Posted on 11/19/2014 12:20:09 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
So? Blathernaut still didn’t make that judgment solely because of that one statement by Francis. That was my point.
No argument from me, re the Catholic understanding of what a saint is. If you don't mind, I'm going to expand on those steps you posted to put some order to them:
If entire process successfully repeats:
“Religion is not the way; Jesus is.”--- "The Pope said this? If so, he ought to resign."
------------------
aphorism: a terse saying embodying a general truth, or astute observation
“Religion is not the way; Jesus is.”
This statement embodies a general falsehood, not a general truth.
The Catholic Religion was given to us by Christ himself as the means of our salvation. Christ can not be divorced from the Holy Religion He founded.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
2000 year old tradition based on Petrine authority. Without authority all else is in essence whimsical. Just look around.
I also like it! ;-)
I see it as the genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
The Pope is a Jesuit. That should explain things a bit.
__________________________
Fr. James Schall is also a Jesuit. What does “being a Jesuit” explain to you?
I suppose that you meant that he consecrated the HOST.
The fact that he did not genuflect does not automatically mean that he is showing disrespect. Our very good Bishop cannot genuflect due to the awful condition of his knees.
My own husband cannot genuflect because of a hip problem. We should not be quick to judge the motives of others from appearances only.
I can think of a number of non-Catholics who would also disagree. So what?
Pope of Your Own Church - Five Signs
If there is anything I have noticed since I returned to the Church it is that people who find themselves on the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum of opinions in the Church are actually, despite their different points of view, often quite similar in attitude.
When I first returned to the Church I began attending a parish where some rather unorthodox things would take place. The first time I saw a woman get up to deliver the homily, I thought to myself, “Well hmm, I don’t think that is permitted. I am going to have to think about this.”
I very quickly came to the conclusion that as I had recently exited from a life of rebellion, I did not plan to continue it within the Church. Since then I have developed, over time, a love for the Church’s teachings and a deep trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, despite human failings, politics, and sin.
As I have made this journey I have noticed that on the opposite ends of the spectrum of opinions, there are groups of people who continue to make their own rules.
Here are some of the warning signs I have noticed:
1. Stuck in the Past or the Future: Either nothing the Church has taught post-Vatican II is trustworthy or everything post-Vatican II is the bees knees and nothing else matters. In order to support their opinions, these people either refer to quotes from Saints and popes from fifty years ago or more that seem to contradict current Church teaching or dismiss Church teaching with a wave of the hand and the mantra, “Some day the Church will catch up with my ideas.”
2. Voracious Support for Certain Church Teachings, Disregard for Others: Catholics who are intensely dedicated to some of the Church’s teachings but easily dismiss and disregard others while vilifying those who believe in them as either “leftist,” if the teachings are social, or “ultra-conservative,” if the teachings are moral.
3. Opinions About Liturgy Are the Standard: These people either turn their nose up at liturgies in Latin or liturgies with guitars and drum sets. Some believe liturgical rules are made to be broken and the Mass needs “creative interpretation” and others think liturgy should, in every parish around the world, resemble the parish they attend (or their dreams for the parish they attend). Either way, they are sure their way is the right way.
4. Bodyguard or Prophet: People in both of these camps see the Church’s enemies as primarily inside the Church. They are either intensely focused on defending the Church against infiltrators and attack anyone they think is bringing the ship down or they think the Church needs prophetic people who don’t think like the rest of the sheep, so they break the rules in advance of the Church catching up to their “visionary” ideas.
5. People First or Rules First: When approaching Church teaching some do not to adhere to anything that might hurt other peoples’ feelings or be seen as telling other people what to do. And others defend Church teaching by attacking people who do not follow it, believing the biggest enemy in the Church is people who don’t follow the rules, rather than prideful people who see following the rules and extending mercy to the wounded as mutually exclusive.
If you find yourself in any of these characterizations, I hope you do not feel that I am making fun of you or attacking you. I find myself, at times, on both sides of the spectrum. Instead, this is an invitation to step back on the narrow road with Jesus and the Church. It is an invitation to everyone, including myself, to live intimately united with the Church.
* * *
There is something attractive and mysterious about rebellion. But beneath our tendency to rebel can be found a deeper desire to live the most profound rebellion, the revolution against sin and the world’s false values.
Rather than being rebels inside and against the Church to serve our own ideas of what is right, let us instead be rebels who dedicate ourselves to profoundly living the counter-cultural Gospel values that Jesus has given us in Scripture, Tradition, and the living witness of the Church.
The Church will be re-established properly some distant day. However, during this time when Satan is permitted to rule to earth and the Church along with general society is subject to chastisements and human folly run wild, the Holy Spirit is withholding His guidance, quite obviously. "It will become clearer in 1960".
The Church has already been *properly* established by Christ. There is nothing in Scripture nor in the Magisterium about any “re-establishment.”
“When I first returned to the Church I began attending a parish where some rather unorthodox things would take place. The first time I saw a woman get up to deliver the homily, I thought to myself, “Well hmm, I don’t think that is permitted. I am going to have to think about this.”
Women can not be priests or deacons, who are the only clergy that can deliver the Homily. If you saw a woman do the Homily it was a gross violation of Catholic doctrine and should have been brought up to the parish priest first, then the bishop.
You are absolutely correct about such things. However, I think we have to remember that satan will often tempt us according to extremes. These days...those extremes can be found between the liberalized, cafeteria-type mentality on one hand...and the utterly (what I call) uber-traditional on the other hand. Both extremes place trust in SELF rather than God. The liberal knows better than the Church teaching on contraception, marriage, women priests, etc....and the uber-traditionalist knows how to lead the Church better than the Pope. There is horrendous danger in both extremes. Both lead away from the protection (placed by God) in His Church. Satan is evil and he is not stupid. He wishes us all to leave the Church....or, at the least, to weaken her.
Means he’s cool.
Define “cool.”
The writer is falsely equating opposition to corruption with "rebellion".
Purely silly. Obviously, you did not read the entire article.
What is "purely silly" is that anyone would find profundity in assertions that rely on a series of ridiculous caricatures for support.
There is GREAT danger in a prideful attitude.
That is true.
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.