Posted on 05/23/2015 8:15:24 AM PDT by ebb tide
I have respect for Mrs. D’s posts and benefit from reading them.
That shouldn’t be any problem for you.
Good for you! I wish you the best in chasing each other’s tails.
It’s no problem to me; I just find the circular pings amusing.
Don’t forget Francis’ suggestion that the Blessed Mother felt betrayed by God.
Pope Francis, “She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’”
Yet Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, has stated that Francis is the “recipient and bearer of revelation”.
That puts him right up there with his fellow omniscient pals, Ban Ki-moon, Jeffrey Sachs and Hussein Obama.
The scariest thing is that Francis keeps teasing us with the “surprises” the Holy Ghost has in store for us.
Why would Francis ignore this:
[34] And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; [35] And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. Luke: Chapter 2
???
Does he think the Blessed Mother ignored Simeon’s prophecy?
Perhaps because portraying our Blessed Mother as an ordinary woman is "ecumenical" ?
-------
"Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for alone thou hast put and end to all heresies"
Do not know if it will. Besides, not good to speculate.
No one knows the day or the hour, but Christ told us to be ready, multiple times. The parable of the wise virgins is just one of His warnings. Moreover, Jesus told us to recognize “the signs of the times.” God in the Old Testament spoke many times for us to “watchmen on the wall.” Paul wrote we should pray constantly that we may be worthy to escape the trouble coming upon the whole world. Paul also wrote that we are not to be asleep or ignorant of the time of His coming. If one is filled of the Holy Spirit, we are given discernment. That given to me is shouting from every pour in my skin that we are very, very close to the end.
Or better yet...he believes it.
Somebody set up an interview for me with Francis. I'll ask him the pertinent questions. :-)
Oh, wait, he doesn't give interviews to Traditional Catholics, does he? Only atheists and such.
Didn't Our Lord suffer fear, dread, anguish in the Garden? Or, no, did He just go frolicking into the Crucifixion...?
And didn't He say, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me...?"
Those are the first words of a Messianic hymn, Psalm 22, unusual for the intensity of its feeling of having been abandoned by God Who is "far from my cry for help." The Psalm ends in a vision of future triumph; yet neither the Psalmist nor Jesus shies back from expressing the very depth of the temptation to despair, an abject sense of being deserted by God in one's hour of need.
If Mary felt these emotions, she did so right smack dab in the middle of the prophetic and messianic traditions of the Faith.
If you think the Pope was imputing sin to her, you are very much mistaken.
Also, with feelings come thoughts. Francis suggests that the Immaculate Conception entertained sinful thoughts.
Ebb, this makes no sense. You're once again conflating a feeling or temptation with a deliberate act (Mary "ignoring" Simeon) and then suggesting that it's Pope Francis who insinuated that very thing, which he did not.
Don't you see what you're doing? You're sinking into a mode of chronic, carping detraction. You might as well be Dr. Thorn-in-the-side, a committed anti-papist, by imputing evil to every single thing the Pope says. And you're failing to show one scintilla of filial respect for the Pope, which is required of you by your profession of Faith.
"Filial respect" does not mean that one is required to hold the Pope above all question and criticism. It does mean that one does so in a markedly respectful ---markedly respectful--- manner, in the manner that St. Catherine had with Pope Gregory XI, or (even more to the point), in the manner of Cardinal Burke when weighing the official acts and omissions of Pope Francis.
Cardinal Burke has been quite frank in stating that the Church needs a firm hand on the tiller, which She has not received from the present pontiff. And yet he has never, never, imputed base motives to Pope Francis, speculated publicly on his spiritual state, crafted rhetorical indictments against him, or in any way shown anything other than reverence for him as the Successor of Peter.
This linked article (Link here) is a good example of Burke's filial attitude.
I urge you to consider that "The Accuser," Satan, can use intemperate criticism of the Pope as a crowbar to split and wreck the Church. I ask you to consider who is a better model for us in our present struggle: the truthful son of the Church, Burke, or the fomenter of bitterness who is called "The Accuser," who is the true Enemy of Souls.
Ah, but here's the difference. As a matter of ordinary fairness, one gives anyone the benefit of the doubt when their actual words or actions are unknown; and this rises from the level of "ordinary fairness" to the level of "filial obligation" when one is talking about the unknown words of the Vicar of Christ. And as a matter of justice, one cannot impute a bad act or a bad intention to another person in a doubtful case. That is, objectively, the sin of rash judgment or even calumny.
Don't you get that? It is ordinary fairness, charity and respect to make the assumption that, in matters where the facts are unknown, the person is innocent. Heck, ebb tide, that's even the assumption in civil law. And to tacitly assume bad actions or intentions when the facts are unknown, is objectively a sin against the Eighth Commandment.
“That is, objectively, the sin of rash judgment or even calumny.”
“....a sin against the Eighth Commandment.”
You have shown it for what it is.
As we say in the Confiteor: “...in my thoughts and in my words”. We know—or should know-—that we will be held accountable for our thoughts, words and actions.
It has been a great concern of mine... this attitude by some traditionalist posters on this forum. I have often thought that many of their comments and opinions are almost showing a lack of faith in the very Church they profess to defend. When they post, they do not represent me as a Catholic.
An added note: point #22 of the Ignatian Exercises.
You are making the error of identifying "recipient and bearer of revelation" with "omniscience," which is a false synonymy.
Of all the living creatures we know, humanity alone, created in His image and endowed with free will, has been singled out to be the recipient and bearer of Revelation.
To a higher degree, every Christian is a "recipient and bearer of revelation" by virtue of his Baptism and thus his participation in Jesus' threefold mission as "priest, prophet and king."
To an extraordinary degree the Holy Father is "recipient and bearer of revelation", by virtue of his office as the Successor of Peter, possessing these gifts in a magisterial way as bearer of the Keys and as Chief Shepherd of Christ's flock on earth.
This does not mean we all possess "omniscience," as you so laughable said, nor even "infallibility" in the ecclesial sense.
Once again, it is you who have ironically imputed these qualities to Ban Kai-moon, Jeffrey Sachs and Barack Obama. Ravasi didn't say that. It's you who have done so, turning a commonplace of Christian theology into a farce.
Some advice for all of us: we ought to carefully expound on exactly what is
That would involve real work. But, unlike the ceaseless knee-jerk carping, it would actually be useful.
What I think is that when anyone (including a pope) slanders our Blessed Mother with a gratuitous, fictional tale, imputing thoughts to her which have absolutely ZERO basis in Sacred Scripture and characterizing her as undignified, whiney and disrespectful toward God, it is the duty of all true Catholics to come to her defense. Those Catholics who would defend insults toward our Blessed Mother are very much mistaken.
"O Jesus, it is for the love of You, in reparation for the offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and for the conversion of poor sinners." - Sacrifice Prayer (Fatima)
:)
While papal apologists are busy splitting hairs, they ought to keep in mind that the very fact that his activities supposedly require such complex interpretation and explanation is itself an indictment. Sad when public concern (and yes, disapproval) regarding statements by the Vicar of Christ which can be reasonably construed as un-Catholic is dismissed as "carping". Fr. Linus Clovis and Fr. Ray Blake (among others) are also publicly voicing the same concerns discussed here.
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.