Posted on 01/20/2015 4:17:20 AM PST by marshmallow
There are five revealing details that emerge from the papal trip to Sri Lanka and Philippines. Five details that perhaps help us to understand better this pontificate, as well the expectations surrounding it. Each of these details can be understood through a single interpretative key, as explained by Pope Francis himself: the Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, that Francis considers something like his governing program.
Evangelii gaudium is first of all the criterion through which Pope Francis chooses saints to be canonized. The formula the Pope has often used is that of the “equipollent canonization,” i.e., the proclamation of a saint whose veneration is widespread, without the need of a second miracle as required by the regular procedure. Pope Francis wanted to explain in person why he continues to make saints this way, probably aware that he had been much criticized for excessive use of the procedure. The Pope explained his ‘picks’ among new saints during his in-flight presser from Sri Lanka to the Philippines on January 15th. At the beginning of his remarks, he underscored that he had inherited from Benedict XVI the process of equipollent canonization (that of Angela of Foligno), and that he then chose other saints to canonize with the “simplified procedure” on the basis of the evangelizing criterion in Evangelii gaudium which calls for the Church to be in a state of permament mission. So in his view the saints he selects for this special procedure are noteworthy evangelizers who exemplify the central message of Evangelii gaudium. After Joseph Vaz, the most important missionary of Asia, who was canonized last week in the Philippines, the next candidate for equipollent canonization will be Junipero Serra when the Pope travels to the United States in September.
The announcement of Junipero Serra’s forthcoming canonization was made by.....
(Excerpt) Read more at mondayvatican.com ...
Meanwhile it is also rumored that a first draft for the announcement of a Third Vatican Council is circulating, but no source has confirmed the report.
Let's hope that this "rumor" has no substance to it.
Stopped right there
It’s a very good and rather frightening article. Francis is clearly the Obama of the Catholic Church - an autocratic, self-obsessed, arrogant populist.
Referring to Francis’ failure to meet with bishops, while Benedict had long meetings with them, the author writes “In this way Benedict applied the principle of communion. Pope Francis, on the other hand, seems to be one who gives instructions, more than one who exchanges opinions, a man alone at the helm who is fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time.”
All this after an alarming analysis of the unpredictability of the current Pope, who seems to have no plan and just waits for a media opportunity to present itself so that he can rush forward and make some completely confusing statement of his opinion - not that of the Church.
You wrote” “Pope who seems to have no plan and just waits for a media opportunity to present itself so that he can rush forward and make some completely confusing statement of his opinion - not that of the Church.”
Oh boy, well-put. I’m a catholic and a conservative, and I’ve been walking around sick at heart since Pope Frank started babbling about man-made global warming.
I think you guys HAVE BEEN MADE to be pre-occupied with YOUR leader while the pos in the White House continues (with less Catholic opposition ... you're all too busy defending/analyzing the pope) to carry through the plan to destroy ANY Christian influence in the world.
It has been pointed out that we are not as Christian a nation as we'd like to be or think, but we ARE the biggest Christian influence in the world.
IF what I just said even touches the truth, the pervasive evil in this world is more powerful than what we thought ... nor can handle
Father ... bring revival .... or us home ... in Jesus' name. Amen.
After the last synod, I don’t think the left will have much of an appetite for a Vatican III.
I agree with you on this. I noticed how he allowed all the left-leaning clergy to openly show what they wanted and then, at the end of that first Synod meeting, he soundly proclaimed Church Magisterial Teaching...and received a standing ovation from everyone present. (Of course, the press didn’t have too much to say about THAT. The press is pretty much useless these days and those who want to know the full truth have to do some digging to get it.)
;-)
A third Vatican council with this pope and his band of cohorts will turn the Catholic Church into a bigger version of the Anglican Church, where anything goes. In otherwords it will finish off the church.
Then at the last minute of the Synod on the orders of Francis all the confusing and heretical statements about homosexuals and divorced where left in the official report, when they didn’t get enough votes to even be part of the final report. Francis could have cared less if they got the required number of votes or not he is bound and determined to let divorced and remarried without an annulment receive communion and bound and determined to make homosexuals happy by telling them their perverted immoral lifestyle is fine with him, inspite of what the gospel says and Catholic teachings for the last 2,000 years.
Put your complete TRUST in God. He will make all of this turn out for good.
Even the previous pope didn't think the Holy Spirit has much to do with it:
"I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined...There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked! -- from the Patheos article Does the Holy Spirit pick the pope? Ratzinger didn’t think so.And just for fun, there's these:
Flash forward to 1455: the cardinals, including Bessarion, are in the midst of another papal conclave to elect a new pope. There are two factions, each aligned with a different Italian politician. After a number of votes with no consensus, the cardinals start looking for a more politically neutral candidate. Bessarion was an obvious choice since he was from the east and was less invested in Italian politics. And in fact he received a number of votes in the next round. But there was one problem: he had a beard and refused to shave it.
-- from the blog-pimping thread The Beard That Lost This Cardinal The PapacyTHE VATICAN (CAP) - As white smoke started to clear outside the papal conclave, details from inside the meeting began to emerge from various high-ranking officials and their manservants. Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources say the artist formerly known as Jorge "Franny" Bergoglio took the Papal Crown in a surprise upset in which Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn had been a favorite to win.
The competition was grueling, with at least 20 cardinals chosen to strut their stuff during the closed-door sessions. Multiple reports say Schoenborn nailed the swimsuit contest, looking fierce in a red two-piece that accentuated his abs, and had mastered the art of walking in stilettos, a skill integral to the Pope's role of walking on eggshells around questions of sexual abuse. But his reputation as a mama's boy did Schoenborn in. Even his vocal talents during a puppet show using the heads of Sts. Peter and Paul, with Schoenborn dressed as the Virgin Mary, couldn't save him.
"He really did make it sound like those severed heads were talking," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan. "But in the end, I just couldn't vote for the guy."
-- from the online article Schoenborn Nails Swimsuit But Not Enough For Pope
I wouldn’t exactly put it the way you did. He left highly controversial and flatly rejected passages in the final report. They were noted as rejected, so it’s not like he defied the synod, but it did leave the impression that he had hoped the synod might move in another direction. The other thing that so nails shut the notion of liberals wanting a Vatican III is that the synod exposed all of their tactics, and the fact that the clear majority of bishops present were outraged by them.
I’m afraid Pope Francis is a helpless liberal. The strength of the Catholic church is that it doesn’t much matter to the eternal repository of the faith.
Again, we should not allow ourselves to be perturbed by what we see or hear. We are called to place our COMPLETE trust and confidence in the Lord, our God.
As I see it, Pope Francis is neither liberal nor conservative and this is stirring up both groups. I have NO doubt that the Lord is allowing this for a reason. We pray daily for the Barque of Peter and for our priests, bishops, deacons, seminarians...and place them in God’s hands. He is totally...I say TOTALLY in charge...of doing with them what is best according to HIS plan.
Remember that the promise was made by Jesus Himself...that the gates of hell would NOT prevail. Believe it!
;-)
In the meantime, we should be constantly seeking the assistance of the Holy Spirit to grow in wisdom and holiness...that we might bring hope to others.
And he could ultimately choose to disregard the synod, which would be consistent with his autocratic leadership style.
Perturbation is the charitable reaction when we see our brethren being misled by wolves within the clergy.
Only if our vision is accurate...and even then, when we are aware that we are perturbed, we place everything in God’s hands with total trust in HIM.
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. (John 14:1)
I agree with you. Unless it would to bring things back to the Latin Mass, altar boys, and things as they used to be.
Am I dreaming?
I agree with you. Preach on!
I know everyone assumes that a Vat III would be bad. Perhaps it could be a good thing. Get rid of the bad things about Vat II and bring back the best things from before Vat II. Why not? People my age including most of the priests I know my age and younger did not have to study Latin and so many did not, but that does not mean we can’t learn. We have had some here and there. Certainly it would not be that hard to bring it back into Mass, that’s why we have Missals for crying out loud.
The seminarians preparing to be priests MUST take Latin now.
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.