"The priests and scholars “protest against and condemn the sacrilegious and superstitious acts committed by Pope Francis, the Successor of Peter, in connection with the recent Amazon Synod held in Rome,” and they give detailed evidence of the different incidences of pagan worship during the Amazon Synod.
Most prominently, Pope Francis hosted a pagan ceremony with Pachamama statues in the Vatican Gardens on Oct. 4 and even blessed one of the statues. Additionally, he prayed in front of the Pachamama statue at St. Peter's Cathedral on October 7 and then accompanied it in procession into the synod hall." lifesitenews
Pope Francis appears to be intent on re-defining the Catholic body of teaching as understood and developed for two millennia.
He agrees with the Sheikh of the Al-Azhar mosque/university that God welcomes a diversity or religions. This is a direct contradiction of Catholic belief in the singular nature of Christianity in God's "eyes."
He told an Italian communist atheist author friend that he does not believe that Jesus Rose as an actual man and in his own body which later ascended into heaven. He said that "a spirit" resembling Jesus rose from the tomb on Easter. The belief in the Resurrection is the central tenet of the Catholic Faith. I wonder what he thinks happened to the body since the Gospel is quite clear that the tomb was empty at Easter.
And now he has sponsored the worship of an animist cult within the precincts of St. Peter's Basilica and the Vatican Gardens and blessed one of their idols.
IMO, unless he is willing try to pronounce ex-cathedra as to the orthodoxy of his faith, he has a limited future as pope. pl
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand Canon Law, there is no procedure for removing a pope. If that is the case, the only way Francis will leave his position as Pope is by resignation or death.
Nobody had seen a pope resign until Benedict. Canon law? When was the last time we had a heretic pope?
I am not leaving the Catholic Church but the Catholic Church certainly seems to be leaving me.
I consider myself a conservative Catholic but I’m almost as cautious of characterizations of the Holy Father coming from the Sedevacantist-leaning traditionalists as I am with the mainstream media covering Trump. The Holy Father has been rock solid on marriage, the family, and abortion. But the heresy hunters look for ecumenical transgressions like Adam Schiff looks for foreign policy transgressions by Trump.
St. Ignatius of Loyola, “Ruies of Thinking with the Church”:
Harvard Law professor and staunch Catholic (convert), Adrian Vermeule, believes this criticism of the Holy Father Is rooted in a kind of crypto-Protestantism and all of the error of pride that entails. Here’s a recent tweet from Prof. Vermeule on this subject/TLM:
Not as bad as having a joint religious ceremony/celebration with Talmudic Rabbis (i.e. Pharisees) whose ‘Holy Book’ teaches that “Christ is in hell drowning in boiling excrement” …
…as John Paul II did.
The Roman Catholic Church where my son was married has an annual Blessing of the Animals ceremony.
“When Luis Fernando Camacho . . .
Francis may be on the right side of history: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52534.htm
With a Bible in one hand and a national flag in the other, . . . bowed his head in prayer above the presidential seal, fulfilling his vow to purge his country’s Native heritage from government and “return God to the burned palace.”
“Pachamama will never return to the palace,” he said, referring to the Andean Mother Earth spirit. “Bolivia belongs to Christ.” . . .
He is a powerful multi-millionaire named in the Panama Papers, and an ultra-conservative Christian fundamentalist groomed by a fascist paramilitary notorious for its racist violence, with a base in Bolivia’s wealthy separatist region of Santa Cruz.”
Dashing the Preferential Option for the Poor or blessing statues.
What would Jesus do?
I wonder what would be the reaction of all these guardians of the rites and pomp if the Pope visits Wall Street and lashes at all the merchants in the temple. ¿Would that be heresy too?
The Catholic Church under the auspices of the polish pope lost Latin America, the Catholic Church has been supplanted by a constellation of evangelist freaks, extremist and greedy, fulfilling a political task, always against the interest of the locals. What can be said of such freaks whose unholy alliance with zionists is based on the final destruction of the ally?
Woytila scorning father and poet Cardenal in Nicaragua set the tone, and the results are there to see, Brasil with Bolsonaro, Guatemala with the pitiful comic, and now a coup in Bolivia to steal their riches, Tesla almost doubled its value after the coup, Bolivia’s lithium is there for the take.
Pope Francis should grasp the whip, and ban all the merchants of death from the Temple.
Catholics should begin speaking out at Mass, confronting their parish priests directly on all this, withholding the benjamins, etc.
My understanding is that in the olden times you were burned for heresy, and sometimes for sodomy, the two things the Catholic clerisy now seems infested with.
A good ol’ christian coup like in Bolivia, so as to remove this red commie from office… It will be harder to pull in Europe, but I’m sure Boss tweet and his neo-confederate surrogates (Gingrich et al) are on the job.
Is there any chance we’ll hear from Ratzinger on this?
Additionally, Wikipedia asserts that Francis is planning to alter the role of the holy office (congregation for the doctrine of the faith).
Renaissance was pretty full of non-popey Popes – t’was a political office secured through well-placed lucre and licentiousness..
Really, a political office? Hard to believe. You mean people like the Borgias? None of them were HERETICS! Try to get that straight.
Well, he might show up sitting on a bench in the Vatican Garden and ask Francis to touch his wounds. Rumor is that he did that with JP2 who asked if there would be women priests or married priests and was told “Not in your lifetime.” JP2 then asked if there would be another Polish pope. To which Jesus replied “Not in my lifetime.”
What does the blessing of the animals have to do with heresy? They are God’s creatures, as we are. Actually, the Catholic Church exists outside o history and those who have fouled it (many) will pay for that.
“¿Would that be heresy too? ” Marxist drivel.
“The Holy Father has been rock solid on marriage, the family, and abortion.” OK, but the church is primarily about salvation, not social good works. They are a secondary benefit.
“Should Elora understand you are with those nazi thugs slaughtering poor Bolivian indigenous people in Bolivia right now,” Childish. Praising Donald Trump does not make one a Nazi. As pope, Francis is God’s vicar on earth. It does not make me a fundamentalist (another childish insult) to believe that if he persists in these deviations from Church teaching there will be a massive schism in the Catholic Church and he can go home to BA to live an unfettered life. As for Morales, the man deliberately violated the term limits provision in the Bolivian constitution.
The lefty news outlets I read say that the Bolivian Supreme Court abolished those term limits. I disagree with some rulings of the US supreme court, but I believe the rulings should nonetheless by respected.
But did Morales arrange for the court to end term limits? I do not know.
You were reading my mind Vernon C. I was wondering if it were possible that the colonel wrote this as a kind of metaphor, an allusion to Trump’s travails, especially after hearing SO MUCH Congressional testimony today that focused on the POTUS’ “irregular channels” in foreign policy. Sacre bleu! Heaven forbid! Still, I don’t doubt Col. Lang’s remarks about Pope Francis were made in earnest.
As hard as it may be to believe, there are people who are believers who can read, write, do calculus and the like. Trump is not the vicar of Christ. Francis is. Francis is making his own bed and will have to sleep in it. Trump’s troubles are not, in my opinion, of his own creation. The State Department egoists who testified today hate the fact that the president does not need to conduct diplomacy through them. The “interagency” is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. Francis on the other hand is deliberately reversing not just the practice of the Church, things like having married clergy but also its baseline teachings, the things that make Christianity what it is. The Church has assimilated many alien faith practices in its long life but the risk to Francis in doing what he is doing is immense. These changes may well divide the Church into more than one body. This a mighty responsibility to take upon himself. He wants to be a modern Luther?
Nope.Green pope,and smart to acknowledge pachamama.wiki says
“In pre-Hispanic culture, Pachamama was often a cruel goddess eager to collect her sacrifices. After the conquest by Spain, conversion to Roman Catholicism took place and the figure of the Virgin Mary was equated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people.
As Andean cultures form modern nations, Pachamama remains benevolent, giving, and a local name for Mother Nature. Thus, many in South America believe that problems arise when people take too much from nature because they are taking too much from Pachamama.”
So in actual fact acknowledgement of the current state of affairs involving the environment. Interesting that the Catholic religion put an end to human sacrifice. Stupid to think that European cultural and religious influence is a one way street.The winds of change are blowing.
Secondly no child in this day and age will accept beyond doubt that Christ rose from the dead.Sorry mate but that horse has bolted.His spirit might have but dead is dead.
The church and for that matter all religions have had a good run up to now.By being the gatekeepers of written word and knowledge few could question the facts.Sorry mate but that camel has also bolted.
Personally I believe in the one God.I have absolutely no doubt that God exists.The experiences are real.Religion is a social construct.Good for charity and moral support.However there is no direct connection between God and religion. The connection is solely between God and you.Of this I absolutely no doubt.
The logical fallacy of monotheism is that a spiritual absolute would necessarily be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. More the new born, than the wise old man. The light shining through the film, than the images on it.
Yet no culture could exist, if it simply reveled in sentience, so we have this top down father figure lawgiver, because the anarchy of desire has to be balanced by the tyranny of judgement. The heart and the head. Liberal and conservative. Youth and age. Cycles of expansion and consolidation.
When we confuse the ideal with the absolute, it does create some significant problems. For example, good and bad are not some cosmic duel between the forces of righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. The 1/0 of life, from which all the higher order social nuances rise. Respect, responsibility, honesty, trust, empathy, sympathy, etc. So when we treat the simple basics of good and bad as an ideal, rather then an essence, conflicts quickly devolve into a race to the bottom, of us, versus them, good, versus bad, rather then each side respecting the structure of civilized evolution on which they rest and being able to work through the complexities.
A good book on the history of Western civilization is Gilbert Murray’s; The Five Stages of Greek Religion. One of the lessons drawn from his writings is that tribal beliefs tended towards forms of monotheism, as the tribal spirit. Against the larger world. It was with the advent of city states, that a form of multiculturalism emerged as poly and pantheisms. These were the cultural basis for the democracy of Greece and the republicanism of Rome. So when the west went back to a form of monotheism, in the Holy Trinity, the default civil system was monarchy. As in one god, one ruler. Divine right of kings. It was when the west went back to those more complex and interactive forms of government, that separation of church and state, culture and civics, became necessary.
I don’t think the whole story is finalized just yet.
I do not wish to meet you in a battle of apologetics. Your opinion on the validity of Christian theology is interesting but irrelevant. My post is not about that. It is about the survival of the Catholic Church in the presence of a pope who does not seem to accept basic teachings.
Cesaere Borgia’s father perhaps?
Alexander the Sixth? Not a heretic, a bad man but not a heretic, mish murtad.
Yeah, but Pope Frank is not lashing out at Wall Street in this case; he’s lashing out at the Holy Doctrine. There’s a huge difference!
We quibble perhaps on the definition of heretics – and outward rejection of Catholic dogma by a string of the middle ages popes – post 2nd Lateran Council. Barbara Tuchman covers this papal conduct in March of Folly – 1470-1510 where indeed the papacy went to the highest bidder on far less than exemplary religious conduct.
Did they publicly announce their rejection of Catholic dogma like Martin Luther in order to to be labeled a heretic; or did they publicly reject Catholic dogma by simply ignoring it. Tuchman cites the era of Catholic popes Sixtus IV, Innocent III, Alexander VI, Julius II Leo X and Clement Vii.
Interesting. Some of the signatories too. I would like to defend Pope Francis, and I surely will fail. It’s the first thing that came to mind.
It seems that the Pachamama may be somewhat connected with the Spanish Christianization of South America. The indigeneous Pacha was merged with Maria the mother of Christ?
Pacha, time and space, all embracing spirit, being wedded to the Earth Mother, the mother that gave her child, Maria. Pacha was a pantheist all-embracing spiritual principle. It was then merged with Maria, or Mama, maybe deliberatly, by the Spanish missionaries??? Maybe they even originally used the word Pacha since it felt helpful in their mission??? They had to learn their language. No?
Even for the missionized this may have made sense, pacha they understood, Maria, the mother, the good news she brought into the world by giving birth to Christ could be added.
Admittedly, when I read the article and tried to understand what may have been on Pope Francis mind, or why he choose to do this, he may be more aware of the history of the Church then some of his critics, he definitivelly is more aware of history of the Catholic Church in South America then his critics.
Arbitary example from European Church history, popped up on my mind:
a persistant rumor has it that the Chartres Cathedral was built on a Celtic/Druid holy space, a well. Apparently it was filled in during the 17th century but restored again in the early 20th. Around this well there is this myth of a “virgo paritura”, a virgin about to give birth to a child.
That may be provocative part of the Pachamama too? No?
Would one find something about the myth or the “virgo paritura” in the writing of the School of Chartres, that led to the twelfth-century renaissance? Vague traces? Or was it later created by heritics? But I digress.
Pachamama and the mythical “virgo paritura” of old times in the land of the Gauls feel somewhat related anyway.
Strictly I found other traces of some type of amalgamtion, or odd pantheist relicts–to my own surprise at the time, I have to admit–in the larger European Catholic space.
Religous syncretism? Here mor arbitrarily it’s social and political role (in time and space?), with thanks to the Wikipedians:
Obviously, it must be a bit shocking to the more delicate Catholic souls, to see such images instead vs let’s say the images of the great masters and their copists with the child and instead …
Not sure what Benedict XVI thinks about this, but somewhat sure he may not let us know.
The history of Catholic Mariology:
As far as I know, the official justification for the coup is that Morales’ vote count was said to be fraudulent by the opposition. I don’t know if that’s true or not; that’s just the only justification I’ve heard.
If pomp, rituals and formalities prevail over the spirit and essence of Christianity, well then, a schism is most welcome. Let the formalists don their gilded chasubles and keep on invoking God’s blessings, drivel.
I hesitated to weigh in on such an emotive issue – I used to audit a very old and exclusive men’s club and they had three basic rules: no women or discussion of women; no discussion of politics; and no discussion of religion. Most of the old boys talked business or golf and had a nice snooze in a comfy chair after lunch, snug in their retreat! However, as a lapsed member of a 400-yr plus Protestant family tradition, I have some thoughts on the topic at hand. The protestant schism was in reaction to the corruption of the Church of Rome namely, the sale of indulgences – basically taking large sums of money in exchange for a written promise that the payer would go to heaven. Note the Catholic Church survived this and the many other corruptions caused by the weakness of men. But it is in doctrinal matters that the protestants continue to differ from Catholics – and the cult of the Virgin Mary and the worship of the Saints are such major differences. Protestants consider both to be pagan and therefore heretical.
But what a consolation to many the ability to pray to the universal mother and to the Saints of their locale and trade. It seems to me that people need to be able to identify with the object of their worship and what stronger identification than to the mother of G-d or to a Saint who you could identify with? So, it seems to me that the Pachamama is also a universal mother, one from the native religion of the Americas. Again, as an outsider to the Church, and a non-believer, why not encourage people by recognizing their local version of the universal mother, and recognize her as an aspect of the Virgin Mary?
The creator has many aspects and I fear adhering to strongly to literal interpretations of doctrine as do many protestant cults can obscure the deeper meanings of things spiritual. Seeking heretics is a good way to find disagreement and conflict and would Christ the founder of our common religion really want that?
As I understand it the name Easter is derived from Oestra, a pagan goddess of Spring and rebirth after death. The early Church was always careful to adapt its celebrations to the older festivals of Midwinter, Spring and Autumn. The external symbols of these now Holy Days are invariably pagan in origin. Mistletoe, Trees and Fire for Midwinter/Christmas, Eggs and Bunnies for Spring/Easter, Skulls and candles for Autumn/Halloween/All Souls Day. My then Parish Church was but one of many to be the latest building to occupy what was originally a pagan site. The specifically Catholic Church grew out of the Seven Ecuminical Councils and the Pentarchy, it has survived since then and will continue so to do.
Addressing only the incident re Pachamama — I clicked the link, read the story, studied the photos.
My background thought was that the Church has incorporated very many “pagan” practices — it has Catholicized them: not likely that Jesus, born in Bethlehem, was born under a pine tree decorated with candles, but that symbol and Northern European pagan festival has become intricately linked with the celebration of the birth of Jesus.
Francis planted a tree while an indigenous woman explained that in her culture planting a tree reconnects with Mother Earth.
Trees are a dominant symbol in the religions, myths and literature of almost every culture.
I have no problem with Francis participating in THAT “pagan” ceremony.
What struck me as ludicrous in the photos was the clerics dressed in long black robes w/ red sashes and beanies.
What important cultural relationship does their garb represent? Nuns have shed their habits and dress just like the People of God that they vow to serve.
I have many problems w/ Francis: I wish he would make more forceful statements condemning involvement in wars and also in economic wars — equally destructive of God’s creatures.
Are you Catholic? If so are you aware that “Pantheism” is a specif condmened heresy?
Catholics would say that they revere the mother of Jesus but not more than that. Thgey would also say they do not worship the saint. You may be a heathen but you are a heathen who has retained full measure of anti-Catholic disdain.
I am in favor of divesting the Church of the trappings of medieval monarchy, including the fancy vesting and liturgy. they should sell off the treasures warehoused in the Pontifical palace. Married and women priests should be allowed. this does not mean that Francis is not embracing heresy
“Nobody had seen a pope resign until Benedict.”
My conspiracy theorist friends say that Benedict was blackmailed into resigning. If Benedict can be forced to resign, Francis can be forced to resign.
At any rate, Poland seems to call itself “Catholic” when it rejects Islam. Poland does NOT seem to be following Francis, who would tell them to invite Muslim invaders and give them welfare.
If a Polish army calls itself “Catholic” while fighting clearly non-Catholic foes (such as the European Union, George Soros, and their Muslim friends) it doesn’t really matter who the Pope is. It only matters that “Catholic” is the battle-flag flying over the Polish army.
Various newspapers are reporting on Polish Catholicism with various sentiments:
Correct me if I am wrong .
Didn’t that schism within the Catholic church happen a long time ago ? and that’s why the Eastern Catholics have their own bishops whilst for the Roman Catholics, the pope is their bishop.
There have been a number of schisms in Christianity. IMO we should not want more.
Since you do not like the idea of organized religion at all, there is probably not much future for you as a convert to Catholicism.
“None of them were HERETICS!”
Possibly because none of them actually cared enough about the dogma to try to make changes. People obsessed with power can usually accommodate any theory that gives them leverage.
As one of those dreaded Evangelical Protestants, I fear making any comment in regard to a current scandal in regard to the Catholic Church. I find so much about the Catholic Church beautiful and inspiring. It is quite sad to me when there is a scandal occurring in the Catholic Church, just as I feel sad when scandals occur in many forms of Protestant churches.
I put my hope, however, in “The Church Universal and Invisible.” And I hold fast to the belief that “All things work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” And I always pray that I am one of those who are called.
In regard to this current problem, I do what some of us “heretics” often do: We leave it to God, in complete faith that God, in all persons of the Trinity, will still be in charge of everything .
As a Protestant, I am always turning to certain stories included in the New Testament that assure me that I, who may be viewed as flawed since I was not raised in the Catholic Church–though I believe I was raised in Christianity if I take the word “catholic” to mean “universal”– am still acceptable to God. Some here have seemed to dismiss Protestants, and that seems unkind and “un-Christian” to me.
Much of the New Testament is concerned with welcoming ALL people, including all the “Gentiles” into the Faith. So many stories of Christ before his Ascension show him helping those who believed in him who were–as in the stories of the Centurion of Capernaum and the woman of Canaan who wished only to be like the dogs who ate scraps under the table, and many other examples–not considered worthy by the Jewish establishment.
I will pray for the Catholic Church, but I will view myself as the little lost lamb whom Jesus took the trouble of finding though his flock was already large.
At the Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the disciples the gift of “speaking in tongues,” so they could go out to all parts of the earth and preach the “Good News.”
I will pray that the Pope is trying to do that and that more lost sheep can be brought back into the fold.
An honest question, from a non-Catholic, albeit a Christian (Orthodox, for purposes of full and fair disclosure):
How does removing a Pope for false teachings comport with Papal infallibility?
Will the Holy Father repent as he is being urged to do, or will he resist?
God has used various individuals throughout mankind’s history, from the pious to the most heinous human being ever conceived. From the penitent to the cold blooded murdering, adulterer, lying, stealing, human beings to guide mankind’s footsteps. God listens to and hears prayers, whether he chooses to answer them and when he does, he answers them in his way.
There will be many prayers, sack cloth and ash included asking, pleading for the divine hand to guide and instruct Pope Francis.
“The connection is solely between God and you.”
I may be reading you wrong, but the danger is that that leads to the atomised individual, downplaying the significance of community or fellowship to the extent of rejecting the living connections with the past and even rejecting anything more than a millenarian concern for the future.
Not at all suggesting that’s your line, but it might indicate that there are parts of what make us tick that are not included in your relationship with God. The Churches, for all their faults, do try and get the lot in.
Not that I can talk. As Dave Schuler indicates above the Church is leaving many of us fast – why should our Clergy be immune from the infection of modish Progressivism? – and in any case its language is for many of us a language we no longer speak. It could be that the Pope – certainly many modern theologians – attempts to translate that language into the language that we do now speak. That attempt should perhaps not be confused with apostasy, though I must confess it looks like it often enough to me.
“Pope Francis” is not even a regularly elected Pope, because of the violations committed during his election. Also, cardinal Danneels, who was a very close associate to Bergoglio, confessed (before his death) of a plot to undermine Pope Benedict XVI and forcibly replace him with “their man”.
Card. Danneels’ confession is found in his official biography, published in French and Dutch language and can be found on Amazon here (only digital copy is available by now):
A plot to elect a pre-chosen person in a Conclave is punished by the Catholic Church with immediate and automatic excommunication latae sententiae (no pronunciation needed).
Adding to this, the Canon (which regulates the internal law of the Catholic Church) says that a Pope cannot resign forcibly, meaning that Benedict XVI is still the only lawful and actual Pope because he was purposefully forced to leave his seat, never actually renouncing his title or papal emblems (not even the white robes…!).
Very recently (2018-2019), Benedict XVI himself (despite his old age) has been publishing new books with is old papal signature Benedictus P.P. XVI which can be used only by the ruling Pope. In doing so, he publicly stated himself as the actual Pope.
The two things are unrelated.
In fairness, there are Catholics who could be considered Marianists (distinct from the religious order — my wife is a Dayton grad after all). I have heard them express a hope that Mary would be declared co-mediatrix. Also the importance given to Fatima and the third secret. As far as veneration vs worship I suspect the distinction can be lost to many people. I get the idea of co-opting existing practices, but I’m not sure the actions of Francis tend to move mankind to Christ.
More on Pachamama: The Pope showed his respect for the indigenous people in a Synod of the Bishops of the Andean nation. It is not just a matter of poverty, but the indigenous communities and the Afro-Andeans are under violent siege by the far-right Evangelical politicians and others. Luis Chamaco, who headed the very violent aspects of the coup de d’etat a few days ago takes pride in being called the Bolivian Bolsonaro. Like Bolsonaro, he is an evangelical right-winger and openly uses racist language and said they are determined to remove the protection of what is left of Native lands, opening them up for exploration and oil fields, not to mention, cattle ranching. Chamancho stormed into the uninhabited Presidential Palace after Morales left and shouted ‘There is no more Pachamama here. Bolivia belongs to Christ. During his tenure, Morales introduced a second nation flag, this one associate with the native peoples. After his speech, military and policy started ripping the symbol off their uniforms
About twenty others from his party departed with Morales for Mexico along with their families. Morales consulted with the military and with the Catholic church which advised him to step down. He and his close advisors were forced to resign since the thugs associated with Chamancho were holding their families hostage til they did not.
At the moment, Chamanco does not seek the presidency, instead, working to bring back back the President who was beaten by Morales some 14 years ago.
Whatever else he did and mistakes he made, he reduced poverty, especially in rural areas dramatically. Having benefited from land reform, the campesinos are unlikely to willingly return to being poorly paid laborers on the vast latifundias of the urban rich. They have also benefited from the symbolic legal gesture provided by the first indigenous president, including native dress and classes to teach at least some of their native languages in public schools..It has been said, fearing violence on the part of the paramilitaries, they are starting to procure arms to protect themselves. [In Colombia, four indigenous women activists were killed recently returning from meetings in the capital.
All in all, it is interesting to find that the growing Evangelical churches in Latin America have attracted very right-wing racists.
Agreed. Half of my family and friends are Roman Catholic and Pope Francis isn’t a favorite among many of the most devout among them.
I thought the Church had admitted its fault long ago in how it treated Galileo.
I have more than a little sympathy for Francis’ attempt to absorb 3rd World religion into the Christian faith but he is on very shaky ground politically within the Church.
Did your mother never teach you that to offer unsolicited advice is ill mannered and rude?
No YOU are ill mannered and rude. I would never do anything with you. I do not associate myself with marxist enemies of the US.
Here is my very loose take on this question: Fall of Rome by the Goth’s Visagoths, huns, whatever and Christians fled the city around year 400 – then Byzantium and Constantinople became the new center for the Catholic Church -reaching both eastwards and westwards – not sure I would call it a fundamental schism ,but more a change in real estate.
Byzantium was quite epically glorious until falling to the Muslims mid 1400’s. By then Rome was re-establishing itself again as the center the Holy Roman Empire, by the Byzantium default more than any fundamental shifts in ideology. Such a shadow of remnants to be found in Istanbul today and Hagia Sophia changes hands yet again from the center of Christendom to a mosque to a museum and now back to a mosque again. But always to anyone else, the pride of Christendom and Byzantium.
Yet pockets of Byzantium Christianity remained in Greece and the Russian and eastern territories – and their evolved traditions continued. Speaking of which, no greater thrill than hearing the rich Christian musical liturgy sung in the Orthodox onion domed churches – the sounds echo and reverberate creating a sense of heaven on earth.
Who knew Vladimir Putin would be so often shown wearing a Christian cross around his neck, and the “opiate of the masses” is what unlocked Poland and ushered the end of the Iron Curtain and ultimately the Cold War.
Even the godless Communists when in power knew they could put on a good show for tourists offering these now secular onion domed Christian churches for choral concerts, during that short-lived but failed human experiment called the USSR.
Maybe the Green Pope should elevate the Swedish climate saint Greta Thunberg to virgin Mary status, too? The journalist hacks here would be absolutely delighted about such a religious branding decision…
“Rock solid on marriage, the family, and abortion”? Really? The only thing he is rock solid on and has been thru his entire career is homosexuals and issues that are for the elevation of man and not God. As for “conservatives” they in the end conserve nothing or as better stated by G. K. Chesterton: “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”
That’s an interesting question.
If the pope, when speaking ex cathedra, i.e. from the Chair of St. Peter, speaks infallibly, then can he issue a statement that “Jesus did not rise as an actual man and in his own body which later ascended into heaven. . . [But] that “a spirit” resembling Jesus rose from the tomb on Easter.”
Does that then become new doctrine? [No; it’s not nearly that simple: crude comparison: “Supreme Court hears DACA case.”]
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was pronounced ex cathedra only in 1854, and the Assumption in mid-twentieth century, so doctrine can be and has been adjusted.
Rather than pursue the process (and political / spiritual context) of promulgating the doctrine of infallibility, your comment, prawnik, made me think of this bit of history, germane to Pat Lang’s blog:
Robert E. Lee was a regular and respectful correspondent of Lord Acton,
a Roman Catholic of British birth but who felt compelled to leave England for an education, since the British at the time were determinedly anti-Catholic.
Thus, Acton had a classical education in W. European schools still dominated by Roman Catholic perspectives. Acton retained his allegiance to Roman Catholicism, but led strenuous opposition to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility first considered in the papacy of Pius IX and eventually enshrined in the First Vatican Council, 1869 – 1870.
Acton wrote volumes of studies and essays on his opposition, all tending to his belief in the “free will” of the conscience of the individual: Papal infallibility, he believed, would enshrine an authoritarian tendency in the hierarchy and reduce the human person to the status of “he who must obey.”
Acton’s correspondence with Lee had at its heart a similar view of the world: it was Acton’s wish that the Confederacy win what he considered a war fought over the right of states to secede from the Union. He wrote to Lee:
(On the other hand, if I heard it once I heard a hundred times from Catholic teachers/clergy: “The Church is not a Jeffersonian democracy.” )
There is a joke that you might hear from people in different countries once part of the old Soviet Union…..Armenian, Ukrainian, Russians, etc: In the middle of the night, the priest finds a woman from the village at his doorstep. She has in her arms her infant son. She bgs the priest to baptize him. She is most distraught when the man of God refuses to do so and demands to know why. I can’t baptize him twice. His father brought him here yesterday.
Consider that Stalin’s own daughter was baptized as a child due to her mother. A fervent atheist, he loosened the chains around religion during and for a while after WWII to add the secret beliefs of many people to the nationalism for which they were fighting. Gorbachev and his wife not only wore crosses, but knew the church rituals.
Those folks got rid of “John-Paul I” much faster. I guess the mafia just ain’t what it used to be…
Aside: one of our tour group in Cuzco (Machu Pichu) bought a very large and very local stuffed animal as a souvenir. We all joined to give it a name – considering the pervasiveness of the local indigenous culture we had recently been exposed to in this area we all agreed the best name as “Pachamama IIama”.
As a card carrying eco-freak the problem I see with such activists is that they are unable to propound ways of turning real concerns into policy.
I keep clear of the AGW debate anyway because I reckon it’ll be overtaken by EROEI whether we like it or not. And my eco record is not immaculate. I used to love buying in Far Eastern ply in great quantities because it’s about the best you can get below marine, but not of course thinking through how it was got. And my wife has just bought some asparagus that, on inspection, came from Peru and must have a size 12 carbon footprint.
So we who worship at the shrine of St Greta are really more talk than do. In any case she’s probably more in line for a Nobel prize than canonisation. For Physics, I’d guess. Some of her discoveries in that line take her way ahead of the field.
( of which conspiration by Bannon with Pope Emeritus Ratzinger is only an example…)
Whoever suspects, feels, hopes for such an alignment or suggests it is already in process/about to happen is heading towards a great disappointment. I may have disagreed with Benedikt at times, but this is, as you well know ridiculous.
Otherwise we may not be that far apart.
St Greta is more in line for the Nobel Prize in Literature – modern fiction.
I spent the first 2/3 of my life in a very strong Italian Catholic environment.
Today, Italian Catholics may be the first “cafeteria Catholics” (ristorante Catholics??).
When Brian Lamb interviewed Machiavelli scholar Maurizio Virolli, Lamb was aghast at the foul language and lax, um, mores prominent in Niccolo’s writing and life.
This amused Virolli; he explained: Italians had been politically and culturally dominated by a papacy and hierarchy that was often corrupt, even as the populace was exploited and abused by them (but, at least at the parish/peasant level, not educated by the clergy. My Mother came from Italy at age ~12 and was placed in 2nd grade. I asked her once if she had gone to school in Italy — she hedged, never did answer. I suspect probably not.) As a result, lower class Italians paid little attention to the demands of the hierarchy, a habit of mind reinforced by their equally disdainful attitude toward the numerous foreign rulers that carved out power centers in Italy. I was a scrupulously dutiful good Catholic in parochial schools for much of my life; then I confronted the larger world and realized that nobody has as keen an interest in my “salvation” as I do, so I’m a ristorante Catholic, with no apologies.
I memorized Baltimore Catechism; was forcibly drilled in the docs of Vatican II and the New Catholic Catechism. I’ve studied Summa Theologica cover-to-cover.
Dante’s Divine Comedy is more sublime (and difficult to master!) than all of these.
My salvation is my job, and whether pantheism is or is not a “heresy” ranks about 6,893 behind, #1, did I do my best to raise our children? Do I make the effort to be respectful of all whom I encounter?
PS I just learned of the activities of a character named Nick Fuentes, calling himself a “Catholic conservative.”
If Francis wanted to redeem his papacy, a good start would be kicking that foul-mouthed ignoramus out of the Church or at least demanding that he no longer refer to himself as Catholic.
Pope Francis Weighs Adding ‘Ecological Sin’ to Church Teachings
Here’s one more thing for the church to have to battle:
‘You don’t mess around with demons’: Exorcists condemn book that teaches kids to ‘summon’ evil spirits