do some research about his holiness.
do some research about his holiness.
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.
yesNobody 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
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.
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.Francis is a man of the 'Southern Church'.. and ancient division in the Church that is run by passion.
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.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.
me too...sometimes heart is all that is left when the blackness and pus subside.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
. Did not Christ do the same?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
no...for Christ said..."the greatest of these is love"At that point he's gone beyond his billet, which is to act FOR the person of Christ.
it must happen...for nothing happens without God...to doubt that is to doubt god himselfI 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.
agreedMany 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.
BUT all is possible with the spirit of higher power...thus we trust and know all will be wellI 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.
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
yesSome 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.
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.
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.