There is occurring something which frightens me and it is being lived out here on the Forum. There is a hardening of opposing positions among faithful Catholics. Consider this parable of Jesus: Matthew 13:24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, `Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, `An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, `Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, `No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'" Obviously, threads such as Silence Gives Consent:Four Cardinals Challenge Francis began in earnest with the event of the Dubia. Still, I considered the discussion was among brothers and sisters, or shall I say, among the wheat. And all of us wheat love the Papacy. But now with Padraig's declaration of Pope Francis' "heresy," we begin to see threads such as this one which inherently consider Francis as evil. There is a growing divide and two camps which are falling into a chasm of intransigence. If this hardening continues then each camp will look at the other no longer as wheat, but as weeds. Padraig, you have allowed a can of worms to be opened. Consider a period similar to this one: the 4th century: The rise of the Donatist Schism in the 4th century finds its roots in the persecution initiated by the Roman emperor, Diocletion, in the years 303-311 A.D. The focus of this particular persecution was the attempt to undermine worship on the Lord’s Day. Churches, Scriptures, and sacred vessels were destroyed. Martyrdoms and tortures were numerous, especially in the eastern part of the Empire, though North Africa was not spared. Church leaders who reportedly assisted in any way became known as traditors, meaning those who had handed over. It is where we derive our English word, traitor. Consequently, certain African bishops disapproved of the ordination of a certain Caecilian in 311 because he had been ordained by an accused traditor named Felix. After two appeals by these questioning bishops, the Council of Alers in 314 decisively concluded that Caecilian was validly ordained. The rebellious bishops refused to capitulate and, along with their leader, Donatus Magnus, went into schism. Thus, they became known as Donatists. This schismatic group became well entrenched in North Africa, especially in the area around Carthage, and so opposing bishoprics from the two churches became common. Tensions were often high. In the second half of the 4th century, a violent group of radical Donatists called Circumcellions inflicted torture and, at times, death on Catholics. They believed themselves to be the true wheat, and branded Catholics as mere chaff, worthy to be grounded under foot. The Donatists presented theological arguments to justify their schism. They argued that traditors were apostates who could no longer celebrate valid sacraments. In fact, according to Donatists, any catechumen baptized by a traditor would have to be re-baptized. They upheld a pure and undefiled Church. The Catholic position was persuasively presented by St. Augustine at the end of the 4th century. Utilizing the Latin phrase, ex opere operato, meaning “by the work worked”, he stated that the moral state of the minister fails to invalidate a sacrament. For instance, a priest might be in the state of mortal sin, yet this would not negatively affect the transubstantiation of the bread and wine at Holy Mass. In summary, Donatists were rigorists who emphasized a Church of the Elect; The Catholic Church saw herself on pilgrimage, with saints and sinners co-existing within. Augustine’s view of mercy, love and unity prevailed in the end. In his correspondence, Augustine pleaded with the Donatists: Nor ought we to separate ourselves from the Catholic communion if anything should perhaps happen when we were unwilling or even opposed to it, if we were able, since we learned peaceful toleration from the lips of the apostle, Bear with one another in love; strive to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:2-3)… those who produced the schism did not have his toleration and peace... In no way am I claiming that either side on the Forum are the "Donatists." I am simply presenting an historical example of opposing ideas leading to an irreversible split. May our opposing convictions here on MOG not build up to a similar consequence. May the unity of the Spirit prevail among all of us wheat. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you! Safe in the Barque of Peter!
I suppose Terry I could end all argument by not allowing discussion of this matter. But as someone once said , 'It is better to jaw , jaw , jaw than war, war, war. ' I don't think talking is ever the problem , it is rather the realities that lie behind the taking that are the problem. It is when people stop talking that they go to get out their guns ,so to speak. If I thought that not talking could end the reality that leads to the talking in the first place , I would be the first to stop the talking. But.. Imagine telling a married couple that were having difficulties for instance to , 'Stop talking'. That would be the worst possible thing anyone could advise them to do. In fact as far as I recall it was through talking St Augustine (bless him) resolved the Donatist dispute in Hippo..
He has been sound on the issue of the Family, to my mind. I still regard him as an ally. Those other issues are for another day. Even the Pope Emeritus has not been entirely "impeccably orthodox" at times during his career. Like I said, we are dealing with human beings. The Apostles provided a Judas and Peter himself was shaky at times, while Paul had a poor start as well. Most of the other Apostles did a runner as well. We have to remind ourselves that the ability of the Church to stumble through numerous horrendous crises throughout Her history is itself a sign that something greater than the human guides her. Otherwise, She'd have failed from the very beginning. Literally, with the help of God, we will get through this mess too, but it could take centuries for all we know.
I think you will find most ordinary catholics love their pope, recognize his spiritual power (given by Jesus) and try to obey him. you dont get ordianry catholics falling for the conspiracy theories from people who think they know better than the pope. Ordinary catholic are the sensus fidelum-not a small band of traditionalists with an axe to grind
ideology v theology is the mistake most critics of the vatican II popes make. Just look at Brian and Mac
I apologize for using that phrase -it was only because Picadillo used it against me. Sorry once again!
Mallett, I don't think you are being fair. Most people here are disturbed by AL and there are quite a number of respected Catholics who have expressed their reservations. Nor, as Brian has pointed out, is it a numbers game.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...vents_in_2015_jubilee_numbers_low_so_far.aspx The Dispatch: More from CWR News Large decrease in visitors to papal events in 2015; Jubilee numbers low so far As attendance numbers continue to fall at public events with Pope Francis in Rome, terrorism and a poor economy are cited as significant factors January 02, 2016 12:00 EST Alessandra Nucci Pope Francis arrives to lead a special audience with the International Congress of Pueri Cantores in Paul VI hall at the Vatican Dec. 31. (CNS photo/Max Rossi, Reuters) The inauguration of the Jubilee of Mercy, the opening of the Holy Door, by this most popular of pontiffs was expected to draw masses of believers to Rome in unprecedented numbers. But the first tally has been disappointing: St Peter's Square was far from overflowing, the airport was almost deserted, there were no traffic problems at all, and the most favorable estimates put attendance at just 50,000. The reasons immediately invoked by the mainstream Italian press, which is hardly Catholic in inspiration but is by and large devoted to the Pope from Argentina, were several: the recent terrorist scare, the cold weather, the dire economic straits throughout Europe, and Pope Francis' call for sobriety. All this notwithstanding, and mindful that larger crowds are still in the pipeline (with peak attendance expected for Easter), the dwindling numbers mirror a rapid decline in attendance that few in 2013 would have ever thought possible. The official numbers for the beginning of the Jubilee showed a 30% decrease in attendance with respect to the year before: 324,000 people, down from 461,000 in December 2014 when there was no Jubilee. The decline was even more marked over the twelve month span of 2015, which counted 3,210,860 faithful in attendance at the meetings with the Pope (general audiences, special audiences, Vatican liturgical celebrations, the Angelus and Regina Coeli prayers), amounting to 45% fewer than the 5,916,800 of 2014 and less than half the 6,623,900 of Francis first nine months as pontiff in 2013. The biggest disparity was at the Angelus and Regina Coeli prayers, with 1.6 million in attendance in 2015, compared to over 3 million the previous year. Without the Jubilee the numbers would have been even smaller. The Pope's December agenda was thick with 23 appointments, spanning 19 days, 15 of which came after the opening of the Holy Door. The month’s ceremonies drew 108,000 people, as opposed to 21,000 the year before. The Sunday of the Jubilee of the Family drew another 50,000; the Wednesday general audiences increased their attendance from 32,000 to 44,000, while the special audiences grew from 18,500 to 22,000. However, participation in the Angelus plummeted from 390,000 to 150,000. Why the change? “I would say there are two main reasons for the decline in numbers: terrorism and the economy,” says Antonio Gaspari, general editor of ZENIT, a major Catholic news agency edited in seven languages with a daily online readership of 3 to 5 million. “Rising prices have had a dampening influence on participation from abroad, and even from other parts of Italy, while the terrorist attack on Paris prompted people to cancel trips to Europe in which Rome was often the second stop.” “Most of all,” adds Gaspari, “the fear of a terrorist attack on St Peter's has kept the Romans themselves away. What with fully armed soldiers patrolling the surroundings and the city's newspapers constantly hammering the message that it is wise to stay away from the Vatican, reporters can find hardly a citizen of Rome to interview among the crowds. ” The decline has been particularly stark in the general audiences, admission to which requires a ticket. On August 26th, for Pope Francis's hundredth general audience, the Prefecture for the Papal Household, which is in charge of recording and issuing the tickets (all free), released the official attendance data up to then, which showed that these meetings had drawn a total of 3,147,600 people. Divided by year the numbers give steeply decreasing averages, with each year's general audiences having halved the attendance of the year before: in 2013 the papal audiences were attended on average by 51,617 people; in 2014 the average had been 27,883 people and in 2015 it had come to just 14,818. Since drawing crowds, of course, does not necessarily coincide with leading people to Christ, it is interesting to see whether the statistics suggest that people are going back to church. The official government statistics (ISTAT) for Italy say that, at least for this country, it is not happening. The last available data refer to the end of 2014 and, based on a sample of 24,000 families, for a total of about 54,000 individuals, spread out over 850 towns, they show that the percentage of people over the age of six who go to a place of worship at least once a week has not only not gone up with Pope Francis but has actually decreasesd to the minimum rate of 28.8%. In other words, only little more than one person out of four now enters a Catholic church at least once a week. Under the previous Pope, Benedict XVI, the rate of churchgoers averaged 32-33%, and never fell below the 30% mark. An overview of the papacy of Pope Benedict shows that his eight years as Supreme Pontiff drew some 20 million people to Rome. If one considers some of the negative stories and often harsh press that accompanied the papacy of Josef Ratzinger, it is significant that the number of faithful who flocked to see and listen to Benedict XVI were always well over 2 million, yearly, including in 2012, his final year, when the crowds numbered 2,351,200. However, from the point of view of the Pope from South America, all this may be beside the point. For, as Antonio Gaspari points out, the Pope's intention was never to attract people to Rome in the first place. Pope Francis's view of the Jubilee is different from that of every other pope before him,” says the editor of Zenit. “This is a Jubilee with a specific intention, but with no particular programme, no scheduled meetings with groups of pilgrims.” People are by now used to the fact that, while previous popes would take the time to greet and name every group that was officially present, and do so in many different languages, only a two or three groups will be singled out by Pope Francis for a public papal greeting. This is for a purpose”, explains Gaspari, “Pope Francis really does mean to make Rome less central to the Catholic world, as attested by the multiplication of the Holy Doors in every diocese, in lieu of what used to be the four privileged Cathedrals (St Peter's, St John Lateran, St Paul's, Santa Maria Maggiore) in Rome. This Pope is keen to bring 'the outskirts of existence' to the fore, and if this requires fading out everything that has been at center stage thus far, he is ready to do so. On the other hand, this would appear to be the way he has interpreted the mandate of the cardinals who elected him: to clean up the center of power he is bent on bringing everything to a spiritual level, making a 'servant of the servants of God' out of the Papacy and everything that pertains to it: the Curia, the Vatican Bank, the works.”
http://www.politico.eu/article/a-pope-flop/ Pope alienates base, sees numbers drop New data show a sharp decline in attendance at Vatican events. By Jacopo Barigazzi 1/12/16, 8:39 PM CET Updated 1/25/16, 4:33 PM CET Pope Francis poses with ambassadors during an audience with the diplomatic corps at the Vatican, January 11, 2016 | EPA The honeymoon seems to be over for Pope Francis. New figures published by the Vatican show that the 79-year-old Argentine Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who won election to the papacy in 2013 and rode a groundswell of public support for what were seen as relatively modern views, is drawing smaller crowds and possibly alienating the base of traditional Catholics. In 2015, more than 3.2 million pilgrims visited and attended papal events, liturgies or prayer services at the Holy See, the Vatican said at the end of December. That was a sharp drop from the 5.9 million visitors received by Pope Francis in 2014. And it was less than half of the 6.6 million pilgrims who visited the Vatican during the first nine-and-a-half months of his pontificate in 2013. The Vatican attributed the fall, in part, to terrorism fears keeping people from visiting Rome. But pope-watchers say there’s another factor at work: his comparatively liberal views on some hot-button social issues, including gay rights, and whether Catholics who have divorced and civilly remarried should be allowed to receive communion. Those views, which have won Pope Francis positive coverage in the media, may be turning off devout Catholics. The decline is a surprising trend for a pope who has appeared to reinvigorate the Catholic Church with his humble ways, his focus on the poor and his fight against corruption. Francis gained new admirers even among the not-so-faithful, earning the nickname “The People’s Pontiff.” His popularity is higher outside the Catholic world than inside — Sandro Magister “His popularity is higher outside the Catholic world than inside,” said Sandro Magister, a Vatican expert and author of several books on the Roman Catholic Church. Magister dismissed the Vatican’s terror-threat argument — noting that attendance figures to the Pope’s weekly general audiences in Rome were higher last December (44,000), after the Paris attacks, than the year before (32,000) — and said the Church’s “more modern approach” to crucial issues such as gay rights is a more important factor. A few months after his election, Francis reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s position that homosexual acts were sinful, but being gay was not. The statements were hailed as a historic softening of the Vatican’s position on the issue, although there has been much debate over the meaning of the Pope’s words. “His popularity has been pushed by high expectations in the initial part of his papacy,” Magister said, but they “they have not been followed by pragmatic gestures.” Homosexuality remains a taboo within the Vatican, as and the question of offering communion to divorced believers remains undecided. The Vatican suggested a different interpretation of the new data. “We got back to more normal figures” after the “novelty effect” at the start of Bergoglio’s tenure, said Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, speaking to Italian news agency Ansa. The latest numbers are almost in line with those of Francis’ predecessor, German Joseph Ratzinger, whose public attendance figures peaked in the first full year of his papacy in 2006 at 3.2 million. Lombardi insisted that the Pope does not gauge his papacy “on the number of participants” in Vatican events. But it’s clear that the Pope is proving divisive among hard-core Catholics, who remain suspicious of a pontiff who plays to the general public, said John L. Allen, author of nine books on the Vatican and Catholic affairs. Francis is an activist Pope, with a clear ecclesiastical and political agenda — John L. Allen “Ironically ‘deep Catholics’ generally have made their peace with the idea that the Church and the Pope will not be liked by the outside world, and when they see a popular Pope it makes them nervous,” Allen said. “Francis is an activist Pope, with a clear ecclesiastical and political agenda, and like any other leader who’s trying to shake things up, he’s to some extent divisive.” The Pope has also not proved to be a magnet for people converting to Catholicism or attending Sunday mass, according to data. In Italy, attendance at places of worship decreased in 2014 to 28.8 percent of the population compared to more than 30 percent during the years of Ratzinger, according to Istat, the Italian statistics bureau. The Union of Rational Atheists and Agnostics in Italy reported last week that online applications to download a form allowing people to “de-baptize” themselves, meaning to formally request to be taken off the Church’s rolls as a member, reached an all-time high in 2015 of 47,726. Something else unexpected occurred when Francis traveled to the U.S. last September. His visit had a positive impact on views on the Church, especially among Democrats and liberals, data from the Pew Research Center show. But the study also showed that the Pope’s traditional surge in popularity after a visit to a country did not materialize this time. Straight after his American tour, favorable views of the Francis reached 81 percent among Catholics and 68 percent in the general public. When Ratzinger visited in 2008 he scored higher among Catholics (83 percent) and lower in the general public (61 percent). That’s not to say the the American reaction was cold, Allen said. The Pew data “also found that Francis overall has an almost 70 percent favorability rating in the States, which, when you compare it to politicians — for instance, Obama — is terrific.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pope-francis-left-social-religion/2016/12/22/id/765301/ Pope Francis Admired by 'Global Left,' Could Alienate Others Pope Francis (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia, Pool) By Cathy Burke | Thursday, 22 Dec 2016 05:23 PM The "global left" is looking to 80-year-old Pope Francis for leadership, but his progressive political leanings could alienate more conservative Catholics in the United States and elsewhere, according to the Wall Street Journal. "Pope Francis really inspires a lot of people to want to fight," Florida minimum-wage activist Bleu Rainer told the Journal. "I'm pretty sure if he weren't the face of the Catholic Church, he'd be out in the street with us. He reinforces our issues and makes them moral issues." Pope Francis has taken strong stands on migration, climate change, economic equality and the rights of indigenous peoples — and he has addressed three consecutive annual meetings of "popular movements," including U.S. groups like Black Lives Matter, the Journal reported. The Vatican is co-sponsoring another such a meeting in California in February, focused on poverty, migration and racial justice, though the pope isn't expected to attend, the Journal reported. But critics say Pope Francis' leftist leanings risk alienating more conservative Catholics —including the estimated more than half of Catholic voters who chose Donald Trump in the election, the Journal reported. "The global left clearly see an opportunity to appropriate the prestige of the papacy for their causes," Samuel Gregg, director of research at the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based think tank with a religious, free-market approach, told the Journal. "That introduces polarization in the church about issues that Catholics are free to disagree about." The pope's views also have allied him with groups that oppose some of the church's moral teachings — including abortion and artificial birth control — but Pope Francis has played down questions of sexual and medical ethics, emphasizing shared goals, the Journal reported. According to Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, an official in the Vatican office on social-justice concerns, the pope's political relationships lean left "not because he’s a Marxist or because he is a leftist, but because [such groups] represent . . . the wounds of society."
That's beside the point. However, I'll address it as I understand your concern. One (who had resorted more than once or twice to ad hominem insult) was banned by Padraig, which as the owner of this site, is his prerogative. The other chose to leave, hopefully temporarily. So, we're not that censorious. If you peruse this and other threads, you will find that most people who post on here are quite disturbed by AL, while, like myself, wishing to remain followers of the papacy. It is a very painful dilemma and many feel it acutely. However, if one feels that way, it is very difficult to ignore it and pretend everything is rosy in the garden. It is not that people wish to be unfaithful to the Pope, it is that they wish to be faithful to all the Popes.
You are still here posting away like crazy, so aren't you your own best counter argument? So long as you keep a civil tongue in your head (unlike others) you are welcome to continue posting away like crazy as you have been. The way it has worked out once some people's arguments are countered they resort to insults or go away in a tizzy.
Padraig, concerning couples not talking, between Geralyn and myself, it is I who find it difficult to seal my lips! Talking is fine, I'm concerned with the trajectory the conversation is taking: Francis is careless, Francis is confusing, Francis has an agenda, Francis is a heretic, Francis is evil, and... (soon?) those who attack Francis are part of the problem, or, those who stand by Francis are part of the problem. Concerning the movie, I don't want to pop your bubble, but it is a condensed, inaccurate portrayal of history in order to promote the value of reconciliation. There were Donatists who returned to the fold, but most of those were a result of a State-sanctioned death penalty for the ones who persisted in error. Safe in the Refuge of the Immaculate Heart!
I understand that the problematic footnote in AL is intended to refer to a small group of people who made a previously unhappy marriage, through immaturity, lust or whatever and have had a change of heart, possibly due to a reconversion experience, and are now in a stable relationship (civilly married) with children..... BUT as with the abortion issue, when we in the UK were promised in 1967 that liberalised abortion would only deal with hard cases... this did not happen. Promises that medical staff would never be pressurised into performing terminations were hollow, and as we know it is tragically easy to obtain an abortion in the UK. When has the Act ever been used to prevent one? Where are the safeguards? As it is the annulment process is often abused. I heard of a case recently when a Catholic father received an annulment against the wishes of their spouse and remarried. It causes great sadness to his first family. People often forget the innocent party in a marital separation. I can see that in the modern world there are a lot of issues which need to be addressed that weren't so pressing in the past - the ease of access to divorce has made marriage much less stable, and even among Catholics there is this tendency to instant gratification which leads to bad decisions. Clearly the Church has to respond, but opening the door just a teeny bit will simply result in it being forced wide open (as with abortion). This is where it's important to get it right, and why the dubia were proposed in the first place. I don't hate Pope Francis. I admire a lot of the things he does, especially for the poor and the homeless; reinstating the role of Papal almoner was a stroke of genius. But I admit that I miss Benedict's clarity. The Pope can make mistakes - they all do, in fact, because they are human, - but I don't think it is wrong to wonder where all this will lead. In my experience, the recent World Over on EWTN was unprecedented in its concern for some of the recent decisions of the HF, such as the sacking of the priests at the CDF. But to raise concerns is not the same as going into schism or yelling 'everybody out' like striking 1970s trade unionists. I don't think it's a case of one side or another - we are all on the same side. Being Catholic doesn't mean to be ultramontanist however.
Does the pope explain what "flaunt objective sin" means? Please, his words not yours. Also, I happen to be a trying orthodox novus ordo catholic who, you are correct, has had enough of "theologians" since vatican two explaining the faith away.
Are you sure you dont already know what flaunt objective sin means? Surely we dont have to be spoon fed every last word .You asked in your previous post about repentance, and I gave you two examples. Why dont you try and accept that as a starting point to understand where the Pope is coming from? I should also stress that its not post vatican II theologians who taught about culpability. Hopefully you noticed earlier the two passages of St Thomas Aquinas-the greatest ever theologian (with the possible exeption of st Augustine). I would like to ask a question: Can we say that all people who die while in an irregular "marriage" without explicit repentance are now in hell? If the answer is no, then the discipline of the administration of the Holy Eucharist which belongs to the Pope (whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven) comes into play. So what do we think the answer is? Ave Maria!
Of course I have been aware of the forum for ages. I am sure many quietly read the forum without ever becoming members. Brian and Mac are very regular contributers so thats why I made the comment. I feel like i know them!
