Posted on 11/21/2014 10:17:39 AM PST by detective
Pope Francis is drawing rock star raves for softening the Vatican's image on such issues as homosexuality, capitalism and divorce, but his celebrated tolerance doesn't seem to extend to dissenters within the church, whose conservative revolt came to a halt when the pontiff exiled their de facto leader to obscurity.
A recent meeting of bishops unleashed what one Vatican watcher called “a tsunami of conservative backlash" against the pope when it followed an agenda that sought to revisit long-held doctrine on controversial social issues. The most vocal critic was American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who described the Church under Francis as like “a ship without a rudder.” But as conservative bishops and lower-level clergy in the U.S. began to signal their agreement, Burke quickly found himself demoted from his powerful Vatican post to a purely ceremonial role.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The term "conservative backlash" is substituted for sincere people of faith. "Rock star status" is used to describe praise by a tiny group of Catholic hating leftists and homosexuals.
The scary part of the article is the assertion that Pope Francis wants to destroy the true Catholic church. He wants to intimidate and silence faithful Catholics. He wants to create a decadent, corrupt and immoral institution funded by Catholics.
The author asserts that faithful Catholics are being intimidated and silenced by Pope Francis.
“The scary part of the article is the assertion that Pope Francis wants to destroy the true Catholic church. He wants to intimidate and silence faithful Catholics. He wants to create a decadent, corrupt and immoral institution funded by Catholics.”
When you consider where he’s from, it would appear that he is to Catholicism what Obama is to America. Both are destructive, and both try to take out their enemies.
I don't think declining to comment to FoxNews.com on a specific staffing issue means anything has "come to a halt."
The pope does not have the power to transform the Church.
He can dissent but he is no more an emperor than our self imposed monarch
Cardinal Burke is one of the most highly credentialed, experienced and educated members of the clergy ever
He is not dissenting His loyalty is with the true Church, ( bible, Magesterium and tradition)
The Church simply is not a democratic institution
But our journalists reffffuse to do the research of a typical eighth grade term paper on what the h they are talking blathering on about when it comes to the Church
Recommended reading, "Joan of Arc" by Mark Twain.
It is Cardinal Burke who has become the rock star. He has become the standard-bearer of faithful Catholics everywhere. He is giving speeches at parishes and cathedrals all over the U.S., and for all I know, the world. His demotion has made him the most influential Cardinal in the world.
WRONG!!! Perhaps you should stop trying to ascribe motives that aren’t there. Read what the Pope has actually said. If you are a Catholic, you should know better to be as rude as you are. If you aren’t, that’s your affair.
This article repeats the myth Cardinal Burke was “demoted.” Like other heads of the Apostolic Signatura, the term is 5-6 years. Guess how long he has been there. That’s right 5-6 years. Now, he gets more time to travel and speak. And yes, he is worth listening to!
“Dissenting,” or “Dissenter,” are loaded words, and imply orthodox Catholics are sede vacantists, which is not true.
This is a breathless article, repeating half-truths, nameless sources, and is, in short, a sensationalized article trolling for readers.
Sadly, that Synod appears to have been about drawing opponents into the open for purge. Saddam Hussein-style.
That strong huh.
Yes, I agree. Also, one of the things I find disturbing about Pope Francis is that he frequently says things that sound pretty standard and are meant to pacify the uneasy... but he has his own meaning for the words, which emerges when you examine the statement more carefully. I think that’s nominalism in action, and it’s a favored intellectual trick of the left.
Cardinal Burke’s demotion gives him more time to give these speeches which means that more of the faithful will have a chance to be educated about what is presently going on in the Church.
Allow me to pose this statement, in regards to the meaning of words:
I never said you stole money.
Do you know what the statement means? Are you sure? Are you really sure? It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. However, it can be taken at least 6 different ways. Is it possible you could be taking his meaning in a way that suits your notions, preconceived or otherwise, of the Pope?
When you speak of the motives of the Holy Father, your are walking a fine line between mind reading and opinion.
I think it is reasonable to suggest he has his own meaning for words.... However, it is not reasonable to claim he means to pacify. Neither of us can know what he is truly thinking, unless he tells us.
In my opinion, Pope Francis is great fodder for the 24-hour news cycle. Any number of articles can be written about him, regardless of the truth. Articles full of innuendo, half-truths, and out-right distortions might “tickle the ears” of readers, but ultimately stand to discredit him.
People make any number of assumptions about him because he is Jesuit, he is an Argentine, he lives Santa Marta, etc. However, those are assumptions (you know what happens when you assume). What matters is the preaching of the Gospel, the continuity of Church teaching, and a greater understanding of God.
Before you contradict Dr. Thorne, you need to read “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” put out by Pope St. Pius X in 1907. It explains what Modernism is and why it is the “synthesis of all heresies.” Anyone who has read it and keeps up with Pope Francis, can see that he is a Modernist. He doesn’t even have to say anything (although he has). His actions speak volumes. The Church is infected with Modernism from high to low, and we all need to be aware of what it is so that we do not fall into it ourselves.
The Pope is expected to lead the Church, not make vague statements or entertain heresies. When JP II died and there was conjecture about who would be the succeed him, one pundits said he wouldn’t take the name John Paul III; when asked why, he asked, “Could the Church survive 25 more years like this?”
I was hoping for Pius XIII, but Benedict XVI was fine.
The point is that you have to read his words in their context, and not just as a sound bite, because very often his next words will contradict what seems to be meant by his first words...unless, of course, he didn’t mean the first words as they sounded. He’s not a very clear thinker, or perhaps not a very clear speaker, so sometimes it’s very hard to decipher his real meaning.
I think he does say things with the intention of pacifying people who have gotten upset about some alarming thing that he has said, or that it seems he has said. But he’s rather Obama-like in all this, and never really says he’s sorry for the confusion, and sometimes doesn’t even address the issue that upset people in the first place but sort of makes a parallel statement. In fact, he often comes out with one of his famous claims that people who would like a little precision and clarity are just “Pharisees” and don’t understand that he is all love and “mercy,” whatever that means.
Like most other people, I went through the “bad translation” excuse (although I speak Spanish and read Italian, and I could see that it was not a case of mistranslation) and then the malicious journalists excuse, and then the “he means well but just doesn’t formulate his thoughts very precisely or word his statements well” excuse. Now I’m at the point where I have to think that he is intentionally being duplicitous in some statements and that he or others at the Vatican manipulate statements after the fact; either that, or his cognitive capacities are impaired and he shouldn’t be pope. But I think he knows very well what he’s doing and saying, as well as the alarm it is causing.
You are confusing several issues. Pascendi Dominici Gregis is a great document, and clearly points out the problems with Modernism. However, it is an opinion the Pope is a modernist. While there are Modernists in the Church, as well as any number of heretics and schismatics, that doesn’t mean yours, or Dr. Thorne’s interpretation is correct.
With recording devices everywhere, anytime the man opens his mouth, somebody is going to record it. They will then use it for their own ends. Take the whole “who am I to judge” tempest in a teapot. People are hearing what the want to hear, and essentially proof-texting the Pope.
Even the great Ronaldus Magnus was quoted as saying “We will begin bombing in 5 minutes.”
I haven’t heard anything on his part to clear the air; the Synod didn’t help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.