All this reminds me of Pope Urban VI St Catherine of Siena managed to talk Pope Gregory to leave France and return to Rome. To acheive this poor Gregory actually had to step over the body of his own father. Gregory died shortly after the return to Rome and Pope Urban VI took the Seat. Pope Urban was certainly on of the very nastiest Popes in history managing to insult and alienate any, especially the poor Cardinals, who came in conduct with him. He pretty well managed through his bad temper, arrogance and sheer nastiness on his own caused a Schism almost single handedly. Undoing St Catherine's entire life's work of healing in a matter of weeks of pure spite. . 'Immediately following his election, Urban began preaching intemperately to the cardinals (some of whom thought the delirium of power had made Urban mad and unfit for rule), insisting that the business of the Curia should be carried on without gratuities and gifts, forbidding the cardinals to accept annuities from rulers and other lay persons, condemning the luxury of their lives and retinues, and the multiplication of benefices and bishoprics in their hands. Nor would he remove again to Avignon, thus alienating King Charles V of France. The cardinals were mortally offended. Five months after his election, the French cardinals met at Anagni, inviting Urban, who realized that he would be seized and perhaps slain. In his absence they issued a manifesto of grievances on 9 August that declared his election invalid since they had been cowed by the mob into electing an Italian. Letters to the missing Italian cardinals followed on 20 August declaring the papal throne vacant (sede vacante). Then at Fondi, secretly supported by the king of France,[8] the French cardinals proceeded to elect Robert of Geneva as Pope on 20 September. Robert, a militant cleric who had succeeded Albornoz as commander of the papal troops, took the name Clement VII, beginning the Western Schism, which divided Catholic Christendom until 1417.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VI View attachment 3802
I disagree, Padraig. I don't think you are that at all. Nor do I think that the Pope's remarks are aimed at you. Pope Francis is different, but the times we are in are different. He speaks in a language that is difficult for many of us to understand sometimes, but I think that is because we are not looking at his words through the right lens. (I know, I know, why should we need a "lens" at all? Truth is truth, no lens necessary.... I get it, but just bear with me for a second.) As I said, these are different times. Perilous times. We are at war. To that extent, for me anyway, I find that the lens of the "field hospital" (which is an image Pope Francis used to describe the Church early on in his papacy, and is, I think, a clue for the rest of us to how he views his role) is the best way to interpret most of Pope Francis' more perplexing comments. Pope Francis is on a divine mission of mercy -- a mission to go out and comb the battle field and bring back to the field hospital all those so grievously wounded by these times in which we live. Since we are at war, there is not time to handle things as we might during a time of peace. We do not have that luxury. Saving souls is to be a messy, messy thing during these times. Sometimes, it will require us to get dirty in a way we would otherwise prefer not to.... Still, we must get dirty - we are called to meet the sinners where they are, and to pull them out of the muck and mire, to drag their dirty, injured souls back to the field hospital by whatever means is available. Viewed in that light, the comments at issue here regarding "fundamentalists" make a bit more sense. Using the "field hospital" analogy, I would liken the term "fundamentalist" to those folks that stand outside the field hospital and question why efforts are being made and medical procedures are being performed in unsanitary conditions. "After all," such folks might say, "Surgery can only be performed in a hospital environment with all the right equipment and proper procedures being followed." Those folks lose sight of the purpose of the field hospital -- to treat the victims of war as quickly and safely as possible -- by focusing on whether treatment should be undertaken at all if it cannot be undertaken under the most perfect conditions. I agree with Pope Francis - that is an evil in these times. We must save souls. From that perspective, the "fundamentalists" are not you (or anyone on this Forum, for that matter). Because (despite periodic disagreements), I view all of us here as fighting to save souls.
I am happy to be called a fundamentalist if that means holding to the fundamentals of the faith. I believe the Pope is making a major, major error in using the phrase fundamentalist in relation to his fellow Catholics. What this does is gives the enemies of Christ ammunition to throw at devout Catholics. The use of the term fundamentalist is divisive in and of itself. I am pro-life. Catholic fundamentalist. I am pro-traditional marriage. Catholic fundamentalist. I practise natural family planning. Catholic fundamentalist. I pray the Rosary. Catholic fundamentalist. I am a slave to Mary. Catholic fundamentalist. Mmm , Protestant fundamentalist; Muslim fundamentalists; Catholic fundamentalists - tarred with the same brush.
I hope I am wrong, but I am guessing he got his nose knocked out of joint by the Orthodox African Bishops on his visit. They gave him the big, 'No, no'. But since he says he is, 'At war' , with Fundamentalists (whoever they are) I think things will become very,very clear, very,very quickly. If it is Liberals he is at war with, promoting them to the highest posts in the Church seems a funny way to deal with them.... http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com.../pope-francis-has-chosen-africa-over-germany/
Using terms like fundamentalist is politicising the Church. Supporting the Climate Change bandwagon nonsense is politicising the Church. Kevin Rudd slams George Pell as 'radical climate sceptic' ahead of Paris talks. Former prime minister says Pell’s views on climate change directly oppose those of Pope Francis, muddy the ‘ethical waters’ and should be challenged http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-radical-climate-sceptic-ahead-of-paris-talks
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...sed-of-lazy-slander-against-church-in-africa/ The editor of the official website of the German Church has said that the faith continues to grow in Africa because of a lack of education and because Africans have nothing else in their life, according to First Things. Björn Odendahl, writing at Katholisch.de in an article entitled “The Romantic, Poor Church”, said: “So also in Africa. Of course the Church is growing there. It grows because the people are socially dependent and often have nothing else but their faith. “It grows because the educational situation there is on average at a rather low level and the people accept simple answers to difficult questions [of faith]. Answers like those that Cardinal Sarah of Guinea provides. “And even the growing number of priests is a result not only of missionary power but also a result of the fact that the priesthood is one of the few possibilities for social security on the dark continent,” Mr Odendahl wrote.
I think people are still somewhat confused as to what is going on here. I have a feeling the smoke will clear pretty soon. The time of off the cuff policy making to journalists is coming to an end. We are coming into, 'On the record territory'; which will change everything.
Heeh, heeh - here is a Catholic website with a 'now' unfortunate name http://catholicfundamentalism.com/
Not the same brush in IMO. Fundamentally we are of Christ and His Rock. Quite a different brush but one that Pope Francis wishes to make more easily accessible and attractive to all without compromising the truth.
To use the word, 'Fundalmentalist' , is automatically to compare them in people's minds with other Fundamentalists such as Islamists. The Holy Father is not stupid, he would have been aware of this. I am getting tired of people constantly glossing over what he says with fresh white gloss paint. 'He didn't really mean this', 'He didn't actually say this', over and over and over and over again. Give the guy the credit for firmly speaking his mind, agree with him or not. He is not a ventriloquist dummy. He said what he said. Anyone would think he was speaking 12th century Mandarin the way people keep trying to explain him away. I'm sure he wouldn't like this , 'Explaining', himself. He knows what he's saying. So do I.
Yes, and this is not the first time he has used the phrase. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/10/pope-francis-catholic-church-power-money-conservatism
Sorry you are sickened by my continued defense of Our Pope. It is not a glossing over, just a different perspective to those who doubt his goodness, integrity and wisdom, to those who dis his words.
Most reasonable people would agree that common to all forms of fundamentalism are attitudes of exclusiveness and judgmentalism. These have no place in our Faith except for those who wish to exclude themselves by poor choices. There is a difference between orthodox and fundamental. Pope Francis in my view is orthodox: his is the 'true teaching' which is the meaning of the word. I believe that for those with the right mind his words do not need elaboration or explanation. Fundamentalism as commonly understood in its pejorative meaning is wrong, just as Pope Francis plainly said.
Your use of "fundamentalist' is not the commonly understood use of the word. We don't cut heads off. We don't burn people alive etc.
The point I was making is that there is no such thing as a Catholic fundamentalist per se. By attaching this word to Catholic the Pope is in effect being divisive. In our culture fundamentalist has all sorts of negative connotations - as you say 'cutting heads off'.
