Brian nobody here needs to be a health professional to recognise the truth of the common sense observations I just made re your unbalanced postings. Your "Dr" makes no difference whatsoever to my observations which are plain for all to see here for themselves. We all have flaws, especially Doctors. Please lighten up and get a sense of humour instead of going on about "malpractice" .
"Brian nobody here needs to be a health professional to recognise the truth of the common sense observations I just made re your unbalanced postings." "Your "Dr" makes no difference whatsoever to my observations which are plain for all to see here for themselves." "We all have flaws, especially Doctors." You spelled "recognize" wrong.
You might be on to something here. Maybe the pope is getting ready for the schism. He doesn't need to stay in Rome to still be "Peter".
Thanks Dr Brian , Its been a wonderful dose of reality for some . And for your critics ...well... View attachment 2354
What is the reality, that you promote schism...that you won an argument. You are personally hurting the church. Nothing good can come from it. You won't hurt me...but people will read your garbage and start talking bad about the Pope. Again i state...show me anything that Papa Francis has done against the Catholic Church, Church Doctrine, Pastoral duties and/or the Papacy. You guys can speculate all you want. And if you want to sit in a watch tower and cry wolf then let God be the judge. Mac and Brian you can sit on that tower together and chuckle and laugh on how intellectual you guys are. But in reality, at this very moment, you are against all that is Holy. What you are doing is wrong. Doctor...right Brother al
Fr. James V. Schall SJ is a highly regarded and respected American Jesuit priest. He is not a schismatic, he is not a rad trad or even a traditionalist. He is a mainstream Catholic priest and commentator. Does this essay make him too a promoter of schism? Is what Fr. Schall, SJ doing here also "hurting the Church?" Of course not! And what is precipitating and necessitating these contentious discussions? Its not lay people with weak faith or schismatic tendencies. Its the Holy Father. Emphasis added: On Heretical Popes By James V. Schall S.J. Tuesday, 11 November 2014 One man whom I know holds that all popes since Pius X were heretics. Whole groups maintain that all popes after Vatican II are heretics, even John Paul II. He invited leaders of other religions to Assisi to pray together, but he failed to evangelize them or insist in uniqueness of Catholicism. At Vatican I, several notable figures did not accept the infallibility doctrine. The Reformation itself mostly declared all popes heretical back to Peter. Pope Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII precisely over the question of the indissolubility of marriage. The Eastern Orthodox have rejected the papal position for centuries. Under Pope Francis, columnists from all over the world broach the “heresy” question, which he is said to foment. Cardinal Burke remarked that Pope Francis should clarify just what he stands for. William Oddie thinks that, in recent comments on marriage, Francis has done this. Others are not so sure. I know a man who thinks that the pope should simply resign because his comments have caused so much anguish and confusion. George Weigel noted that the modern world has waited half a century for the Catholic Church to accept its mores. It has not done so under Francis. A correspondent in Argentina, however, writes that only three views of this pope exist: 1) he is a modernist, but covers himself by occasionally talking of the devil, 2) he seeks attention and power by attracting everything to himself, and 3) he is a confused thinker but basically orthodox. The man adds that this last view is no longer tenable. Still he sent a document that Archbishop Bergoglio wrote on the gay question in which Francis upheld the old Roman Law tradition of marriage that referred to a mother and the sons begotten of her. But I would be surprised if Pope Francis did not have a huge following in Argentina. Some writers hold that a pope cannot be a heretic. I had a professor of theology who held that, if a pope was about to sign an heretical document, he would be dead the next morning. Others maintain that if a heretic is elected to the papacy, he will automatically convert on accepting the Office of Peter. The technical issue of an heretical pope goes back to Reformation discussions, led by the Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez, among others. Jacques Maritain, Yves Simon, and John Courtney Murray brought up the issue in discussing the difference between political and ecclesiastical authority. We read in Romans that the authority of an emperor, as that of a pope, comes from God, but in differing ways. A different kind of pope: with newlyweds celebrating a charity for sick kids (11/6/13) John Locke’s opposition to the divine right of kings was an aspect of this issue. The divine right of kings was not a medieval doctrine, though it did go back to oriental despotism, to the divinization of Alexander the Great and the Roman emperors. Authority came directly to the king, not through the people, as the Aristotelian mind had it. Divine right was designed to protect the king from assassination by elevating him to a divine status. Bellarmine and Suarez considered a de facto possibility of an heretical pope. They granted that the Church would have to depose him if he did not self-declare his heresy. They differed on the exact procedure that would be required. Basically, electors would de-designate the man chosen pope. But as such, they had no authority over the papal power itself, which is from God. In recent discussions of an heretical pope, the term sedevacante shows up. It means that, if a pope is heretical, his chair is automatically vacant by divine law. Some hold that anyone can so pronounce this vacancy, which would logically make every man his own pope. Bellarmine and Suarez thought the Church, in the persons of a General Council or the assembled Cardinals would have to declare the pope a heretic and depose him. They differed a bit on the exact procedure. Several writers imply that suddenly the institution, which seemed so solid over the centuries, appears shaky in its own order. “If the Church succumbs to modernity, will it still be a Church?” they wonder. The main issues, in the case of Francis, revolve around the indissolubility of marriage, the nature of the papacy itself, and the approval of gay life as normal. The first is a question of reason and revelation – Moses allowed divorce, Christ did not; the second of revelation; and the third, homosexuality, of reason. Issues such as the pope’s understanding of the economy or his reading of Islam as solely a religion of peace can be disputed. They are not so close to doctrinal issues. Though they seem to diverge at times, doctrine and compassion do not exclude each other. Heretical popes? The essence of Catholicism is that there be none. It is also its essence that, if necessary, the issue be faced squarely and judged fairly. James V. Schall, S.J., who served as a professor at Georgetown University for thirty-five years, is one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. His most recent books are The Mind That Is Catholic, The Modern Age, Political Philosophy and Revelation: A Catholic Reading, and Reasonable Pleasures.
Is Terry Carroll here?....http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/ind...pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-vortex
He sounds like you...he doesn't know who or what Pope Francis is either....can't really put his finger on it. And he's an old professor and you're a doctor. And yet still goes on and on with nothing really to build any solid foundation upon for such meanderings. And a bit of a flip flopper as well....earlier writing was of a positive nature about the Pope's optimism in a world that he has witnessed so much sin and hurt: It is the Holy Spirit that guides us. Who else? This is the message of mission that Pope Francis seems to have seen in a world full of sins and disorders of the most terrible kinds, things we won’t acknowledge until we encounter the joy in the community that worships God in the manner that God Himself, in the Incarnation and Crucifixion, taught us. So glad flip floppers and speculators aren't at the Church's helm these days for sure. He needs to continue to trust in the Holy Spirit as he earlier seemed to do and as our Pope continues to do. From the Conclave on it's been the witness to the Holy Spirit in this papacy that the Cardinals claimed they witnessed.
Brother Al, What troubles me is the fact that out of the 4-5 prelates that wrote and published the preliminary document from the synod , not one has been disciplined in anyway and only Cardinal Burke has been removed. I believe that by doing nothing about this the pope is saying a lot.
His removal was in the cards prior to the synod. And Burke's ongoing criticism and grandstanding with a known spinning media when he knows better was his reaction to his removal.
Yes, I have to agree with 'eta' here, the decision to move Cardinal Burke was being reported well before the start of the Synod. The move had nothing to do with the Synod at all. But what happened during and after the Synod certainly illustrated why Pope Francis had decided to move him.
Ah yes, yet another liberal attack on a good and faithful Cardinal. Sounds like you're all reading from the same liberal talking points. RNS smear of Card. Burke Posted on 11 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf Liberal Religion News Service is less and less careful to pretended objectivity when it comes to coverage of Catholic matters. Crux, by the way, took what follows lock and stock. Watch how they paint him, smear, with words and premises which you are simply supposed to accept. Pope Francis sidelines, but probably can’t silence, conservative Cardinal Burke By Josephine Mckenna Religion News Service November 11, 2014 In demoting American Cardinal Raymond Burke from his powerful perch at the Vatican, Pope Francis has sidelined an outspoken conservative agitator — for now. The pope moved the feisty former archbishop of St. Louis from his role as head of the Vatican’s highest court to the largely ceremonial position of patron of the Knights of Malta on Saturday. Francis has effectively exiled one of his loudest critics, but Burke’s supporters — and his opponents — warn that his position at the Catholic charity may actually give him more freedom to exercise greater influence and even rally opposition to papal reforms. In other words, the stunning demotion may remake Burke into St. Raymond the Martyr, the patron saint of Catholic conservatives. [?] “His position as patron of the Knights of Malta is Rome-based and mostly ceremonial,” wrote Edward Pentin for the conservative National Catholic Register. “He is nevertheless likely to continue and perhaps even step up his defense of the Church’s teaching in the face of continued efforts to radically alter pastoral practice in the run-up to next year’s second synod on the family.” Burke is well-known for his uncompromising [and we all know that's bad] stance on abortion, homosexuality, and the sanctity of marriage, and his passion for doctrine is matched only by his passion for the elegant finery of his office. [Is she psychic?] Wearing the vibrant red robes of a cardinal for the first time on the day he was appointed by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in 2010, he used one word to describe the greatest threat to the Church: “secularization.”[Imagine such a thing! But look at how she put that. She moves from the "vibrant red robes" - which even the new cardinal darlings of the liberal media were wearing at the time of their consistory, to "secularization". Another manifestation of Burke Derangement Syndrome™?] During the global bishops’ Synod on the Family held at the Vatican last month, Burke bitterly complainedthat conservative views were being stifled amid initial signs of a more welcoming approach to gays and lesbians. [Which is about the worst crime there is these days. God forbid that anyone should uphold the Church's actual teachings. Remember: those who now defend doctrine are the new "dissenters".] But he raised the ante in an interview with Spanish Catholic weekly, Vida Nueva, at the end of October when he made a direct attack on Francis’ leadership. “At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a rudder,” Burke said. “Now, it is more important than ever to examine our faith, have a healthy spiritual leader, and give powerful witness to the faith.” [Do these liberals ever quote other things Burke has said about Francis and about his own service and respect?] His departure is no surprise, and observers say it had little to do with the conservative blowback that upended the synod or rumors that he snubbed the pope at the concluding Mass in St. Peter’s Square. [This is irresponsible. It was made amply clear that, customarily, only a certain row of prelates greet the Pope after a Mass in the Square. Burke wasn't in that row.] Italian media began speculating about his demotion as early as September; Burke himself confirmed his imminent removal from the corridors of power at the Vatican in a recent interview. Asked by a reporter who had told him of his pending departure, Burke shot back: “Who do you think?” [...] It is open season on Raymond Card. Burke. The liberals have their knives out. Remember when Card. Kasper suggested that there was going to be negative consequences in the press for those who were on the opposite side of the positions he was proposing? HERE
Mac as you seem to be into "wise cracks" I believe the following is also apposite ... View attachment 2358
Little Me your comment sums up well what has just played out on this thread. We all have different views that seem right to us. Yet reality is far more interesting, varied and "contradictory" than our little boxed versions of reality gives credit for. For that reason surely we need to be very careful and self-reflecting before we walk out the front door with our hob-nailed boots on to kick other people into line with our own partial view of reality. I think its more about solidarity of believers than unity of belief when our otherwise credible leaders seem to have divergent views on particular matters. I don't see that happening on this thread. The Pope is extremely well educated, extremely virtuous and elected by a majority of the very weighty College of Cardinals who are not fools. For him to be so distrusted and one-sidedly impugned by laymen and women who, lets face it, possess only 3rd party or incomplete knowledge of what is going on... makes as much as sense as a literary lay-person telling us that "recognize" is wrongly spelt . I am quite happy that Brits spell it a different way. Why cannot Yanks spell it their way? Brittania does not rule the world - nor do we lay people the Church. We need to be able to live with some confusion even at the top. To think it has never been so in the Catholic Church is surely romanticism. Why do so many here take it upon themselves to try and punch beyond their weight and pay-packets. Let the Pope be Pope.
I feel a little bit awkward finding myself agreeing so strongly with BH here but, hard hitting as this post is, it says it as it is!
Good article...not even close to the nonsense that was being spewed in this thread. Again...debate is good, promoting schism and causing doubt of Our Holy Father is not. Brother al
