Posted on 09/09/2016 2:43:21 PM PDT by RBStealth
Over the last thirty days my own criticism of Pope Francis has been more pronounced than usual. Given last week’s extensive criticism of the Pope’s suggestion regarding the works of mercy by both myself and Phil Lawler, it may seem that CatholicCulture.org is in the midst of a crescendo of criticism. I know from feedback that our readers tend to reflect seriously about the wisdom of criticizing the successors of Peter, and I want to emphasize that our writers do as well, pretty much all the time.
This does not mean that we always strike the perfect balance when it seems important to explain and evaluate something the Holy Father has said or done. That would be humanly impossible. But it does mean that there is a proper balance to be struck. It is my purpose in Part 1 of this essay to consider the overall considerations which lead to the decision to criticize. In Part 2, I will explore the many different ways in which criticism can be offered, including some of the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Not a new problem with this Pope
This is not an entirely new problem, of course, at least not for me. During the pontificate of Paul VI, I lamented his administrative weakness in the face of the neo-Modernist revolution (that is, the rapid rise of theological secularism) in the Church. He himself said that all he had been able to do for the Church was to suffer: There was, almost self-evidently, little doubt about his sanctity. But in the context of Paul VI’s common inability to successfully pursue his own ends, his courageous promulgation of Humanae Vitae in 1968—a brilliant exposition of the nature of marriage and the consequent immorality of deliberately impeding conception in the marital act—could only be received as a signal demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Magisterium.
...(cont'd)...
Is the Pope Catholic?
Caesar=Caesar...God=God!!
It is not useful to criticize him. Just sigh and hope he goes away.
I’ve been back and forth on this issue and am presently on the side of Catholics doing as their consciences demand. The Church will survive.
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
God bless you.
This is what I thought for years hanging out with "orthodox" Catholics, trying to attend the most conservative churches, reading The Wanderer, etc.
However, I come to find out that there are almost as many different sub-groups of "orthodox" Catholics as there are Protestant sects.
Entire sub-groups of "orthodox" Catholics believe that all of the popes from John XXIII on are either anti-popes or at least no longer teaching official Catholic dogma.
They would not agree with this essayist's take on John Paul II and Benedict as being popes who brought the Church back closer to Her original teaching.
The "orthodox" Catholics I hung out with loved Ratzinger and believed it would be a Holy Miracle if he ever became Pope ... and surprise, surprise he did. But a lot of "orthodox" Catholics would have us believe that he is either an anti-pope or a "conciliar" quasi-pope, or just an ineffective pope.
We do indeed live in interesting times.
your definition of “orthodox” is too broad and includes those who think they are holier than the pope.
How am I supposed to decide what is now the correct Catholic position? Good arguments are made by all of the Catholic "sects" to support their particular view of current Church teaching as it relates to what was taught before Vatican II.
Francis has now gone too far by the standards of most "orthodox" Catholics, even those who still believe it is wrong to openly criticize him. So are some Catholics wrong in suggesting that the nonsense began sooner than Francis? That maybe it started with John XXIII and Vatican II?
I'm still on the fence, but I find it very unnerving that there is very little unity within the Church right now, even among those who all consider themselves to be in line with the Magisterium.
Just pray and know that God is in charge...and that he goes away?
It’s not my definition.
How am I supposed to decide what is now the correct Catholic position?
Wow, you are really confused!
To have this Pope and president at the same time is a sign that God’s judgement is upon us. God has confounded our thinking just as he did with the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
And don't spout the typical BS that it isn't your position, but the constant position of the Magisterium of the one true Holy and Apostolic Church.
Vatican II caused a massive upheaval in the Church. There are many different responses to it which contradict one another. Your particular take is just one of many.
This is a very unfortunate situation that is similar to what happened when the Eastern Church broke away from Rome, and what happened during the Reformation.
For the U.S.P
If we get Hillary we experience Gods judgement, if we get Trump , Gods mercy.
As you should. There is no unity in the post Vatican II church, but Catholic teaching is that unity is one of the traditional marks of the one True, Holy Catholic Church.
So it makes sense that many are asking: where is the Holy Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican II?
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the next one will be any better. Odds are, he will be worse.
Your certainty of your own position does not make it right.
God is light, the truth and the way, and with your statements you are confused on the truth.
I am a very unconfused Catholic, supplemented by daily prayer, daily rosary, reading the bible twice a day, and a home Catholic library.
There exists a spectrum of Catholicism nowadays(the whole spectrum is not truth) but the middle would contain the truth with the accentuated ends falling further and further away from truth(having less truth). Those on the ends are no more truthful than is Protestanism, except that they both contain quite a bit of truth.
Had the Pope had an honest confessor, his penance would take up all his time and then some.
Sure did. Some recognize it and try to make sense of it. Others remain in denial and/or ignorance.
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.