The Pope Makes a Joke on Dec 25, 2014

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Listening to the radio via the www whilst sitting here and on the news she say's the Pope is praying for everything but he hopes that "the wealthy will start caring about their fellow man".....










 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
The catholic church IS the wealthy. Logically his popeness should be the first to turn all that gold into food for the masses.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
do some research about his holiness.

Brought up Baptist, the Roman Catholic Church has never been my concern...........

But I remember when they elevated this guy to Pope.....I was walking by the living room, in which my wife was watching TV, when I heard them refer to him as a Jesuit....

Double-take.

"A WHAT???" I said.

I knew then it was going to be interesting.

The Jesuits are a different breed. And I like this guy.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
The Jesuits have traditionally attracted adventurers and free spirits. The Society has routinely been in need of some imposition of discipline when things have gotten out of hand.

When Ignatius Loyola formed the Jesuits he realized the type of man that would be attracted to the organization and its charter and placed Obedience to the Holy Pontiff as its primary obligation, as an anchor. It was assumed that ordination in the Society would preclude any aspiration to the Pontificate.

So the election of a Jesuit was a surprise to many in the Church. As was the fact that he had very little written theology and opinion on which to predict his course.. and what was there was not particularly profound.

Many view him now, especially after the calamitous Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which collapsed into rancor and division.. and his continuous upending of protocols and rubrics.. as a Loose Cannon on the Ship of State.

Nobody knows where he's going.. and he's activated powerful countervailing forces in the Church.. who frankly don't understand and don't trust him.
 
Last edited:

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
The Jesuits have traditionally attracted adventurers and free spirits. The Society has routinely been in need of some imposition of discipline when things have gotten out of hand.

When Ignatius Loyola formed the Jesuits he realized the type of man that would be attracted to the organization and its charter and placed Obedience to the Holy Pontiff as its primary obligation, as an anchor. It was assumed that ordination in the Society would preclude any aspiration to the Pontificate.

So the election of a Jesuit was a surprise to many in the Church. As was the fact that he had very little written theology and opinion on which to predict his course.. and what was there was not particularly profound.

Many view him now, especially after the calamitous Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which collapsed into rancor and division.. and his continuous upending of protocols and rubrics.. as a Loose Cannon on the Ship of State.

Nobody knows where he's going.. and he's activated powerful countervailing forces in the Church.. who frankly don't understand and don't trust him.




Maybe you, and those like you, should follow this advice.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Nobody knows where he's going.. and he's activated powerful countervailing forces in the Church.. who frankly don't understand and don't trust him.
yes

which is frankly why many Catholics and non-Catholics do trust him

he has heart, he has guts, and he has lived in the real world and seen real life

sometimes one has to be open to the message sent directly to you, not what you read, not what politics dictates, not what is popular, not what is tradition, but

where one is led...

god never was one to lead by popularity or the rules of the past nor the rules of the day
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
yes

which is frankly why many Catholics and non-Catholics do trust him

he has heart, he has guts, and he has lived in the real world and seen real life

sometimes one has to be open to the message sent directly to you, not what you read, not what politics dictates, not what is popular, not what is tradition, but

where one is led...

god never was one to lead by popularity or the rules of the past nor the rules of the day

Francis is a man of the 'Southern Church'.. an ancient division in the Church that is run by passion. The other part which has ruled the RCC for over a century is the 'Northern Church'.. and is run by reason. You need both, which is why i'm giving the Pontiff a pass for now.

An occasional bout of iconoclasm, to sweep away gratuitous verbiage and ritual that obscure fundamental truths is a constructive thing. Francis seems to have little need for the rhetoric, logic.. the established principles and methods.. on which reason is based, but i think his heart is in the right place

What has raised suspicions about Francis is his public statements which seems to discount even an awareness of the great struggle going on now for the soul of Western Civilization, which has been Christian since it inception.

When he starts making statements bringing into question the validity of scriptural foundations on which all Canon Law is based.. including those pertaining to marriage, homosexuality, liturgy, individual obligation and responsibility.. then he provides support for those who are spearheading the dismantling of Western Society into something no one can envision and has nothing to do with Christianity. At that point he's gone beyond his billet which is to act FOR the person of Christ.

I think this has much to do with his natural spontaneity, empathy, charisma and exuberance, especially with disenfranchised and ostracized elements of society. But his staff is constantly having to do revisions and explanations to his statements to bring them into line with Catholic doctrine and to dampen down expectations that everything is now negotiable, and in fact, will conform with the increasingly chaotic moral state of the West. That can't happen.

Many have taken exception with Francis' statement criticizing Global Free Market Capitalism but this is the least revolutionary of his pronouncements. Every Pope since Leo XIII has produced a Social Encyclical condemning the ethos of unrestrained capitalism AND socialism dictated by profit or ideology over human value.

Personally, I was far more comfortable with Benedict's vision of a Church that will have to retreat into itself to maintain its integrity and potential, until the zeitgeist of the New Age exhausts itself (as it will, but it could take centuries of darkness)... as opposed to Francis' view that Church can DE-articulate itself, spread itself thin over an unruly culture.. and expect its presence to convert and correct by way of the 'Spirit'. That's a highly idealistic view.. and imho.. very unrealistic.
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The Jesuits have traditionally attracted adventurers and free spirits. The Society has routinely been in need of some imposition of discipline when things have gotten out of hand.

When Ignatius Loyola formed the Jesuits he realized the type of man that would be attracted to the organization and its charter and placed Obedience to the Holy Pontiff as its primary obligation, as an anchor. It was assumed that ordination in the Society would preclude any aspiration to the Pontificate.

So the election of a Jesuit was a surprise to many in the Church. As was the fact that he had very little written theology and opinion on which to predict his course.. and what was there was not particularly profound.

Many view him now, especially after the calamitous Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which collapsed into rancor and division.. and his continuous upending of protocols and rubrics.. as a Loose Cannon on the Ship of State.

Nobody knows where he's going.. and he's activated powerful countervailing forces in the Church.. who frankly don't understand and don't trust him.

A lot of Argentinian cadavers rolled over in graves when he got the big stick.
 

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Francis is a man of the 'Southern Church'.. and ancient division in the Church that is run by passion.
agreed coldstream...and that is why he appeals to me. On the Myers Briggs, I am a combo of blue/green which is equal emotion and logic...my personality needs both in equal amounts. I am also inclusive as I believe God to be pure love.

The other part which has ruled the RCC for over a century is the 'Northern Church'.. and is run by reason. You need both, which is why i'm giving the Pontiff a pass for now.
Okay. Just remember that we are created in the likeness of our creator, thus we have both reason and passion to balance. We have had reason now the pendulum needs passion.

An occasional bout of iconoclasm, to sweep away gratuitous verbiage and ritual that obscure fundamental truths is a constructive thing. Francis seems to have little need for the rhetoric, logic.. the established principles and methods.. on which reason is based, but i think his heart is in the right place
me too...sometimes heart is all that is left when the blackness and pus subside.


What has raised suspicions about Francis is his public statements which seems to discount even an awareness of the great struggle going on now for the soul of Western Civilization, which has been Christian since it inception. When he starts making statements bringing into question the validity of scriptural foundations on which all Canon Law is based.. including those pertaining to marriage, homosexuality, liturgy, obligation.. then, in fact, he provides support for those who are spearheading the dismantling of Western Society into something no one can envision and has nothing to do with Christianity
. Did not Christ do the same?
At that point he's gone beyond his billet, which is to act FOR the person of Christ.
no...for Christ said..."the greatest of these is love"

when we look at the social constructs of society...the pendulum swings one way too far, then the other, too far, then it reaches the middle...the middle is balance


I think this has much to do with his natural spontaneity, empathy, charisma and exuberance, especially with disenfranchised and ostracized elements of society. But his staff is constantly having to do revisions and explanations to his statements to bring them into line with Catholic doctrine.. and to dampen down expectations that everything is now negotiable, and in fact, will conform with the increasingly chaotic moral state of the West. That can't happen.
it must happen...for nothing happens without God...to doubt that is to doubt god himself


Many have taken exception with Francis' statement criticizing Global Free Market Capitalism.. but this is the least revolutionary of his pronouncements. Every Pope since Leo XIII has produced a Social Encyclical condemning the ethos of unrestrained capitalism AND socialism.. dictated by profit or ideology over human value.
agreed

I was far more comfortable with Benedict's vision of a Church that will have to retreat into itself to maintain its integrity and potential, until the zeitgeist of the New Age exhausts itself (as it will, but it could take centuries of darkness)... as opposed to Francis' view that Church can DE-articulate itself, spread itself thin over an unruly culture.. and expect its presence to convert and correct by way of the 'Spirit'. That's a highly idealistic view.. and imho.. very unrealistic.
BUT all is possible with the spirit of higher power...thus we trust and know all will be well
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
As someone who left the church a long time ago, in the 1960's this is the first
Pope that I would give the time of day too. He doesn't pull punches yet he lets
things take their course in many respects. He ain't gonna take their crap for
long though. If there is no willingness to change he will stack the deck in time
as it were. I think there is a possibility for change here
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
agreed coldstream...and that is why he appeals to me. On the Myers Briggs, I am a combo of blue/green which is equal emotion and logic...my personality needs both in equal amounts. I am also inclusive as I believe God to be pure love.

Okay. Just remember that we are created in the likeness of our creator, thus we have both reason and passion to balance. We have had reason now the pendulum needs passion.

me too...sometimes heart is all that is left when the blackness and pus subside.


. Did not Christ do the same?
no...for Christ said..."the greatest of these is love"

when we look at the social constructs of society...the pendulum swings one way too far, then the other, too far, then it reaches the middle...the middle is balance


it must happen...for nothing happens without God...to doubt that is to doubt god himself


agreed

BUT all is possible with the spirit of higher power...thus we trust and know all will be well

Some good points there. The problem with accepting God as 'pure love' is that it fails to flesh out the personification of God as 'good' and therefor ignores the real presence of 'evil'. Those are absolute and universal, not relative and individually assessed terms. And they have be articulated. This is the foundation of Christian morality. All that involves hard choices and deliberate action.

I conceded that passion and reason need to co-exist, in the Church and in the individual. There will always be one that takes precedence, at least for a time. Which is why my post was not intended to criticize the Holy Father, merely to put him in some context with the continuity of the Church, the Apostolic Succession as Catholics refer to it. That means all of its actions but must be consistent with its origins and the totality of its revelation over time.
 
Last edited:

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
Some good points there. The problem with accepting God a 'pure love' is that it fails to flesh out the personification of God as 'good' and therefor ignores the real presence of 'evil'. Those are absolute and universal, not relative and individually assessed terms. And they have be articulated. This is the foundation of Christian morality. All that involves hard choices and deliberate action.

I conceded that passion and reason need to co-exist, in the Church and in the individual. There will always be one that takes precedence, at least for a time. Which is why my post was not intended to criticize the Holy Father, merely to put him in some context with the continuity of the Church, the Apostolic Succession as Catholics refer to it. That means all of its actions but must be consistent with its origins and the totality of its revelation over time. And there is simply no way to reconcile that to what is going on in the West now.
yes

I did not feel you were criticizing him as much as withholding opinion at this point, which is fair especially for traditional Catholics who theologically lean right

as for the real presence of evil...it can not exist in the same space as love...neither can dark exist where there is light...it is up to us to keep the light in every action we do, every thought we have, every deed we perform...that is our part and our piece

we can not control what happens to us or around us but we can control our actions and reactions...thus we spread light or allow the dark to creep forward

this pontiff is a man of light

we know light when we meet light, we know love when we are given love

it's that simple really
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The origin of evil is indeed the mystery of our life. It is inwrought with the key situation of humanity. The arising of evil in a system of total and absolute good is indeed a riddle that taxes the best effort of brain and heart. The difficulty, however, has been made by the mistaken common assumption that Good is absolute, that is, good as conceived in human ideation, good in its specific human relevance. The Supreme God has been called the Good, and this has been misleading. Good can only be absolute if evil is also absolute, and this can not be, since there can not be two different and opposing absolutes. The absolute is beyond good and evil alike. There is an abstract and detached conception of good which the mind can predicate of the entire scheme of things, to posit which, however, would require our saying that that which is beyond both good and evil is the good. Yet such a declaration is dialectically impossible, because that which we would characterize as good is beyond all character. Descriptive statements about it are empty sound. It is not within the scope of any predication whatever. The ultimate is neutral to us always.
It only becomes either good or bad to us when it ceases to be absolute and relates itself to itself as spirit and matter, positive and negative, male and female, light and dark. And, be it proclaimed in clarion tones, the whole matter of the theological bogie of the devil, or incarnate evil, arose solely from the miscarriage of the dramatic necessity of ascribing an adverse, opposing and relatively evil character to the negative or material pole of life force! The bifurcation of the Unmanifest into the two nodes of being to become manifest threw both poles in contrariety and opposition to each other. The spiritual, or active and conscious end came to be represented as the "good" and the inert and negative material end carried the dramatic imputation of the "evil." The two can never step out of their poised interrelation with each other, since they have existence only in the terms of such relation. They are only and always relative to each other. Good and evil have no human meaning outside the terms of a counterpoise with each other. Each gets its characterization by virtue of its being not what the other is, being its diametric opposite. Each gains what it possesses of substantiality and character from being the reflex of the other. Good is Not-evil and evil is the Not-good.http://pc93.tripod.com/lostlght.htm

Manifestation of life comes only through the tension between the
335​
two modalities, because it requires just such a stress to awaken latent consciousness to open awareness. Actuality comes to birth only at the central point of contact between the subjective and the objective worlds. If life does not establish the countervalence between its two opposite aspects, it remains unconscious
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
I scanned through that link of yours db, but got hung up with the astrological references, and statements like this.
the resolution of the "birth of Christ" into the delivery of a babe in a localized Bethlehem has kept the race from realizing the true meaning of the Messianic fulfillment.
.. and several other references to 'eastern' spiritualism.

But the bottom line is that if you can't get that Christ's birth, life, death and reserection incorporate the totality the Christian messianic deposit and that all of its revelation stems directly from that, including its lens into the ancient and original texts.. and that it is free of other all allusions to 'messianic fulfillment' extraneous to that.. then you don't 'get' Christianity.

As for the post itself.. to the extent that i can understand it.. it seems to fall on the other side of great divide of moral theology, that good and evil are, in fact, abstract, relative, subjective and personally derived.. and not concrete, absolute, objective and divinely ordained. The latter will always be basis of Christianity.
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I scanned through that link of yours db, but got hung up with the astrological references, and statements like this... and several other references to 'eastern' spiritualism.

But the bottom line is that if you can't get that Christ's birth and life and death incorporate the totality the Christian messianic deposti.. free of other all othe 'messianic fulfillment'.. then you don't get Christianity.

As for the post itself.. to the extent that i can understand it.. it seems to fall on the other side great divide of moral theology, that good and evil are, in fact, abstract, relative and personally derived.. and not concrete, absolute and divinely ordained. The latter will always be basis of Christianity.

Leaving aside the impossiblility of me not getting Christianity, there can be only one absolute. In that literature I quoted for you the tree of life is explained in its fullness. Without the appreciation of the symbology of astrology and allegory you will not get Christianity either. Messianic fullfillment is a lonely narrow path. If we were finally to defeat evil, what do you suppose would happen to creation?
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
Maybe I'm kind off disillusioned with people expounding the value of one belief over another, the Quran over the Bible or some other holy book....
A long time ago (I was about 12 or 13) I asked a priest(as a matter of fact) a very holy man, what the difference was between God, Yahweh, Allah or Buddha......Or just believing in an immortal entity.
He told me something that will stay with me the rest of my life.
All those beliefs are personal and absolutely valid as long as those beliefs do not physically harm anyone, but he added, I prefer to pray to Him, he said looking up!

This is why I abhor the Bastardisation of the bible by fanatics as much as that of the Quran