We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
James 3:16 For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind.Doesn't this sound even just a little like what is happening almost daily !?!?
I fear that if Scalfari dies before Francis, he will be canonized and made patron saint of the atheists.
More standard Bergoglio.
Pope Francis is to theology what President Trump is to politics.
you misspoke; let me correct that for you....
bergoglio is to theology what former (thank God) president obama is to politics.
It's called "connecting the dots".
If one looks at each dot on its own, in isolation, it tells us nothing. It's only when we draw a line between the dots that an image forms and a clear picture then begins to emerge. Thus, on any given day, taken in isolation, it may be possible to find an explanation, perhaps even a semi-plausible one, for the scandal du jour but over a prolonged period of time, a pattern which is unmistakable starts to form.
Bergoglio's other tactic is to bracket his outbursts and "he said what??" moments with statements and homilies which are largely orthodox and sometimes excellent. So in the case of the "hell" issue, for instance, after the immediate uproar of Holy Thursday, Bergoglio spends the next couple of weeks talking about the devil. Result? Pewsitters and clergy return to their collective coma. Two steps forward, one step back, one step sideways.......rinse and repeat.
The "logic of the Gospel"...What is Francis purporting to know in his heretical pride about the "logic of the Gospel ? Why wasn't he deemed holy enough to be shown the bosom of Hell like was Saint Theresa of Avila where she saw so many unrepenting souls burning herein forever,Why didn't our Lady of Fatima care shocking the 3 kids with the vision of Hell, if not to warn us that we and the Pope himself, too, are at risk to end there forever?Isn't the Pope Bergoglio afraid to be held accountable by God for the many sould he is misleading into Hell with his heretical words?When God wants to chastize mankind, He allows Satan to cloud the minds of their leaders.
This is a very good article making a most salient point. We have so much information and the time is long past when the appropriate hierarchy should have challenged Bergoglio. It is more than frustrating to read continual 'shock' reports about what he says and does. He is a heretic and no pope. Anyone following his lead is on the road to perdition.
As one commentator (Laura Y.) already beat me to the well known verse, "You will know them by their fruits," I would add that you will know where there are fruit flies there is rotting fruit.
So well done Hillary. It seems similar in some way to inhabitants of Europe and the entire West, who seem to have no idea whatsoever that allowing Islam to take over would cause any inconvenience, let alone destruction of their own culture and system of law. It's as if history never provided a trail for them to sort out what is going on, or what is likely to happen in the future. We still have many odd defenders, in their own way, although I'm sure they would not want to see themselves that way. Go to some well known trad-Catholic blog sites and say the pope is a heretic. Your comment may not make it past the gate. At some point reality has to be stated, and faced.
No. The problem is the decay of morals and the total apostasy of the West.
Blaming Islam is just an American foreign lens - not of the Faith.
A Faith perspective will note that Islam has much modesty and virtue and is much closer to the Traditional Faith than mainstream Western culture.
Islam honours the Most Holy Virgin Mary - unlike the American 'music' industry, for example.
The American music industry is not a religion.And I wouldn't examine Islam's founder too closely, if the object is to discover modesty and virtue.Especially that bit about "having a vision" every time he needed to get around commandments 6 and 9.
I spend a great deal of time in the Mideast. They are on a path to take over entire nations without a formal jihad as in the past. It is your attitude that will lead to the demise of Western Europe and the U.S., if the libs have their way. You are either completely naive, crazy...or Muslim.
You are out of your mind. "A Faith perspective will note that Islam has much modesty and virtue and is much closer to the Traditional Faith than mainstream Western culture."
Anybody who says things like "Faith perspective" is automatically suspect.
Today I'm laughing, not crying. The whole thing is so absurd, it's quite funny (sometimes).
Perhaps it is because I am an American that I tend to look at too many things with a litigious eye, but I am rather surprised that no one else has publicly entertained this idea. It seems to me that there must be some group (preferably in Italy and something on the order of a Catholic anti-defamation organization) that has legal standing to sue La Repubblica for libeling the Pope and thereby slandering the Church. The consequence of this should be that Scalfari either admits that the Pope never said anything substantially similar to what he claims, or that he stands by his characterization of the Pope’s words in which case Francis would be forced to make a pubic statement about the facts of the incident. Perhaps Chris Ferrara has some insight as to the plausibility of this.
Mornac, if Bergoglio had 8 interviews with Scalfari who misquoted him 8 times like the Vatican (not the Pope) is purporting he did why didn't the Pope stop talking immediately with him ?Who between Scalfari, Bergoglio and the Vatican's Communication Office is the worst liar?
"if Bergoglio had 8 interviews with Scalfari who misquoted him 8 times like the Vatican (not the Pope) is purporting he did why didn't the Pope stop talking immediately with him ?"--Without a doubt it is because he uses Scalfari as a tool to float his heretical ideas without having to own them personally as Hilary has so skillfully shown here.
"Who between Scalfari, Bergoglio and the Vatican's Communication Office is the worst liar?"--Bergoglio, obviously.
Hilary White raises a fascinating point about context. May I restate it this way: It's true that the media wishes to misrepresent the Church, and it's true that it will therefore misreport or mistranslate or whatever.... but when His Holiness isn't giving an airline press conference, but instead writing an Apostolic Exhortation which HIS OWN OFFICE OF TRANSLATORS renders in a way which leads to confusion, not once but multiple times, either this is gross incompetence or deliberate malfeasance. Did I get that right?
And it is not incompetence.
I'll give the charitable explanation a chance, though. Gross incompetence (while far from flattering) at least assumes the desire to do a good thing, even as the requisite skill is missing. Deliberate malfeasance assumes both that actors and preliminary movers are in cahoots.
I think so and agree with you.
"You will know them by their fruits," says Jesus Christ. Time and time again, through His actions and teachings, Jesus threw people into a tizzy. They could not believe what they were witnessing and all wondered just what manner of man He was. He touched the unclean, healed the sick on the Sabbath, allowed a harlot to anoint His feet with her tears, invited Himself to dine with wanton sinners, and challenged the holders of the Law, saving His harshest criticism for them . Francis has done much the same during his pontificate and so it would seem, on the surface, that he is following the Way of Jesus. Francis, like Jesus, is causing much division. There is much talk about Francis, whisperings and murmurings about what he has said and done. Some might say he is being calumniated like our Lord. All of this paints a very favorable picture of Francis to the unwitting. There is a key difference, however . Jesus tells us that He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it and He actually takes the Law and ups the ante as opposed to relaxing it, clearly illustrated in the Sermon on the Mount. Francis, while he may - and I say may - be making some valid statements about the less than perfect behavior and attitudes of the faithful, he is doing just the opposite. He is relaxing the Law, reducing it to an ideal as opposed to the God-given truth, thereby preaching a false mercy. Without the Law, there is no need for mercy, there is no need for salvation, there is no Hell and Jesus is relegated to the ranks of Buddha and Confuscious - another wise man of old. What Francis is offering us is half, not whole, truth and we see this when we view his papacy as a whole and not in individual moments, as is illustrated here in this article. Isn't that what The Enemy does? As the Francis papacy continues, I am seeing more and more the Hand of God, for the faithful are truly being tested by Jesus Who asks each one of us, "Who do you say that I am?" How will you, how will I, respond? Our response will be known by our fruits.
If the "good bishops and cardinals" have not moved against Bergolio after he halved the first heretical yardage, they will not move against him when he halves the next. Like football they will just move the chains and draw another line in the sand, proclaiming this and no farther. But of course, when Bergolio crosses their next line, they will simply shift the goal posts one more time.
When does the clock run out for this heretic?
It reminds me of the joke about the Anglicans: "Women bishops!!?? Impossible! Outrageous! It'll destroy the CofE! One more innovation like this, and I'm becoming a Catholic, see if I don't!"
Tom, their goal is avoid schism at ALL costs.
Maybe I missed the memo, but I haven't heard Francis I's reaction to the bombing of Syria by the US, Great Britain and France. The alleged chemical attack on Douma has not been definitively corroborated, which makes the bombing of innocent people a violation of the Just War theory. Francis I has an awful lot to say about Hell, Divorce, immigrants, etc. in violation of traditional Catholic doctrine. I can't imagine a more humanitarian Christian Catholic position than to come out in opposition to the indescriminate bombing of civilians. Maybe that is why he hasn't said anything yet. It doesn't fit in with his agenda.
There is no "Francis I". In order to have been a 1st there has to be a 2nd and there isn't a "Francis II".I doubt that anyone will choose that name for a very long time if ever.
Oh, I don't know. I'll bet Parolln and Tagle think it has a nice ring to it.
Perhaps you are right. Hopefully you are wrong!!
thank you for the clarification.
We did not conduct "indiscriminate bombing of civilians". I admit I don't know much about this situation, but President Trump must be convinced about who did it, and I am sure the photos of dead or dying children being gassed impacted his decision. This is a man who cares deeply about children.
"Put not your faith in men..."
What evidence can you cite that Trump has engaged in "indiscriminate bombing of civilians," or any civilians?
The truth is evident that NONE of the Ecclesiastical bigwigs wants to deal with this mess of an ignorant, errant pope. Any serious confrontation would just show that there's no agreement on basic theology any more, and also show how deep the damage of sixty years of un-resisted modernism has gone. When the pope has even mocked the Rosary as empty Pelagian prayer-counting, you know we're well into the Vatican II twilight zone. We just have to endure Francis as long as he lasts, hoping that he won't be allowed to rock our rickety boat to the point that even the current crop of Cardinals fear for their livelihood.
Has Pope Francis mocked the Rosary as empty Pelagian prayer-counting? I'm not saying whether he has or has not; I'm just unaware of his having said so. What is the source or basis for the claim of such an action?
Way back in 2013. Mocking a group that sent him a rosary bouquet. The first time he used the word pelagian to name call traditionalists. If that's not ingratitude, I don't know what is. https://rorate-caeli.blogsp...
Thanks for the link. The link itself indicated that the text was not an official transcript, but it seems in keeping with other things I have read. Even as one who is now outside the Catholic church, I can say that the more I read, the more it is obvious how much Francis leaves behind century upon century of traditional teaching. Any fair outsider can realize that. It's as if traditional teaching has been wrong clear back to the Desert Fathers and Mothers and now, all these centuries later, he Francis suddenly has it right! Bah, humbug!
Hilary's clarity prevents us from giving the current Pope the benefit of the doubt. Penance, sacrifice and sanctity have lost their meaning under Bergoglio. It's all about mercy, accompaniment and "pastoral care" for those who refuse to change their ways. He acts like a vulgar street performer desperate for attention from the secular media, but there's great cunning behind everything he says and does to undermine his predecessors. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Lawyers try to match the facts of a case to all the elements of an offense to determine if it can be proved. The definition of a formal heretic is of a professed Catholic believer who pertinaciously persists in error after corrections. Does Pope Francis already match all those elements of the definition? I would say Yes, he has already crossed the line of formal heresy in many of his words and actions. No infinitesimal halving of the last distance left. The portrait is complete.
But do We The Laity have the authority to declare Pope Francis a heretic? As far as I know, we don't. I can call Pope Francis a number of things (which I do), but I stop short of calling His Holiness a heretic as that has religious applications and connotations which are beyond my religious authority.
Some years ago I asked the question: "How can X be squared with what the Church teaches?" My answer (to address the question of competence) was that I couldn't see how X could be squared with what the Church has always taught.... but that this stopped short of declaring that it couldn't be squared with it.
I believe Bergolio has already declared himself a heretic simply by what he has taught.
Its really up to ranking clergy with backbone guts in large collective numbers to come forward and declare Pope Bergoglio's teachings heretical. A group of 4, 6 or even a dozen ranking clergy members would have virtually no effect. Something monumental God sent on a global scale is far likely the only change that will bring about moral change and time-honored magisterial teachings back where they should be.
To "declare" him a heretic is of course "ultra vires" - beyond our legal capacity in the Church hierarchy. But to "call" him a heretic, if we list his heresies with a bit of logical backing, is our right.
By your definition, then I would say no. Who has formally corrected him? Everyone's too scared to.
This was a diverse group of lay persons, men and women, scholars, priests, and religious from around the world. Almost all of whom were very well-credentialed to speak on the matter.
You can say that that was not a "formal" correction because it was not an official act of the Church. But it was surely formal in nature and a "correction" in no uncertain terms.
Pope Francis has certainly been "corrected", if not formally so by the flaccid, largely effeminate Catholic hierarchy.