Posted on 11/21/2014 3:08:09 PM PST by NYer
It’s no secret that liberals adore Pope Francis. The more secular the “progressive,” the greater the reverence for the new man in the Vatican. Liberals—which includes liberal Catholics and Protestants as well as secularists—see the pontiff as the long-awaited liberator of the reactionary Roman Catholic Church.
And yet, if you think about it, there aren’t many things they actually want from Francis. What kind of wish-list do they have in mind as they celebrate his arrival? Francis is not calling for women priests, for abortion-on-demand, or for clowns dancing at the altar during consecration of the Eucharist. Sure, they relish his comments on the environment, poor, “trickle-down” policies, and other things reported or misreported or questionably translated or not articulated by Francis with great exactness. What they most love about Pope Francis is gay stuff. Specifically, it’s their overwhelming conviction the new pope is not just pro-gay but soon will be recognizing gay marriage and (who knows) maybe even gay priests. For the modern liberal, with gaze fixed below the waist, there is literally nothing of higher importance for Francis and the life of the planet. Other than perhaps race, nothing transfixes the modern progressive mind quite like gay sex; it’s the new alpha and omega.
In turn, Francis’ stance on gay matters greatly concerns many conservatives (Catholic and non-Catholic). It worries many faithful, orthodox Roman Catholics, especially after the blow-up at the recent Vatican synod on the family, where a sloppily crafted and released interim “relatio” (report) created confusion and consternation over the Church’s position on homosexuality.
But should conservatives and orthodox Roman Catholics be alarmed? Is Francis poised to change the Church’s ancient position not just on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage but on the very essence of natural-Biblical-traditional sexuality and marriage? No, he’s not, and for a number of reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I despise what the media mongoloids try to do to all of Christianity! They act a great deal like they are inspired by "the dark side!"
They have absolutely no shame regarding whose life they screw up.
They justify it with their overzealous "truth to power," thinking they can build themselves up by tearing down other good people in positions of power.
They think they are empowering themselves but there will be a day of judgement for them and it ain't gonna be pretty!!!
As you can see, the "p" in the wasp part of my screen name stands for Protestant so I am not exeuberant about the Papacy, but I still try to show respect for the position he has achieved.
This in spite of my wish he would stay away from anti-capitalism and liberation theology, etc.
I reallyu appreciate your good will.
There’s abundant evidence of Pope Francis’ unbiblical beliefs and agendas, though. That’s just from his own words, which paint a picture of what his beliefs are, and also show the strategy that he and most of the Catholic leadership are using. They *are* duping people, but it’s not liberals, but the “true believers” who seem to believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church. There has already been de facto change that has already affected people.
Pope Francis (and most of the Catholic leadership, judging by the recent synod alone) is simply double-tongued, and like a man who openly sleeps half of his nights out of the house with another woman, yet tells his wife he still loves her and is being perfectly faithful, and points to the nights he’s home with her as proof of it.
And let me tell you, I would be reluctant to be so definite about anything unless the proof was there, and that’s even more so when we are speaking of anything having to do with God, but again, there is so much evidence of what the Pope is working towards, which is already affecting changes, that it is unmistakable.
The Bible tells us we need to have a love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2), that the Lord will give us wisdom if we ask in faith (James), that David prayed for Him to correct and lead him (Psalm 139), that we are to test the spirits (1 John 4), and of apostate and failing churches (Revelation). We aren’t to follow men, but to follow the Lord directly. He is our only Lord.
Now, on a matter of truth, shouldn’t Christians conclude there’s something very wrong with the Catholic Church when almost two-thirds of its leaders vote to approve homosexual unions, when Titus 3:10-11 says any heretic in the church should be warned at most twice, then put out of the church? If truth - the truth, because it comes from God - is what matters most, the answer is clear.
And let me also say that I don’t participate in discussions just to argue, which God’s Word forbids. I get involved out of concern, which is the Lord having given me burdens, as spiritual work.
Yes, his choice of language and rhetoric opposing same-sex marriage isn’t as strong or (if you will) incendiary as it was when he was a cardinal in Argentina, where he declared same-sex marriage a diabolical effort of “the Father of Lies” to “destroy God’s plan… and deceive the children of God.”It's fascinating to see how such a clear, concise opinion is translated into babble so as to fit into our world's dialog.He said then—only four years ago—that gay marriage discriminates against children “in advance,” depriving them of “their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God.”
Breitbart was the last person, public or otherwise, I've heard note the importance of the national/world-wide "internal" dialog of our vast social/entertainment/news media to our individual internal dialog and understanding, but more importantly, that there are those who control it and shape it.
He's dead now...died young rather suddenly of a heart attack in a time of political change and conflict, probably just a coincidence...but this article and Pope Frances' past opinions makes me think that Breitbart was right as I notice and think about how that shaping and control is done.
There are "interesting times" and then there are times like these. If we stay on a road long enough, we'll get to where it goes. Just saying...
FaithPressesOn, I can appreciate your good motives.
However. There are sevferal false underlying assumptions as well as factual errors in just that one partial sentence above--- I don't say "lies" because I think surely they were inadvertent. You really should read the news more carefully so you don't fall into the traps set by reporters with an agenda.
Second, there was HUGE controversy that those paragraphs appeared in the Relatio summary at all since bishop after bishop got up and said they did not reflect the actual discussion and debate at the Synod. In other words, they were accusing Card. Péter Erdő, who prepared the summary, of sticking in liberal sentiments favored by members of his committee.
The disputed paragraphs were rewritten to be slightly less fluffy and still didn't pass, but Pope Francis said they should be in there for future reference anyway, since it was only for discussion. This was worrisome. But again, the problem was not "change of doctrine." It was that damned ambiguity, which appears to be deliberately crafted. Red flags go up on this, and rightly so.
Almost nobody in the media noticed that even the controversial paragraphs (like p. 53) opposed the international LGBT "agenda" and gender ideology per se: "Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology."
What's my take on the situation? Cardinal Burke, the #1 hoppin-mad opponent of the Synod's weaselly ambiguity, was asked about Pope Francis' position and replied that he had no evidence regarding "his [the Pope's] alleged support of a relaxation of the Church's teaching."
That being the case, my own opinion is that Pope Francis wants the "progressive" soft-on-irregular-union faction to have the fullest possible oipportunity to get their views and their agenda out there in the open, because it galvanizes the faithful orthodox Catholics, the Christifideli. He wants the bishops to come to the Big Synod in 2015 --- especially the Australians, the Africans and the Poles--- and soundly beat back the wicked Kasper (German liberal)agenda.
That's my take: Pope Francis wants the true doctrine upheld, and he wants it done by the faithful Bishops soundly thwacking the "progressives." It's well underway: Cardinal Burke said the 10 working groups (which were essentially language subgroups) have already written their own critiques, and have refused to hand them over to Fr. Lombardi (the suave Press Secretary) for blenderization. They're getting savvy.
So the Shepherds are going to thwack the wolves-in-shepherds'-clothing. And then POpe Francis is going to come in and ratify the result. It's Jesus' mandate to Peter (Luke 22:32-32):
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
For Christmas this year, I'd like the curse of poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. lifted.
Then remove all the pagan coloration and error initiated by Emperor Constantine and Rome with no more church and state co-mingling.
That is my prayer for him and the church of Rome. I doubt it will ever happen as it has not been prophesied in the scriptures.
God bless and pray for our nation too.
Are you a Seventh-Day Adventist? Or a Seventh-Day Baptist? I’m interested.
Seriously, I’m a SDA. My Grandfather converted from Catholic and it’s been in our family ever since. Never been to public schools. Dropped out from college till the first of this year when I was re-baptized along with my spouse. It’s good to be back in touch with the Good Lord!!!
>>”...shouldn’t Christians conclude there’s something very wrong with the Catholic Church when almost two-thirds of its leaders vote to approve homosexual union?”
FaithPressesOn, I can appreciate your good motives.
However. There are sevferal false underlying assumptions as well as factual errors in just that one partial sentence above-— I don’t say “lies” because I think surely they were inadvertent. You really should read the news more carefully so you don’t fall into the traps set by reporters with an agenda.<<
Mrs. Don-o, just for the record, I actually do read things carefully. I knew it was a vote of some hundred plus bishops and didn’t think there were so few as that worldwide. In something of a rush yesterday, I wasn’t as accurate about that point as I would have liked to have been, and didn’t realize I’d put it that way until you mentioned it, but I have to say how you describe it seems an attempt to inaccurately minimize many things, including what the actual numbers mean. Are you familiar with Titus 3:10-11, or did you go read it?
**10 After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, 11 realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned. **
So, what is a heretic? And are there open heretics in the Catholic Church, including in leadership?
I will also say that I’m familiar with everything you wrote about here. I haven’t felt led to temporarily set aside everything else and investigate all this as completely and thoroughly as I could, but I have nonetheless looked at things with sufficient thoroughness while picking things up day-by-day. And by looking at a lot of different things about the situation, again, the conclusion has to be reached that the Catholic Church is taking steps to accept homosexual unions, and in part, already has. You can not ignore the glass being either half-full or half-empty.
There have already been many de facto changes. And for the record, I haven’t believed that the 2015 synod would make any substantial changes in official doctrine. I believe a Catholic-written article posted here predicted no such changes, but that the actual changes would be de facto ones for the forseeable future. And the “duping” part, I may add, is that it seems many Catholics will take “no changes” in official doctrine as all that matters, despite the de facto changes - which is heresy allowed to room to oerate - that will continue to take place.
Now, I’m not going to take the time to go over Pope Francis’ many unorthodox words and actions, which have been reported on here. I know you participate here regularly so of course you’ve seen them. I will highlight, though, one remark that I posted an article about - Pope Francis, seemingly in the context of making “progressive” change - said that change takes time. And it has taken decades to alter people’s views on sexual matters as much as they already have been up to now. And I will also mention the Pope’s remarks at the synod’s conclusion, in which he didn’t hold himself with the traditionalists (not sure if he used that term for them) or seem scandalized by heretical liberals. He also spoke of traditionalists being rigid and about God “doing new things.”
On what you linked to from Wikipedia, I haven’t read that article, but just might sometime. But I will also add that the “no suggestion” quote in itself means nothing, and that part of the Wiki article violates Wiki policy about “no original research” on the part of editors there (in this case, the editor used a primary source, a cardinal’s remarks - and pulled out that quote - instead of using a secondary source with some expertise on the subject, who very well might have interpreted the quote differently). I’ve edited extensively at Wikpedia in the past, so I have a pretty good understanding of how this page on the synod would be written, including the politics involved. The “Talk” page discussions will give a reader quite a clear picture of how an article got to its present state.
Now, on the statements about homosexuality that weren’t adopted but Pope Francis included, I’ll say first that despite what you mention about that part not reflected in the actual discussion, it still almost got 2/3 approval of the voting bishops!
And as you gave your overall interpretation, I will give mine. Like much of what takes place where a leadership is involved, the synod was scripted for public consumption, as part of a larger agenda which the leadership knows will take time. You mentioned a passage that said something along the lines that coercion shouldn’t be used to promote “gay rights.” This, in your interpretation, is evidence of the faithfulness of your leaders. But has that conclusion been rigorously tested, or is it instead something to grasp at because it supports what those who believe in the Catholic Church’s infallibility want to believe? If someone has a change agenda and they’re committed to gradualism, doesn’t it benefit their agenda to concede many of the things they aren’t strong enough yet to defeat, because it provides them some cover to give their opponents something meaty which, if they want to keep believing in the leaders, they will grasp onto?
“Gay marriage” is close to being the law of the land, and even though it’s not, many people have already paid a price for not accepting it - yet wasn’t it only a few short years ago that Obama and Hillary Clinton came out in favor of it, and the Presbyterian USA only tentatively approved it this year. Prior to their approvals, they all officially disapproved. Yet everyone knows it was all a ruse, and there were many unofficial changes made before the official ones that all had a real impact. And with the Catholic Church, too, you can not simply assume that what’s going on is faithful and never seriously doubt it while never honestly and seriously investigating the scenario that what’s happening is unfaithful. There has been more than enough to trigger suspicions.
The last two SDA persons I felt a kind of warmth in my heart for, were a lovely paratransit bus driver who very gently shared her faith, and --- you'll never goess--- punk-rocker Patti Smith. Of course, she's ex- SDA, and went through quite a nihilist perod, but I think she may be traveling the "long roads" of her life back to belief in Jesus Christ.
This is the link I posted in which Pope Francis talks of change taking time (as well as making other remarks that suggest he rejects many orthodox Christian beliefs).
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/19/pope-francis-church-cant-interfere-with-gays/
And again, keep in mind that de facto changes can be as real in their effects, including their harmful ones, as official ones.
Post 32 should also have been addressed to you.
POpe Francis' support of the Humanum Conference on Male-Famale Complementarity was tremendous, and he's set up yet another conference to trumpet the same messages: the World Meeting of Families 2015, in Philadelphia, which will come right before the 2015 Synod in Rome.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I see method in his madness. I think the denouement is that he's goingt to assert the truth about sex and gender, marriage and sacrament, God and man, in a big way.
Let us pray?
I started humming the old hymn "Faith of Our Fathers" in that graveyard and was hit with grief over having thrown all that wonderful Christian education they sacraficed to provide all four of their children over the side!
Thank you for sharing your contact experience with the two ladies with me. Not being "into" punk rock, I don't know Patti Smith. Jesus always expressed his greatest love for the lowly and the sinful. The rich and famous have that camel going through the eye of a needle problem that he once described I guess.
Unfortunately, some Christians of different belief systems get a tad too militant acting when they encounter people of other faiths. I've always believed there may well be as many, or even more Catholics in Heaven as Protestants, yes, even SDA's. (grin)
Do you celebrate Thanksgiving? I hope you have a happy one. Thanksgiving evey day!
Absolutely! It is the one Holiday unique to the USA. There is not one "international" aspect to Thanksgiving. I heard someone read a bible verse that referred to "thanks giving" but I can't give you a quotation, or cite the text location.
Well, I have not been known as being the most diplomatic FReeper in times past and did enjoy an occasional "flame war" but I'm trying to end those unbridled tendencies in a supernaturally supported effort to add sanctification to my justification and even eventual glorification when I arrive in heaven, God willing. (smile)
I hope you and Don-o enjoy your day in the up-coming uniquely patriotic (ahem) holiday of worshipful thanksgiving and gratitude. Here's a link to something Mrs. Waspman and I just enjoyed between Holloween and Thanksgiving. Enjoy!
“I appreciate your knowledgeability and interest in this subject, and I agree with you that “de-facto” change (a.k.a. squishy pastoral practice) is very nearly as damaging a false formal teaching, and in some ways more damaging.”
Well, Mrs. Don-o, I do appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to reply to me. I would advise not calling heresy and spiritual unfaithfulness anything else, though, including “squishy,” which doesn’t make it sound anywhere near as deathly a serious matter as it is.
And I don’t have much more time to write today, and I’m not sure anything really new would be said by either of us at this point. I’ll conclude, then, by saying that I don’t see the Humanum meeting as sincere, but cover. The de facto changes haven’t been repudiated and go on, signaling to homosexual activists that the leadership’s hands are still tied, but they’re working on things. And the Humanum conference is also “interfaith,” and I don’t agree with evangelicals taking part. It isn’t surprising that Rick Warren is, though. It’s sad he has such prominence since, among other things, he spoke disparagingly of fundamentalism, and used a faulty translation of Titus 3:10 (which substituted “divisive” for heretic) in order to justify getting rid of people in his church who disagreed with him, and in a newsletter to pastors, advised them to do the same.
I also do agree that prayer is the answer, and I pray for God’s Kingdom to come, and His will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
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.