butcher each other in regards to not only who would succeed Muhammad, but also in regards to which “leader” represented Islam in its purity. I learned this from, you guessed it, from muslim history itself.

Yes, I think that’s a problem. But I’m interested in how Muslims interpret it. I’m not a Muslim. I don’t have to worry about it. I have enough to worry about in my own religion.

Have you read any of the quran, hadiths, original and authoritative commentaries on it?

I’ve read large chunks of the Qur’an and smaller selections from the hadiths.

You haven’t shared how much of the material you’ve read. But this isn’t a contest.

Is it your position that you, as a Christian, do not know how to read or understand anything Islamic, and so you must be told of it from only muslims?

It is my position that since Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the Word of God and interpret it in that light, I as a Christian cannot say anything about what God meant in the Qur’an, since I don’t accept the view that the Qur’an is inspired in the first place. That’s just an obvious logical inference. I interpret the Qur’an as a human text written in the seventh century A.D. Muslims don’t. To understand what Muslims believe God says in the Qur’an, I need to listen to Muslims, who believe that God speaks in the Qur’an.

Do you take the same approach to the Bible, and not try to understand it because you can’t possibly understand it without someone closer to it (maybe a bishop) explaining it to you?

I am a Christian believer who believes the Bible is God’s Word. But, in fact, I do interpret the Bible in light of Church Tradition. Don’t you?

And do you accept non-Christian interpretations of the Bible? Interpretations, furthermore, that contradict not only Christian interpretations but even interpretations by non-Christian scholars whom the polemicists think are too friendly to Christianity? (You criticized a non-Muslim scholar of Islam as “dishonest” in how he interpreted the texts.)

Please, prove to us how non-muslim outsiders are polemical and have an axe to grind.

Not all non-Muslims are polemical, though pretty much by definition we reject some of the claims of Islam (with the possible exception of certain pluralists or “perennialists”).

But Christians who devote themselves to arguing against Islam are, by definition, polemical. “Polemical” isn’t a slur–it’s a word that means “arguing against another point of view.”

They must, then, be guilty of the sin of calumny.

Nope. It doesn’t follow. It is certainly very easy for polemicists to fall into calumny, and therefore I think polemic is something that should be engaged in with great caution and reluctance. But polemic is simply the act of trying to disprove another religion or philosophy or political position or whatever.

Actually, I have no problem with Jewish commentators on the Old Testament and even the New. I evaluate their interpretation according to the sources of the Tradition though (Sacraments, Scripture, Liturgies, Creeds, Councils, Fathers, etc). I’ve learned awesome things about Jesus cleansing the Temple, and its meaning in regards to the Eucharist, from Rabbi Jacon Neusner. Of course, I’d have a problem with an outsider twisting the religion…but a familiarity with Christian sources and logic clearly tell me if they do this.

But by what standard do you judge whether they are “twisting” it?

Of course Christians can learn from non-Christian interpretations. But we don’t give them authority over us. We approach them with the knowledge that they aren’t using the same canons of interpretation we do.

With Islam, a familiarity with their most authoritative texts and interpretations and logic itself is somehow not enough to show that Islam is violent and dark. The default position that it is “peaceful,” however, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO. The mental gymnastics are amazing!

Your straw man is indeed ridiculous, as straw men tend to be.

I have never argued that Islam is “peaceful.” I think that the question is meaningless.

Islam is a complex historical phenomenon. I’m interested in listening carefully to what different Muslims tell me they believe. If they claim things about their history that don’t convince me, I will respectfully disagree. But I’m not going to tell them that they must somehow believe other than they do because I read their history differently than they do. That would be absurd.

And, again, you should know better as a Catholic. For instance, many anti-Catholics take the Catholic claim that Church teaching is unchanging to prove that Catholics must still believe in burning heretics at the stake and must be dishonest when they claim otherwise.

So far you’ve given us only reactionary feelings. You bring no knowledge of Islamic sources to the table.

Balderdash. Neither of us has actually cited any Islamic sources. You don’t know what I know, and I don’t know what you know.

Not interested in talking to you anymore.

Well, I won’t bother responding to your earlier posts then. That saves me a lot of trouble

Edwin

 

[the_phoenix]

…
…
… “Poor Holy Father, we must pray very much for him.” - Blessed Jacinta of Fatima

:byzsoc:

…

 

[lynnvinc]

…He spends so much time talking about climate change, an issue that doesn’t really concern Faith or morals (the world doesn’t care about climate change in relation to these)…

Yes, indeed climate change is all about morals – it’s about how we are participating in the killing people and harming God’s good creation now and on into future (our GHGs can last for 100s of years, and a portion even 1000s up to 100,000 years, going on harming life on earth).

It is a matter not only of killing people, but of losing our souls in the process, and JPII, BXI, and Francis would have been remiss if they had not been admonishing people to mitigate climate change over the past 26 years.

I’ve never killed a person in other ways, and I’ve never had an abortion, but I am killing people thru my contributions to climate change. That’s why for the past 26 years I’ve made it a point to reduce our GHGs, which we’ve done by over 60% below our 1990 emissions, cost-effectively, saving us money, and without lowering our living standard.

Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its righteousness and ALL things will be added unto you! Guaranteed!!!

 

[eddie_too]

i would just like to say that it is impossible to know whether those who claim to be catholic and post on the internet are actually catholic.

it is also impossible to know if those who claim to be devout and practicing catholics are telling the truth.

in general, i take the approach that those who post hateful, vicious and erroneous comments about pope francis are NOT catholics or are at best not devout and practicing catholics.

pope francis, as near as i can determine from what i have read of his sermons and his writings is as catholic both, in terms of tradition, writings and teachings as any of the popes in my lifetime, beginning with pius XII.

i have no idea of the motives behind those who smear him and attribute erroneous teachings and made false accusations against him, but i do believe they are not saying and writing these things through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wesrock]

Well, Pope Francis is a Jesuit. That is not a bad thing. Jesuits have a reputation for very nuanced approaches. I think some see this as being a “liberal Catholic.” Others might prefer more clear cut approaches because not everyone well interprets nuanced approaches. And others must have other concern.

But I feel a lot of it is built into national partisanship and the way political lines have been drawn, too.

 

[po18guy]

Po18guy, I wouldn’t think that we risk lapsing into murmuring. When the Israelites murmured in the Book of Numbers, this meant that they wanted to hang Moses, apostasize from God, and return to Egypt. I don’t think anybody wants any of the above. Bishops are needed to maintain the integrity of the Church, but so are the laity! Actually, it is the Holy Spirit who truly maintains the integrity. We’re the Body of Christ all together. We need to do our part too. Offering constructive criticism is not an attack against Authority.

Our Lord had exactly zero good things to say about murmuring. We laity must trust the hierarchy! We are not theologians. We are not pastors, ministering to the divorced and remarried. We do not apply Amoris Laetitia - it is applied to us, if necessary. Fraternal correction, if any is needed, comes appropriately from the “fraternity” which is the Bishops in union with the Holy Father. When we speak against the Holy Father because he does not agree with us, we have a problem with humility and obedience. In principle, this exact process occurred in Germany in the 16th century.

When we murmur, gossip, opine, “pontificate” or otherwise seek anything beside understanding, we question Christ by questioning His Church. We are poisoned by the media age in which we must all have a voice, must all give our “valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.” The Church does not need valuable (name removed by moderator)ut - we need her valuable output.

 

[Stat_Crux]

I think some see this as being a “liberal Catholic.”.

Some see him as liberal, but I don’t think it’s appropriate that we should try to speculate on the Pope’s inner thoughts and intentions. However, given that we have Bishops and Cardinals presenting diametrically opposed interpretations of his writings on such fundamental issues of Dogma (the indissolubility of marriage, Sacrament of Confession, reception of the Eucharist), it’s understandable that four Cardinals have written to the Pope for a clarification of how he wants us to understand his writings.

Regardless of which “side” of the “debate” each of us finds ourselves on, clarity should be desirable to all. An ambiguous situation doesn’t help anyone who claims to hold to a universal truth communicated to mankind by God himself.

 

[Matthew_Light]

I am inclined to believe that God is inspiring Pope Francis through the Holy Spirit to help lead humanity to unity and peace between all the peoples, nations and religions on Earth, which is God’s will for this age.

And there are people in the Catholic church (as well as every other Faith) who respond to that divine call of peace with a joyful heart, and people who prefer to focus on “us vs. them” tribalistic thinking.

I am not a Catholic, but I truly love Pope Francis and what he is doing in the office of the Pope overall, even if I don’t agree with every single thing he says.

 

[tiny_augustine]

Hi, again, po18guy. Within our earlier conversation, I said what murmuring really is. No one hear is actually doing that. Nor are we doing any of the sins that you are suggesting. Pope Francis says things publically on the record. Does he, honestly, expect us not to discuss them?

A good number of the “negative” points, which are actually just constructive criticism, made about Pope Francis specifically concerns topics that he, as the Pope, does not actually have the authority to address. If his infallibility concerns only Faith and morals, how much less should it concern things like making a positive evaluation of Islam and climate change. Concerning climate change, while he does have the authority to teach how morality or even aspects of Faith can be lenses whereby climate change is understood (and thereby Christianize it), he, on the contrary, has absolutely no authority to say whether climate change is true or not. Why not, then, leave it neutral, especially if this is not only a debateable issue, but also a contentious one, politically. The Pope’s Infallibility, nor even his role as Western Patriarch, nor even his role as Bishop of only Rome (his three areas of authority) have nothing to do with reaching such decisions. Concerning Islam, he does have the authority to evaluate the morality contained within it, and to pronounce a judgment accordingly. But to make a positive evaluation of it would be to disregard major voices within the Church, both East and West, from various centuries, and some sources within the Fathers, and to ignore too much evidence from Islamic written sources themselves (the point everyone plays dumb on). To then make a suddenly positive evaluation of it makes no sense. And when his opinion is not infallible, and is made alongside only the current fashion of pro-Islamic politicians, what do I do if I disagree with his merely fallible statements based upon actual evidence? Call myself stupid?

The quote that you pasted from my earlier response leaves out some of its context:

“Offering constructive criticism is not an attack against Authority. The Pope and the Bishops** are the custodians of the Tradition**. They, through this Tradition, keep order, resolve conflicts, make interpretations. But Christ rules in the Holy Spirit. We should trust ourselves **and **the Bishops because the Holy Spirit, through the giving of the Tradition, is our guide.”

How else do the Pope and the bishops make decisions, if they do not rely on the sources of the Tradition and the interpretation and synthesis of them (Sacraments, Scripture, Liturgies, Creeds, Councils, Fathers, etc)? The Pope and bishops don’t, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, give new revelations.

When I came back to the Faith and actually started practicing it, 10 or so years ago, no one taught me anything. It was EWTN, and Catholic Answers, and some others, which comprise many lay people, who taught me. I then was taught by great Scripture scholars like Scott Hahn, another lay person. When my knowledge of the West was strong, I got a degree in Eastern Christianity. But, in my life, very few priests have taught me anything. And the bishops, when I lived in different parts of my country, had no teaching position (since they don’t often actually teach anything) or even personal presence in my life. I learned things for myself, originally, from the bishops of the past. I then realized, through the Tradition, how these Popes and bishops, got their interpretation…through that same Tradition. If one has the ability and knowledge of that Tradition, why wouldn’t he start synthesizing answers, exploring topics, taking a deeper look at things. I’m only following the Church’s lead, who urged me to read Scripture for myself, not to wait for official teachings of the bishops on all of its passages.
Lay people shouldn’t live how you are saying. There’s a difference between humility and passiveness. We all need to be active in our Faith. Humility concerns respect for legitimate authority, which we should follow. Pope Francis is the highest legitimate authority of the Catholic Church Militant, according to me. But when that legitimate authority starts saying things that go beyond his authority, that authority, ONLY IN REGARDS TO THOSE STATEMENTS, acts in an illegitimate way. That’s the whole point of this discussion.

What are you to do with lay advisors to Ecumenical Councils? It is certainly possible, even probable, that some of their lay interpretations were then AUTHORIZED by the Pope and bishops. Therefore, lay people are free to go deeper, just as the bishops do.

 

[po18guy]

Hi, again, po18guy. Within our earlier conversation, I said what murmuring really is.

OK, since we are lapsing into technicality, the Catholic Encyclopedia does not define murmuring, so we must rely on:

1. Your opinion
2. Common usage

murmur |ˈmərmər|
noun
• say something cautiously and discreetly: no obj. ] : they began to murmur of an uprising.
• no obj. ] (murmur against) archaic express one’s discontent about (someone or something) in a subdued manner.

Our current Holy Father’s character, judgment, prudence, etc. has been called into question like no other in our life time.

Please explain how the shrill chirping of the laity helps this?

 

[tiny_augustine]

Hey again, po18guy. In order to understand murmuring, let’s go to the Tradition. The word does occur in the homilies of the Fathers, telling us not to murmur like the Israelites (though I didn’t read all of the many elaborations on this), but knowing their commenting on Scripture, we go to that even higher source of the Tradition, and, therein, understand that murmuring is desiring apostasy from God, trying to overthrow Moses (most likely through violence), and desiring to go back to Egypt with all its idolatry (in fact, to “serve” in that idolatry). I don’t want to abandon the Faith, or make a coup against Francis or kill him, and I certainly don’t want to return to the filth that I was in many years ago. While popular meaning does define murmuring according to the definition that you have quoted, we’re dealing with something much worse, according to the Tradition. I used to think the same thing as you of murmuring. But nothing we are doing here is actually wrong. It may feel wrong (because we love our Lord and definitely don’t want to offend Him), but it isn’t. Mother Angelica called out numerous bishops on their errors, publically, and heatedly. She was right for doing so. And she was, technically, a lay person (religious are, by definition, still lay). Now there may be many pop-Catholic interpretations that would say that the definition of murmuring that you’ve quoted, this form of “murmuring” is still sinful, some would say probably mortally sinful. But these people are an even lower source of Tradition than the homilies of the Fathers that I used to start this conversation. The Apostles, then, would have been guilty of this form of murmuring against the Jewish High Priest and the Sanhedrin. Jesus would have been guilty of it, contradicting his own supposed command not to do it. He even went further, publically condemning them. But Jesus wasn’t guilty of this because he never said you can’t murmur according to the definition you’ve quoted, and, also, he gave us an example to follow. Other people have come along and probably built a “fence” in order to keep others from coming close to actually sinning.

We’re not chirping…we’re having a discussion. If everyone said the same thing in this forum, the conversation would die, and we wouldn’t learn or grow from each other. This conversation, which is actually a practicing of a way of communion between us, can help all things: it helps foster this communion, allows us to grow through understanding but appreciating different opinions, though not necessarily agreeing with them, helps some put their finger on something they couldn’t fully understand that was bothering them, and, if Francis is here, lol, reading this, might offer him both encouragement as well as advice. And if some of the things we’ve all said contains truth to it, then that’s a good thing since Truth comes from our Lord.

 

[commenter]

We live in an age of anti-religious authority, fanned by the media. Remember, all the popes over the past 50 years or so have been trashed by many, including Catholics. I have long expected liberals to be criticizing popes, but in recent years the conservatives have been following the secular culture, too.

The difference between 1966 and now is that there is far, far more communication: through the Internet.

I urge you to limit time on social media and the news media. They are usually not informing you, but make their money by keeping everyone in a state of alarm. We feel much freer since we cancelled our subscription to the daily newspaper. I also strictly limit any time on alarmist Catholic websites. I need to cut back on CAF.

A good rule is to spend at least an hour on genuine spiritual reading, especially the Bible, for every 10 minutes online.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think the reason why Catholics are disrespectful towards Francis – who is saying basically the same things that JPII and BXVI were saying all along, but perhaps more forcefully and in a way in which people actually take notice – is that Catholicism in America and some other places has been corrupted by the culture and perverted.

What people think of as Catholicism is actually only their unchristian culture. In America is it corrupted by American culture, much of it stemming from Enlightenment ideas, which were against Catholicism.

EWTN in many of its parts (not all, some of it is good and truly Catholic) is thus corrupted. They either ignore what the Holy Fathers have been saying for the past 30 years or they give partial and twisted interpretation (using tricks, such as making caveats the main thrust, ignoring the main thrust, etc). American Catholics (and others around the world) tune in to EWTN and unwittingly think they represent true Catholicism. The same goes for other Catholic fora based in the US. Luckily I did not have cable TV until 2007, so I was left only to read what the Holy Fathers and bishops were saying. When I started watching EWTN in 2007 I was shocked to find how much they diverged from Catholicism and had created their own perverted brand of it (like I said, not all, but enough to deceive greatly).

In India Catholicism is corrupted by casteism and untouchability, so much so that some caste Catholics are threatening to convert to Hinduism if they are forced to treat Dalits (untouchables) as equals with dignity and allow them to sit among caste Hindus in church, draw water from the community well, bring their dead into the church, use the main road to bring their dead in procession, use the village hearse, have the annual village religious procession go thru their segregated Dalit area, stop taunting Dalits in nasty ways re their untouchability, stop raping their women and little girls, stop beating them for non-offenses, stop oppressing them as slaves, start ordaining more Dalit priests, stop murdering them, etc.

So that’s what I see as the reason why many Catholics disrespect Pope Francis, and in so doing disrespect JPII, BXVI, and Catholicism.

 

[commenter]

Our current Holy Father’s character, judgment, prudence, etc. has been called into question like no other in our life time.

Please explain how the shrill chirping of the laity helps this?

Well, Pope Paul VI, JP II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict were attacked just as much. I don’t condone at all attacks on Pope Francis, just saying this is a continuation. The next pope will also be attacked. We live in a climate of anti-religious authority.

 

[Contarini]

Well, Pope Paul VI, JP II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict were attacked just as much. I don’t condone at all attacks on Pope Francis, just saying this is a continuation. The next pope will also be attacked. We live in a climate of anti-religious authority.

The difference is that the people who attacked JPII and Benedict are (except for some ultra-traditionalists who think all the recent Popes are liberals) not those who are attacking Francis. If you start from the assumption that there are no legitimate conservative/liberal disagreements within Catholicism and that “liberal” Catholics aren’t really Catholics at all and so don’t count, then it is no doubt true that Francis has been criticized by Catholics like no other. I think that’s a remarkably silly premise that makes it hard to deal adequately with reality, but it’s the premise of many folks here.

Edwin

 

[josh987654321]

i would just like to say that it is impossible to know whether those who claim to be catholic and post on the internet are actually catholic.

it is also impossible to know if those who claim to be devout and practicing catholics are telling the truth.

I agree, I believe it’s good to be wary on an anonymous forum board.

in general, i take the approach that those who post hateful, vicious and erroneous comments about pope francis are NOT catholics or are at best not devout and practicing catholics.

The problem I believe arises, when someone believes our Holy Father is allowing communion for the divorced and remarried, and it gets put to individual discernment which we all see doesn’t work evident by the woman who said ‘God wanted her to have an abortion’ communion for the divorced and remarried is a contradiction because there is no such thing as ‘divorce’ nor ‘remarriage’, so from what I hear it’s very concerning to me, is that vicious, hateful or erroneous of me to comment on? I don’t think it is.

When Our Holy Father accepted the ‘protest art’ with Christ crucified to a Hammer and Sickle, I didn’t think that was the best way to go about it, as I believe it could have been an opportunity to evangelize, by saying that Christ was crucified to a cross. The Church has suffered much under Communism.

When the US elections were approaching, the only comment repeated over and over again, was something our Holy Father said about Christians who only think about building walls are not Christian. That was wholly taken out for context for starters by whoever must have told him that narrative and second of all, how about those who endorse abortion (Partial birth and on mass and subsidizes for it) are not Christians? the murder of the innocent on mass scale?

When our Holy Father is said to have commemorated the 500th anniversary of the reformation with the Lutherans … well, I am very concerned, It’s not that I don’t like Lutherans (I don’t know any personally, but there is a Lutheran poster on these forums JonNC and he has some excellent posts I believe), it’s that the reformation is a schism of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church so why are we commemorating it?

I’m also concerned when I read some piece where our Holy Father denounces ‘Proselytizing’ as a grave sin, but there is no mentioning of evangelizing, and even the definition of Proselytizing on google definitions is gravely misleading.

pope francis, as near as i can determine from what i have read of his sermons and his writings is as catholic both, in terms of tradition, writings and teachings as any of the popes in my lifetime, beginning with pius XII.

i have no idea of the motives behind those who smear him and attribute erroneous teachings and made false accusations against him, but i do believe they are not saying and writing these things through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Does that include me and what I have just said?

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (The ones Podesta created to attack us), have been using our Holy Fathers social teachings to deceive the faithful, has our Holy Father even been told about this? What about a “Those who create a fake Catholic organization to revolutionize the Catholic Church to support things like abortion etc are not Catholic?”

There is a lot that doesn’t add up and a lot that is concerning, so I will just pray for our Holy Father and the Catholic Church and implore others to do the same.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[St_Francis]

I think the reason why Catholics are disrespectful towards Francis – who is saying basically the same things that JPII and BXVI were saying all along, but perhaps more forcefully and in a way in which people actually take notice – is that Catholicism in America and some other places has been corrupted by the culture and perverted.

What people think of as Catholicism is actually only their unchristian culture. In America is it corrupted by American culture, much of it stemming from Enlightenment ideas, which were against Catholicism.

EWTN in many of its parts (not all, some of it is good and truly Catholic) is thus corrupted. They either ignore what the Holy Fathers have been saying for the past 30 years or they give partial and twisted interpretation (using tricks, such as making caveats the main thrust, ignoring the main thrust, etc). American Catholics (and others around the world) tune in to EWTN and unwittingly think they represent true Catholicism. The same goes for other Catholic fora based in the US. Luckily I did not have cable TV until 2007, so I was left only to read what the Holy Fathers and bishops were saying. When I started watching EWTN in 2007 I was shocked to find how much they diverged from Catholicism and had created their own perverted brand of it (like I said, not all, but enough to deceive greatly).

In India Catholicism is corrupted by casteism and untouchability, so much so that some caste Catholics are threatening to convert to Hinduism if they are forced to treat Dalits (untouchables) as equals with dignity and allow them to sit among caste Hindus in church, draw water from the community well, bring their dead into the church, use the main road to bring their dead in procession, use the village hearse, have the annual village religious procession go thru their segregated Dalit area, stop taunting Dalits in nasty ways re their untouchability, stop raping their women and little girls, stop beating them for non-offenses, stop oppressing them as slaves, start ordaining more Dalit priests, stop murdering them, etc.

So that’s what I see as the reason why many Catholics disrespect Pope Francis, and in so doing disrespect JPII, BXVI, and Catholicism.

Since, asI mentioned elsewhere, I do not watch/listen to EWTN, I was wondering if you could give an (non-environmental) example of where the station contradicts Church teaching? I am curious now that you keep mentioning it.

 

[cfauster]

Since, as I mentioned elsewhere, I do not watch/listen to EWTN, I was wondering if you could give an (non-environmental) example of where the station contradicts Church teaching? I am curious now that you keep mentioning it.

For the first time today I looked on the web at EWTN Britain. I don’t know if it’s similar to EWTN USA.

I remember late pre- (and early post-) Vatican II. One example: the Mass used Latin pre-, but not post-. It was a tough transition for some to make (ironically, one reason some family members left the Catholic church).

More recently, and I think for good reasons, the status of the Latin Mass has been (re)-elevated. It is legitimate, and no sign of rebellion, for a parish to have a Latin Mass.

As an outsider now, it also seems clear that the ordinary, standard, regular, etc. language for Mass now continues to be (as Vatican II determined) the common language of the local people, for the obvious reason of enhanced understanding by all.

All in all, a good, fair, prudent state of affairs.

But then at EWTN Britain I see an article attempting to argue that now the Latin and vernacular Mass are equally ordinary, standard, regular, etc. Well, in legitimacy yes. But why chafe against the current Pope’s simple statement that a Latin Mass today is extraordinary rather than ordinary? Seems to be picking a fight for the sake of a fight.

See for yourself:
ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/card-burke-challenges-pope-s-relegation-of-latin-mass-to-an-exception

How about the ending of the article (bold as in original):

Comment

The equality between the ordinary rite and the extraordinary rite is unambiguous in Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum:

The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. T**hese two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.
**

How can the author overlook the first two sentences?:

The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.

Again, this is no longer my cat fight, but seems to me EWTN (Britain, at least) might have some bias.

 

[carn]

Why – especially on the Internet – are so many Catholics (in an official capacity, through articles, blog posts, etc.) bitter towards our current Pope? Why do these seem to dislike his approach? I just skimmed over an article that suggest Francis is initiating a “dictatorship of Mercy.” HOW SAD is that! It really startles me that people are criticizing the pope for highlighting MERCY of all things: I mean, are they going to criticize Jesus next?

My personal issue is not so much with what the Pope teaches, i dislike strongly many of this alarmist articles.

But what worries me is how those in the curia being so to say in his more inner camp react towards those being critical, especially the reactions the 4 “dubia” cardinals received.

This reminds me strongly of the tactics i know from some political fields, when one party tries to undermine some till then formally undisputable principle to replace it with a different and usually contradicting principle all the while disguising (sometimes even among many of their members) where the journey is to end.

And that worries me, cause i have no explanation for that pattern appearing among Church hierachy.

I

 

[carn]

Yes, indeed climate change is all about morals – it’s about how we are participating in the killing people and harming God’s good creation now and on into future (our GHGs can last for 100s of years, and a portion even 1000s up to 100,000 years, going on harming life on earth).

It is a matter not only of killing people, but of losing our souls in the process, and JPII, BXI, and Francis would have been remiss if they had not been admonishing people to mitigate climate change over the past 26 years.

I’ve never killed a person in other ways, and I’ve never had an abortion, but I am killing people thru my contributions to climate change. That’s why for the past 26 years I’ve made it a point to reduce our GHGs, which we’ve done by over 60% below our 1990 emissions, cost-effectively, saving us money, and without lowering our living standard.

Seek ye first the kingdom of God and its righteousness and ALL things will be added unto you! Guaranteed!!!

And what if based on my understanding of all the sciences relevant to estimate the dangers/damage of GHG come to the conclusion that while the scientific consensus/evidence about GHG causing warming is sound, the evidence for the damage caused by it being larger than the damage caused by politics to avert warming is at best pretty lousy?

Meaning that advocating for respective policies might in the end kill more people than not advocating for such policies?

Cannot see that i have to submit to people in Church hierachy disagreeing with me about that question.