Author Topic: Pope Francis Said (Read 1942 times)

poche · « **on:** September 06, 2015, 12:26:44 AM »

We often identify doctrine with backward conservativism. On the contrary we think of pastoral care in terms of adaptation, reduction and compromise. As if they were not in any way related. This creates a false contrast between the so-called “pastoralists” and “academicists,” those who are on the people’s side and those who support doctrine.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1135

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2015, 06:06:18 AM »

This "false contrast" appears only in the minds of the Modernist heretics.

No traditional Catholic sees is a conflict between "pastoral care in terms of adaptation, reduction and compromise" and doctrine. But, ultimately, doctrine must come first. The Modernist considers the desires of man first and our duty to God second. This is not the faith or the duty taught by Christ in any way.

Bergoglio wants the reward here on earth. The Catholic wants the reward in heaven for all eternity. We cannot have both.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** September 06, 2015, 07:22:19 AM »

In other words he's on the trad attack again.

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** September 06, 2015, 07:41:56 AM »

Here's more of his actual address:

http://www.visnews-en.blogspot.com/2015/09/popes-video-message-to-second.html

Looks chock full of Modernist goodies.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 06, 2015, 08:15:16 AM »

Well, often in the practical order, it does resolve itself this way. Sometimes the more "doctrinaire" one becomes, the less compassionate he becomes. Certainly there's no objective contradiction, and the more one embraces true doctrine the more compassionate he becomes. But it's easy to fall into the trap of bitter zeal. Why do we uphold doctrine? Because our fraternal charity seeks to bring others to the truth. Sometimes however we can have a tendency to promote doctrine in the abstract only ... as if doctrine in the abstract even needs defending. Truth is truth on its own and it needs no defending; defending it does not make it more true, nor does a failure to defend it make it less true in and of itself. When we defend truth, it must be motivated from paternal charity. If for one and not one of those people who think that everything Francis says is wrong or evil. It seems that he could defend the dogma of the Holy Trinity and immediately would get attacked by Traditionalists for it. I for one am tired of constantly attacking. I give him credit where credit is do, and I pray for him. When he says something wrong, then I will indeed criticize that, but again only if it seems that the criticism would serve a purpose in terms of helping steer someone away from his errors.

2Vermont · « **Reply #5 on:** September 06, 2015, 10:08:00 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Well, often in the practical order, it does resolve itself this way. Sometimes the more "doctrinaire" one becomes, the less compassionate he becomes. Certainly there's no objective contradiction, and the more one embraces true doctrine the more compassionate he becomes. But it's easy to fall into the trap of bitter zeal. Why do we uphold doctrine? Because our fraternal charity seeks to bring others to the truth. Sometimes however we can have a tendency to promote doctrine in the abstract only ... as if doctrine in the abstract even needs defending. Truth is truth on its own and it needs no defending; defending it does not make it more true, nor does a failure to defend it make it less true in and of itself. When we defend truth, it must be motivated from paternal charity. If for one and not one of those people who think that everything Francis says is wrong or evil. It seems that he could defend the dogma of the Holy Trinity and immediately would get attacked by Traditionalists for it. I for one am tired of constantly attacking. I give him credit where credit is do, and I pray for him. When he says something wrong, then I will indeed criticize that, but again only if it seems that the criticism would serve a purpose in terms of helping steer someone away from his errors.

Doesn't this quote lead others to believe that Vatican II was a good thing and therefore shouldn't Francis be criticized for it?

“Not infrequently an opposition between theology and pastoral ministry emerges, as if they were two opposite, separate realities that had nothing to do with each other. We not infrequently identify doctrine with conservatism and antiquity; and on the contrary, we tend to think of pastoral ministry in terms of adaptation, reduction, accommodation. As if they had nothing to do with each other. A false opposition is generated between theology and pastoral ministry, between Christian reflection and Christian life. … The attempt to overcome this divorce between theology and pastoral ministry, between faith and life, was indeed one of the main contributions of Vatican Council II”.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** September 06, 2015, 02:34:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I for one am tired of constantly attacking. I give him credit where credit is do, and I pray for him. When he says something wrong, then I will indeed criticize that, but again only if it seems that the criticism would serve a purpose in terms of helping steer someone away from his errors.

I suppose you give the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, and Reverend Bob in the Unitarian Church down the road credit where credit is due as well. After all, not everything they say is always wrong...

Quote from: Ladislaus

It seems that he could defend the dogma of the Holy Trinity and immediately would get attacked by Traditionalists for it.

The problem, Ladislaus, is that just about every time he has actually defended a Catholic doctrine he has followed it up with a "but". He doesn't just defend any doctrine, he also twists his "defense" into an attack on orthodoxy or tradition.

JPaul · « **Reply #7 on:** September 06, 2015, 03:05:07 PM »

Quote from: poche

We often identify doctrine with backward conservativism. On the contrary we think of pastoral care in terms of adaptation, reduction and compromise. As if they were not in any way related. This creates a false contrast between the so-called “pastoralists” and “academicists,” those who are on the people’s side and those who support doctrine.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1135

This actually demonstrates a real contrast between the non-Catholics and Catholics.

Marlelar · « **Reply #8 on:** September 06, 2015, 04:32:22 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I suppose you give the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, and Reverend Bob in the Unitarian Church down the road credit where credit is due as well. After all, not everything they say is always wrong...

This is the problem, mixing error with truth. People must be very well educated in the faith to discern the difference for sometimes it is very subtle.

I think that listening to anyone in the NO is like playing spiritual Russian Roulette. Four of the five chambers (teachings) are "empty" and therefore harmless, but there is one chamber (error) that will kill you.

poche · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2015, 11:37:22 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

In other words he's on the trad attack again.

No, in other words he is supporting the tradition against modernism.

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2015, 06:32:54 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: 2Vermont
In other words he's on the trad attack again.

No, in other words he is supporting the tradition against modernism.

Really now. As long as he is touting Modernist Vatican II as the best thing since sliced butter I highly doubt he is supporting tradition against modernism.

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2015, 07:08:10 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: poche
Quote from: 2Vermont
In other words he's on the trad attack again.

No, in other words he is supporting the tradition against modernism.

Really now. As long as he is touting Modernist Vatican II as the best thing since sliced butter I highly doubt he is supporting tradition against modernism.

lol, butter. Should be bread.

::off to get more coffee::

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** September 07, 2015, 09:38:46 AM »