BIG: Tucker Carlson in Russia already, to interview President Putin, Musk supports.

Discussion in 'The Signs of the Times' started by Xavier, Feb 6, 2024.

  1. Whatever

    Whatever Powers

    From Gaudium et Spes:

    "Every day human interdependence grows more tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world. As a result the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and easy access to their own fulfillment,......". You can read the rest here: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html


    I quoted part of paragraph 26 from Chapter 11 which is headed "The Community of Mankind".
     
  2. Whatever

    Whatever Powers

    You're right, you didn't call Pope Francis a Communist but many have. I apologise for misrepresenting what you actually said. I'm pretty sure that Pope Francis is aware of where the two diverge but it is a fact that the Communists purloined part of Catholic social teaching and re-presented it as their own. I remember when I first read that the Pope said so in an interview, people got all hot amd bothered but I thought then and still believe that the Pope is right about that.

    Pope Francis has a ham fisted way of doing things but we shouldn't always think the worst of him. He has given us plenty of material for valid criticism but seeing the worst in everything he says and does undermines the valid criticism.
     
    DeGaulle likes this.
  3. Whatever

    Whatever Powers

    I think he's approaching his expiry date. Therr's not a whole lot more he can do. I'm more concerned that people around him whom he trusts could take advantage of his weakness. He has been careful to not cross the line of formally teaching error but if he's too weak to spotmthe error in a document, there's no knowing what he might put his name to. We'll just have to trust that the Holy Spirit is keeping a watching brief.
     
  4. LMF

    LMF Archangels

    I would like to believe what you say, about there not being much more he can do, to be true. That, imho, does not appear to be likely. Unlike a certain president, he appears to know exactly what he's doing. Having just read through the part of Gaudium et Spes you noted. The next paragraph(27) states the following:

    "Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator."

    Francis appears to pick and choose from the above list. I won't list all those he ignores (or covers up). The great "Christmas debacle" document is enough to show what he believes (or does not believe) about the Catholic concept of human dignity. But, who am I to judge?
     
    Mary's child, DeGaulle and Byron like this.
  5. Luan Ribeiro

    Luan Ribeiro Powers

    The communist label is something that doesn't fit him enough considering the blatant support he gave to Hillary Clinton in the US in 2016 by saying that Trump was not a Christian. He could never say that communists think like Christians, even if they both shared some points of view, because in the case of Trump, he did not have the slightest consideration for the fact that Trump was a pro-life candidate as per the doctrine of the Church.
     
    Basto, Mary's child and DeGaulle like this.
  6. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    It is particularly egregious for a pope to abuse his authority in assessing whether a person is or isn't a Christian, given the authority that is attached to the office of the papacy, even if not to the individual who currently occupies it.
     
  7. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/exit-the-pope

    Exit the Pope?
    It is not disrespect of papal magisterium to register difficulties with supposedly pastoral recommendations on the basis of prudential criteria.
    Msgr. Richard C. Antall
    My reading of papal history has lately convinced me that the papacy permits the contradiction of one of the oldest axioms of philosophy: the parts are sometimes greater than the whole. That is especially true in our age when the greater share of the Fourth Estate has given up all pretense of objectivity. We are not trusted with the news to make our opinions. We are given narratives framed by opinion, and dissidence is censored to an extent that is both unconstitutional and antithetical to the truth.

    For such elements of the wide ranging “media,” Pope Francis is a name to conjure with. And the conjuring is not only not generally in the hands of Christians but actually in the hands of those who are antagonistic to Christian belief and especially to the claims of the Church. Papal imprudence is given magnified effect, while ordinary magisterium is ignored. The pope himself is very vulnerable to such manipulation because of his imprudence.

    Imprudence like: after finding the synod insufficiently open to the blessing of same-sex couples deciding to impose it on the Church by ukase. (That is the word for the decrees of the autocratic czar of all Russia.)

    Imprudence like: placing in the dicastery of doctrine a man whose writings would no doubt make him “non idoneous” to be a bishop, let alone a cardinal entrusted with an essential curial post.

    Imprudence like: taking the pushback of Fiducia Supplicans as a personal insult to which he pretends to give profile in courage and claim to be suffering for the truth. This from a person most free with insults (e.g., EWTN is “diabolical”).

    Imprudence like: making the bishops know that he will not tolerate criticism, as he has shown in his scandalous treatment of even the most pious dissent (e.g., Bishop Strickland). This came before Fiducia and had an effect on our own bishops’ conference.

    Imprudence like: allowing a “spontaneous, private, fifteen-second” blessing become a piece in The New York Times and not reacting to the priest’s gloss that “he was waiting a long time to be able to bless” a couple.

    Imprudence like: pretending to allow an “exception” of the non-acceptance of Fiducia in Africa as due to “cultural” issues and not “religious” principles that are grounded in the Bible and Tradition.

    Imprudence like: using every media opportunity to present the false narrative that opposition to Fiducia is a denial of the Church’s duty to sanctify the faithful. It is not a question of denying to pray for (bless) individuals but of refusing to give the impression of endorsing what is explicitly contrary to Bible teaching, the Catechism, and traditional pastoral practice. He who is not with the pope is therefore against the grace and mercy of God. That is a false dichotomy that is deeply embarrassing.

    Papal infallibility never was supposed to be a cover for the personal moral and intellectual fallibility of the men who held that ministry. Not seeing how papal decrees and table talk will be confusing to ordinary believers is not only to be tone deaf but also to be negligent. Permitting the media to control the message is a disaster for orthodoxy. Does the pope not recall what St. Paul said (in a context that was not opposing traditional morality but religious scruples) about not offending the weak? Papal infallibility never wassupposed to be a cover for the personal moral and intellectual fallibility of the men who held that ministry.

    Lately, I have been thinking much of Ionesco’s Theater of the Absurd play Exit the King (Le Roi se meurt) I saw in a production of a French touring company in college. The king is dying but is in denial. His health, like his kingdom is in collapse. The play is about a man coming to terms with his decline and death. The king’s two spouses have diametrically opposed strategies for him. The first wife, Marguerite, along with the king’s physician, are pushing for him to be aware of and accept his impending fate. The second wife, Marie, tries to shore up his denial of reality.

    The palace itself is crumbling, the population has grown old or migrated away, the staff no longer obey the king’s directions, there is no longer an army to resist invasion. His Majesty believes that he can command the forces of nature but cannot do anything to forestall his nation’s decline. The tug-of-war between denial and self-congratulation and realism and fear is the conflict that powers the plot. The delusion of the king, his enormous ego and self-deception, is echoed by the sycophantism of his second wife in counterpoint to the bitter first spouse. The tragedy of the king is his lack of awareness; but unlike Shakespeare’s King Lear, this drama is played for laughs.

    The play has a multitude of applications, but I think it says something special to Catholics about current affairs in our gerontocratic age, with both Church and State in the hands of old men presiding over serious decline in religious culture and civilization in general. There are questions about realism and about the acceptance of reality. Hubris and frustration echo through the chaos, and events control men and not men events. An image that comes to my mind with this is the cracking of the great dome of St. Peter’s. Our Holy Father seems on a collision course with his own pretended legacy of fraternity and humility.

    This is connected with what I regard as the weak response of the U.S. hierarchy to Fiducia Supplicans. Even the Dutch Bishops’ Conference demurred. I know of a bishop who instructed his priests to read the declaration in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament and then did not comment on the soi-disant“clarification.”

    There was an anonymous poem about an Anglican pastor, “The Vicar of Bray,” who changed his theology with each monarch from Charles II to George I. “Old principles I did revoke/ set conscience at a distance/ Passive obedience was a joke/ a jest was non-resistance.” The hierarchy of African countries had much more courage than ours, with minimal exceptions. Their embarrassed silence is deafening. Have the bishops forgotten “qui tacet consentit”—“silence gives consent?”

    It is not disrespect of papal magisterium to register difficulties with supposedly pastoral recommendations on the basis of prudential criteria. Despite the patronizing attitude evinced by the nuncio, the bishops keep bending their backs to whatever comes with a Roman imprimatur in an ungainly yoga that does not do them proud. Is it too much to expect some show of discomfort with misguided policy?

    I do not expect many bishops to sign the petition against Fiducia making its rounds. However, wouldn’t that be a way of promoting a “synodal way” and open dialogue? Even if that is asking too much, can we not plead that they not “put conscience at a distance,” like the Vicar of Bray?

    Author
    • Monsignor Antall is pastor of Holy Name Parish in the Diocese of Cleveland. He is the author of The X-Mass Files (Atmosphere Press, 2021), and The Wedding (Lambing Press, 2019).
     
    LMF, AED and DeGaulle like this.
  8. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    I get the impression you know better than this and may have thought and expressed otherwise in the past. And that either scruples or a penance required you to, in good conscience, see the best in this pope and try to say it publicly to correct things you may have said in the past.

    That’s fine.

    It’s just not credible at this point. Francis is doing wicked evil things.

    We are only required to “give the benefit of the doubt” when “the doubt” actually exists.

    Ten years ago, it still did, in his regard.

    Now?

    No doubt exists. We know with full certainty he is doing wicked evil things, to destroy the Church.

    You can stop giving the benefit of the doubt now. No doubt exists at this point.
     
    Basto, Er.Cam., Byron and 1 other person like this.
  9. Basto

    Basto Archangels

    With due respect, brother, you are being too charitable or too naive in your observation. There is something deeply wrong in Francis' entire pontificate and after so much iniquity it is very difficult to separate what is good from what is bad, because often what appears good seems like a distraction to make us accept easier the bad that he wants to do to the Church. His teaching must be seen as a whole and it is without a doubt a false teaching.

    Take the example of Amoris laetitia. The papal document in a PDF format has more than 250 pages, but the teaching he wanted to convey with this document can be summarized in a single line:

    Adulterers do not need to repent of their mortal sin or change their lives and they can receive the Holy Communion in that sinful state.

    How can we even hear a single nice word he says about the family and Christian marriage after this sacrilege that he approved and after all the propaganda and persecution he did to be able to impose this sacrilege throughout the Church worldwide?
     
    DeGaulle likes this.
  10. AED

    AED Powers

    Excellent.
     
  11. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    He directly altered the words of his Creator to "Go and sin more".

    Of all the iniquitous words he has given us, these are the most direct and defiant. When I think of that overly lengthy and camouflaging document, Eccles' aptly brilliant title always comes to mind-"Amoral layteaching".
     
    AED and Basto like this.
  12. Whatever

    Whatever Powers

    You only asked me for the definition. Yes, the dignity of the human person underpins all of Gaudium et Spes.

    If you were the Pope and had been persuaded that man-made climate change will render large parts of the world uninhabitable resulting in great poverty and mass migration of people, wouldn't you do your best to caution people and set conditions in place to minimise the human misery and loss of life? Wouldn't that be for the common good? Would it make you a bad Pope if you co-operated with non-believers who also claimed an intention to minimise the damage? I'm not at all convinced that we're a heartbeat away from major calamities due to climate change. I'm merely trying to point out that it is sometimes necessary to co-operate with people outside the faith and that we can do so without compromising our beliefs.

    I have lots of criticisms of Pope Francis but some of the criticisms go too far, bordering on the irrational.
     
  13. LMF

    LMF Archangels

    I understand the point you are making, truly. But consider the width and the breadth of the scientific knowledge of actual faithful Catholics. As Pope, would one not look to his own Catholic brethren first for answers? Would one not question the actual intentions of those outside the Catholic Faithful to discern what they consider to be the "common good"? There are ethical, faithful Catholic doctors, physicists, chemists, etc etc.

    Maybe I've become a bit jaded after the Pope's promotion of "the jabs". With so many actual good, faithful, practicing Roman Catholics out there to consult with, it's difficult for me to understand why he brings in & collaborates with non-believers.
     
    Heidi, Mary's child and BrianK like this.
  14. Whatever

    Whatever Powers

    I wholeheartesly agree with your point here. It's my biggest bugbear with Pope Francis. With over a billion Catholics in the world, there's zero excuse for putting in powerful positions non-believers or people who oppose Church teaching. I'm especially annoyed with his promotion of pro-abortionists.

    I'm editing this to add that I believe the damage he has done thus far is reversible. It's nearly all in the pastoral practice category which is disciplinary and can be changed with the stroke of a pen by a future Pope,
     
  15. LMF

    LMF Archangels

    "Annoyed" very mildly describes my thoughts on that subject. But I won't rant :censored:

    Remember this when it comes to science: it is to be tested, not trusted. Nothing irritated me more than the whole "trust the science" narrative.
     
    Sam, Heidi, Mary's child and 2 others like this.
  16. Whatever

    Whatever Powers

    I'm your sister. I agree with you about Amoris Laetitia. Dreadful document, unworthy of the Holy See. There's a verse in the Old Testament (I'm not sure whether it's Leviticus or Zachariah) about what God thinks of shepherds who neglect the flock. I reckon that we sheep can leave Francis to God. I would caution you that the same chapter warned against shepherds who don't try to find and bring back strays. It's God's call and not ours whether Francis spends too much time coaxing the strays and leaving the main flock to be scattered.
     
  17. Whatever

    Whatever Powers

    Couldn't agree more but Lent starts tomorrow and I don't want to begin by dithering over whether I should receive Communion because I harboured bad thoughts about the Pope.
     
    Mary's child and LMF like this.
  18. Basto

    Basto Archangels

    Oops... Please forgive me, sister.

    Regarding your comment, do not forget that God lives in us believers. There is a priest that I love to listen to every Sunday on YouTube, he is a professor at the Catholic University of Lisbon in the area of philosophy, and in reaction to the approval of gay blessings and other nonsense from this pontificate, he respectfully said the time has come for a necessary Divine Intervention through us faithful because the Holy Spirit dwells in us and works through us. And in this sense we must reject actively these false doctrines and show the Holy Father the true path.

    Remember that, in this diabolical disorientation, only a small group obtained the grace from God to see what's really happening at this moment in the Church, therefore their responsibility is much greater than that of others. We can't just say it's not up to me, God deal with it.
     
    Sam and Whatever like this.
  19. LMF

    LMF Archangels

    Just seeing the edit; not trying to antagonize but, really, "changed with the stroke of a pen"? That "stroke of the pen" is not going to reverse any damage that's being/has been done. A stroke of a pen in reversing "Summorum Pontificum" has done catastrophic damage, just for example. Pastoral practice can pretty much be interpreted now, imho, as "do whatever they want to keep them happy", as opposed to "do whatever He tells you" to help them with their salvation. I'll leave you to consider who they are. The "fear and trembling" part of working out one's salvation has "pastorally" been taken out of the equation. I don't believe that to be a good thing. It's one thing to truly try to live a faithful life with the inevitable falls from grace, for which forgiveness is always available through the sacraments. It's quite another to just "pastorally" be told it's all good because everyone is saved.
     
    Sam and Whatever like this.
  20. Whatever

    Whatever Powers

    Yes, it can be changed at the stroke of a pen. Previous damage can't be undone but future damage can be prevented. We have no authority to override a Pope so our best recourse is to pray that bishops and priests won't help people eat their own damnation through sacrilegious Communion. Some had been doing that before Amoris Laetitia was issued. Our first concern should be to ensure that we don't eat our own damnation because adultery isn't the only grave sin. We need to be especially careful about the measure we use to judge others lest we be judged by the same measure.
     
    Mary's child and HeavenlyHosts like this.

Share This Page