The Pope answered that himself....
Posted on 07/14/2015 5:15:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week the Marxist quasi-dictator of Bolivia, Evo Morales, presented Pope Francis with a gift — a carved wooden hammer-and-sickle cross on which the figure of Christ is crucified.
The Vatican announced that the pope had not been informed in advance about the gift. And some commentators said that photos of the pope and Morales show that the pope was actually offended. That was a false — probably wishful — interpretation. The pope himself later announced that he was keeping the hammer-and-sickle crucifix and taking it home, saying, “I understand this work. For me it wasn’t an offense.”
And “Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi . . . said he personally wasn’t offended by Morales’ gift” (the Guardian).
The pope’s acceptance of Morales’s gift — along with his attacks on capitalism during his Latin American tour — further confirms one of the most troubling moral developments of our time: The Roman Catholic Church is currently led by a man whose social, political, and economic views have been shaped by leftism more than by any other religious or moral system.
It also reconfirms what is probably the single most important development one needs to understand in order to make sense of the contemporary world: The most dynamic religion of the past hundred years has been leftism, not Christianity, not Islam, not any other traditional religion. Indeed, regarding traditional religions, leftism has influenced them — particularly Christianity and Judaism — far more than they have influenced the Left. Mainstream Protestant Christianity, much of Catholicism (especially in Latin America, where Pope Francis lived his whole life before becoming pope), and most of non-Orthodox Judaism have become essentially liberal/Left movements with religious (and in the case of Judaism, ethnic) identity.
In terms of evil committed, what is the difference between the hammer and sickle and the swastika? Would the pope receive, let alone keep, a Fascist, racist, or Nazi sculpture with a crucified Christ on it? Of course not. Yet the hammer and sickle represents more human suffering than all of them combined. The number of people enslaved and murdered under the hammer and sickle dwarfs the number of people enslaved and murdered by any other doctrine in history.
To make things worse, Pope Francis received this gift from a man (Morales) wearing a picture of Che Guevara on his jacket. Is that, too, not worthy of condemnation by the Vatican? Che Guevara devoted his life to undermining human liberty, and to killing innocents in the name of Communism.
The only institutions that can resist the left-wing takeover of contemporary life are religious ones. When they fail, upon which institutions can we depend? What if, in a visit to an American museum, American artist Andres Serrano had presented Pope Francis with a gift — his work of art, Piss Christ — that features a crucifix in a jar of Serrano’s urine?
Would the pope have accepted it? Would he have brought it home?
There could not have been a gift that more accurately represents this pope’s value system than Christ crucified on a hammer and sickle. First, in a literal sense, that is exactly what Communists have done wherever they have assumed power — crucified Christ by working to violently destroy Christianity and murder Christians. Second, in a figurative sense, the gift represents the mélange of Christianity and Marxism, precisely what much of the Church — again, especially in Latin America, and especially in the person of this pope — stands for.
My heart breaks for the millions of Catholics who feel that their beloved Church is being led over a moral and religious cliff by a leftist pope and innumerable other leftists among cardinals, bishops, and parish priests.
Though I am not a Catholic, my heart breaks too. The only institutions that can resist the left-wing takeover of contemporary life are religious ones. When they fail, upon which institutions can we depend?
Tragically, we cannot turn to the contemporary Catholic Church. When the pope keeps a hammer-and-sickle crucifix; when the pope declares free-market capitalism, the one economic system that has lifted masses of people out of poverty, to be largely evil (“the dung of the devil”); when Cuba’s Cardinal Jaime Ortega declares that there are no political prisoners in Cuba; and when the pope issues an encyclical on global warming while the oldest Christian communities in the world are exterminated, it is clear that while one can still turn to individual Catholic priests and lay leaders for moral guidance, one cannot turn to the Church and its pope for moral guidance. On the contrary. One must fight back.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His book, The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code, was published by Regnery. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
What’s your point? How many Catholics left their parishes in the 1970s when the guitars came out? I now attend St. Agnes in NYC - a conservative community that meets all my needs. Many Catholics do that.
So, if I’m dying on the battlefield, I should reject the sacraments because I know the priest serving me has sins on his conscience? I should damn my soul because the priest is bad? No thank you. And St. Augustine is good enough for me.
The Pope answered that himself....
these you call “spammers.”
Sheesh...get a grip...
You read what people, particularly Catholics, are routinely called on these religion fora and you complain about ‘spammers’...?
So, if I’m dying on the battlefield, I should reject the sacraments because I know the priest serving me has sins on his conscience?
First of all, if you’re dying on a battlefield, you’d be receiving Extreme Unction, not Communion...
Secondly, I said nothing about a priest having sins on his conscience...I know it’s tough, but try and read that to which you are responding...I stated that for a Eucharist to be valid, the intention of the confecting priest must actually be to confect the proper matter with the proper form of prayer...a priest who has many sins on his conscience can still confect the eucharist as long as he rightfully intends to so do...
I’m surprised a Catholic wouldn’t know this...
In context Francis-0bama-de Blasio?
Times they are a changing...it’s a new season. Some see it.....
BUT it does depend on the INTENTIONS of the "priest "
No, it doesn’t. Why do you try to rewrite St. Augustine? What gives you permission to do that?
I support them. I was not being critical of the postings. People need to read them. It is evident that they are the only verses some Catholics ever read. I have learned so much from them. Some make me research further. Thanks go to the people who post the Bible verses.
No, it doesn’t. It is God’s intention not the priest’s. This is basic to Catholic theology.
>>Times they are a changing...it’s a new season. Some see it.....
I agree. But the signs are easy to misread. Many people think that the safe road is to separate from the the imperfect church, but its like watching some horror movie where everyone splits up to be picked off one by one and the people in the audience are saying, “What a bunch of idiots. They should have stayed together!”
Don’t be stupid. Extreme Unction (the final rites) includes Holy Communion if possible. How many angels do YOU count on a pin?
I was there when my dad received Extreme Unction. He took the Host on his tongue.
The most important thing is asking forgiveness of sins and being born again. If people do not do that, then nothing else matters.
Guitars are not moral issues or major blatant sin.
Guitars are not molesting boys the night before doing a mass.
Well, if you don’t recognize blatant sin in Bridge Over Troubled Waters during the Mass, you probably love Kinky Boots and The Book of Mormon.
You just thought to put that in there, didn’t you? LOL.
No just telling you what Trent says
" "IF ONE SHALL SAY, THAT IN MINISTERS, WHILST THEY COMPLETE AND CONFER THE SACRAMENTS, THERE IS NOT REQUIRED THE INTENTION, AT LEAST OF DOING WHAT THE CHURCH DOES, LET HIM BE ACCURSED."*
* Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, no requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit ecclesia; anathema sit.— Can. xi. sess. vii., Canones et Decreta Conc. Trid., p. 43., Lipsiae, 1863. [Council of Trent, 7th Session, March 3rd, 1547,
So one can never be sure thaty have received a VALID sacrament .... Ohhh what a tangled web we weave .....
Don’t be stupid. Extreme Unction (the final rites) includes Holy Communion if possible.
You’re the one who brought up the battlefield scenario...widespread Communion on a raging war zone isn’t really possible...
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.