|
Post by Séamus on Jul 29, 2017 12:37:32 GMT
Oh dear. I stuffed up the quotation. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by kj on Aug 21, 2017 10:17:51 GMT
A trite remark, perhaps, but surely something is wrong when a Pope is so beloved, or at least indulged, by the mainstream media and lefty-liberals. If a Pope doesn't inspire hate and resentment like Benedict, then something is wrong.
I sincerely hope Cardinal Sarah is the next Pope. Apart from other things, the fact that he is Conservative and black will surely fry the brain-circuits of many a Liberal and Guardian reader.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 21, 2017 10:23:05 GMT
I think it's unlikely given the bishops and cardinals Pope Francis has been appointing.
I only hope that, in the next conclave, even liberally-inclined cardinals will look at the chaos of this pontificate and take a step back from the brink. But I doubt they will go so far as to elect Cardinal Sarah (and I agree he would be a great Pope-- wait, aren't we all supposed to be racists here?)
|
|
|
Post by kj on Aug 21, 2017 20:26:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 21, 2017 20:44:42 GMT
I like this line from the article:
Northern League leader Matteo Salvini responded: "If he wants to apply it in his state, the Vatican, he can go right ahead."
Perhaps he should talk to all the relatives of victims of Muslim immigrants/asylum seekers over the last two years, on the European continent, and tell them the terrorists' rights were more important than their victims' safety.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Aug 21, 2017 20:48:17 GMT
It just strikes me as astoundingly insensitive following so closely on the Barcelona attack. It leaves me asking hard and tough questions about this Pope, although given the way the wind is blowing I can't see any future Popes adopting a different line.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 21, 2017 20:55:30 GMT
Well, even St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor claimed deportation was opposed to human rights, if I remember rightly.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 22, 2017 16:05:21 GMT
I was very surprised to read that Maolsheachlann and checked it to discover .... you were correct! It doesn't specify mass deportations which have been a tragic part of Polish and European history but simply specifies 'deportation' as intrinsically evil. There is no explanation or discussion. Is deporting anyone intrisically evil even if they are illegally present in a state or if we are extraditing a criminal to another state? This has implications for catholic judges police ,pilots etc Certainly a process should never be demeaning and deportation is not pleasant but surely the solution is to be as fair and humane as possible.
In the west we have largely abandoned deportation for politically correct ideological reasons. Douglas Murray chronicles this very well in his book on Europe ,emigration and Islam.
Going back to Veritatis Splendor this is one of the documents Pope Francis has been accused of ignoring when it comes to his teaching on marriage . Ironically he might end up quoting it to bolster his pro mass emigration agenda. Papal documents that list all sorts of "evils "have often had a sorry history when in a generation or two the issue is revisited or reversed. Papal teaching should always be clear and explained. This reference to deportation is vague, unclear and is open to misinterpretion. Unfortunately if we seek papal clarity on this issue we will get clarity immediately . No silences on this dubia!
|
|
|
Post by ClassicalRepublican on Aug 23, 2017 10:09:12 GMT
A friend of mine tersely said this: 'Benedict is the successor of Peter. The Holy Spirit does not make mistakes.'
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 23, 2017 12:04:04 GMT
A friend of mine tersely said this: 'Benedict is the successor of Peter. The Holy Spirit does not make mistakes.' [br Unfortunately Benedict did resign. Perhaps he should have remained on and appointed an assistant pope (or give him some other fancy made up title if this is theologically dodgy) who would kiss the babies and go to the youth masses while Benedict would have taken things easier and kept the church catholic. It does appear Benedict's inability to administer the Vatican and the Curia was one of the main reasons why he stood down. Francis also appears to have this problem but it gets less publicity from his media cheerleaders. The next pope should be a capable administrator as well as being an orthodox catholic. Well we can only hope and pray for Pius xiii!
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 23, 2017 12:27:30 GMT
If there was to be a surprise announcement that some group of canon lawyers had found that, by some technical irregularity, Pope Benedict was still Pope, and if he decided to come back and not worry about flying around the world and all that palaver...
Well, I would be jubiliant.
But, barring that, Pope Francis is the vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit doesn't make mistakes but he does respect our freedom, including the freedom of cardinals with a leftist agenda. As for the exact nature of Church infallibility and papal infallibility, I have to admit that I'm less certain of it the more I read and learn.
"God writes straight with crooked lines" is a horrible cliché, but one hopes it is true.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 23, 2017 15:41:09 GMT
At Vatican I (yes there was a Vatican I !) attempts to get a very broad sweeping definition of Papal infallibility defined failed. The definition we have is very specific and limited contrary to the popular understanding within the church and among non catholics. Papal asides on an air plane to journalists are chit chat theologically speaking and are not covered by the Vatican I definition.
St John Paul II in the early 1990s was rumoured to be considering using papal infallibility explicitly to stop dissident theologians claiming to be catholic. His head of doctrine Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger dissuaded him apparently. I think Ratzinger's logic was the vast majority of doctrines are true even though the Pope hasn't explicitly defined them infallibly eg the divinity of Christ .Perhaps the reign of Francis has been permitted to show us the limits of the papacy and that even the pope can't override the words of Christ and the Catholic Tradition.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 24, 2017 21:09:33 GMT
I am considering setting up a movement to campaign for the canonisation of Pope Clement XIV who in 1773 suppressed the Jesuit Order.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 27, 2017 11:30:46 GMT
The catholic paper that I read this in is over a week old, but as nobody had mentioned it and I hadn't heard the statistics myself I'm just swiping it in "the number of men studying for the catholic priesthood has dropped during the pontificate of Pope Francis, notes Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti in an analysis for FIRST THINGS. The number of seminarians nearly doubled under St John Paul II from 63,882 worldwide in 1978, the year of his election to 114,439 in 2005 when he died. The numbers continued to rise for the first few years under Pope Benedict XVI , reaching a peak of 120,616 in 2011 before subsiding slightly to 118,251 in 2013, the year Benedict XVI resigned. Since the election of Pope Francis the number of seminarians worldwide had slipped to 116,843. Although that figure is still higher than the highest mark under Pope John Paul II, the shortage of priests had become more intense because of the faster population growth of catholic population" It could mean anything or nothing at all. I've always believed in the 'Gideon system': it's not about numbers. It would be interesting to know the number of serious applicants during these years also, especially during Benedict's reign as the biggest purges took place during his time, including a blanket ban on same-sex attracted men.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 27, 2017 11:57:16 GMT
'Who am i to judge'? Pope Francis has made numerous attacks on seminarians and priests of a conservative leaning. If the statistics of new priests were increasing we would never hear the end of crowing about a Francis effect a Francis bounce etc. All Francis has done is to dishearten the orthodox clergy and laity who are probably in a minority among practising catholics. This is one minority group you are allowed to revile and ridicule.
Does anyone remember the Francis effect? ie we would see a hugh return of former catholics to the faith because we now had a nice nonjudgemental john xxiii mark 2 pope. The liberal fantasy of legions of alienated catholics who were awaiting a liberal papacy to return is a nonsense. Many baptised catholics have lost faith in everything God included and aren't terribly bothered it would seem.
|
|