Posted on 10/17/2014 6:13:57 AM PDT by marshmallow
ROME – As the Synod of Bishops continues to produce drama, coming today in a surprise decision to release frank internal reports of its debates, one big-picture question captured by the event seems to be coming into clear focus.
Here it is in a nutshell: Is a tipping point drawing close, when conservatives who have been inclined to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt will, instead, turn on him?
Granted, labels such as “liberal” and “conservative” often conceal as much as they reveal, especially when applied to the Church. That said, they capture something at a big-picture level, and the fault line between left and right has seemed especially clear over the past two weeks.
Well before the Oct. 5-19 Synod of Bishops on the family, there was a small but vocal wing of traditionalist Catholic opinion fiercely critical of the pope.
In February, Italian Catholic writer and historian Roberto de Mattei posted a piece on the website of his Lepanto foundation asserting that developments since the election of Francis, including his famous “Who am I to judge?” sound bite about gays, risk “a road that leads to schism and heresy.”
Another Italian writer, Antonio Socci, has a new book out titled “It’s not Francis: The Church in a Great Storm,” basically implying that the resignation of Benedict XVI was invalid and that Francis isn’t really the pope.
Most mainstream conservatives, however, have argued that media hype, or perhaps unintentional ambiguity on the part of the pope himself, has been to blame for mistaken impressions that he’s engineering a radical overhaul.
In recent days, however, some of those voices have taken on a harder edge.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnow.com ...
The problem is that most “conservatives” think Francis is a blip. That the issues started with him and that when he dies (or retires) all will be well again. When conservatives really take a hard look at Vatican II and the Modernism in its documents, then they will realize that Francis is just the latest and greatest Modernist since Vatican II.
Interesting article. I think that the thing that comforts people - and I don’t like the word “conservative,” since I think “orthodox” would be better - is that the Pope does have personal warmth and one always wants to think that that the questionable things he has said are just an example of a sort of Charismatic-style of letting his emotions get away from him. And he seems to be devoted to Our Lady, which is a good sign.
But at the same time, we see the iron fist in the velvet glove, as he removes people who are perceived as opponents and constantly criticizes anyone who questions him as being a “Pharisee” or a “legalist,” or even a “conservative.” Those are his own words and descriptions.
I think this mini rebellion of the orthodox bishops may have some effect, but I thought Allen’s dubious conclusion was interesting.
If we have a Pope who believes being misunderstood on doctrinal issues is the same as getting his pizza order garbled, we’re in big trouble.
He needs to pick up the phone and correct things, which I’m sure he’d do if the issue was his pizza order.
What is often forgotten is that Pope St. Pius X declared definitively in his 1907 encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” that Modernism is a heresy. Not just “a” heresy, but “the synthesis of all heresies.” It’s hard to grasp the fact that there are a bunch of Modernist heretics running things in the Vatican, and that even the Pope might be one. The ramifications of this are mind-boggling.
Unfortunately, this pope appears to be a socialist too. I usually watch the stations of the cross in rome over easter and this last one included an attempt to equate Jesus’ struggle w/that of “the workers”. I almost turned off the TV when I heard that.
As a contrast to what prior popes thought of socialism/communism, I recommend a read of this encyclical, which gives good justification why private property is necessary.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm
Absolutely. It is why most "conservative" Catholics don't consider them. And prefer to spend their time defending the indefensible.
Let's not forget his comments that Mary, at the foot of the Cross, perhaps wanted to accuse God of deceit.
In other words, refuse to face reality. I don’t know why, though. The Church stood up to Arianism by facing it, so it isn’t like this is something new. I do think that previous generations were more courageous and clear-headed.
Perhaps the best way to look at this Synod is as a “trial balloon” for a “Vatican III”, another effort by the liberals and leftists in the church to push for “big tent moderation” that appeals to none, but sounds so trendy.
It was noteworthy that the Pope was wise enough to steer clear of the whole event, so if it blew up, he could avoid getting hit with its shrapnel. And it did blow up, which means the majority of the leadership are not inclined to be railroaded into the disasters that have afflicted and caused schism in other churches.
The liberals and leftists in the hierarchy have been exposed, so can now be minimized to help prevent future heartburn.
I think the media are going to realize soon that things aren’t much different between this Pope and the last when it comes to interpreting church dogma. And hopefully many will learn it is God who runs the show.
They also knew the Faith. Nowadays, due to Vatican II, most Catholics do not know the Traditional Faith. They only know Vatican II theology which includes false ecumenism, collegiality, unity and religious liberty.
Good cartoon that shows how things really happen around the world.
John Allen again, eh? He's about a year late, as evidenced by Catholics here in the Religion Forum.
Makes me wonder if Benedict was forced out.
This is the results of protestants playing such a major role in Vatican 2.
John Allen is a liberal Catholic who works for the liberal National Catholic Reporter.
They played a part and the Modernists in the Church did all that they could to make Catholicism more Protestant-friendly.
John Allen hasn't worked for the Reporter since the Boston Globe hired him away at the beginning of this year. And if he's so liberal, why do so many FRoman Catholics post his articles?
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.