Never before have Popes given "daily homilies." This practice by the current occupant of the Chair of Peter belittles his teaching role. He has reduced the universal papacy to the mutterings of an incoherent pastor bordering on lunacy.
He said today:
When St. Paul is persecuted, despite a thousand tribulations, he remains firm in his faith and encourages others to hope in the Lord. Pope Francis was inspired by the passage from the Acts of the Apostles, in the First Reading, to dwell on these three points: tribulations, trust and peace – saying that to enter the Kingdom of God, one must "go through dark times, difficult times." The Christian bears tribulations with courage However, he warned, "this is not a sadomasochistic attitude", rather, it is "the Christian struggle" against the prince of this world who tries to tear us away "from the word of Jesus, from faith, from hope." "To endure the tribulations" is a phrase, the Pope pointed out, that the Apostle Paul uses frequently:Does he have any fledgling idea what the word "sadomasochism" actually means. I searched for a theological understanding but it does not appear in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
From Psychology Today: "Sadomasochism can be defined as the giving or receiving of pleasure, often sexual, from the infliction or reception of pain or humiliation. It can feature as an enhancement to sexual pleasure, or, in some cases, as a substitute or sine qua non. The infliction of pain is used to incite sexual pleasure, while the simulation of violence can serve to form and express attachment. Indeed, sadomasochistic activities are often initiated at the request of, and for the benefit of, the masochist, who often directs activities through subtle emotional cues."
From Merriam-Webster: "Sexual behavior that involves getting pleasure from causing or feeling pain."
The Free Dictionary Online: "The combination of sadism and masochism, in particular the deriving of pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting or submitting to physical or emotional abuse."Oh Benedict, why did you desert us?
20 comments:
With all due respect please shut up and sit down your Holiness you are making a mockery of yourself and the entire Church. Please resign. We pray that it be so.
Michael Dowd
Recently this pope talked about the need to move forward (it is like listening to Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama), instead of looking back. He talked about moving toward the light.
It sounds exactly and it is the New Age. According to Christianity, human nature is a constant, and so is God. Through God and by His grace a human being can be born again, in spirit, and can leave the life of flesh, of lowly desires and cheap thrills, behind.
It does not happen through inspirational talks and self-improvement techniques, nor through fundamental transformations of the social order. It does not happen through abandonment of standards of truth and beauty for the sake of cheap thrills, clowns and balloons. We are all God's children, but we are not the same, not equal in our love for God, for His Truth.
New Age hates the Cross, New Age demands abandonment of personal responsibility for the sake of the brilliant future as outlined for the collective by the so called elites, who do not venerate us, who do not wash our feet and bow before us, but who despise us and inspire us "toward the light" with hot dogs, sports events, "artistic" performances appealing to our sexual natures, and so on.
Is this pope incredibly naive (as though he slept all through his Jesuit college) or is he wicked? - this is the question.
I call it 'Diabolical Insanity' Dorota. Maybe even 'Diabolical Insanity' mixed in with a tad bit of 'ignorance'. The Pope's proclamations in his little 'homilies' and 'interviews' are a very bizarre mixture of things that sometimes are not in the least coherent. Other times he sounds like Obama. He seems to be a socialist at heart. Sometimes though he is as orthodox as any and actually sounds 'Catholic'.
Oh and BTW, the term 'Forward' or 'Going Forward' is a popular term that Communists use. I guess it would signify 'Progressing' as in 'Progressive'. You know, 'progressing' toward HELL.
I did read interestingly enough, where the Pope himself talked about his 'nervous condition' and 'little neuroses' that he has to treat daily. I myself had questioned his state of mind from the beginning, even voicing it out loud at times. That said, no one really would know for sure, and I haven't seen any details since, and who would know to what extent his 'nervousness' or 'neuroses' affect him? Or how serious or minor they are? But it begs the question of how competent he is to be sitting in the Chair of Peter. (??)
Pope BenedictXVI didn't desert us, he was forced out! Check out Cardinal MCCarrick's speech at Villanova University where he speaks of an influential Italian man that came to visit him before the Conclave 2013 to encourage him to influence the voting US Cardinal to vote for Cardinal Bergoglio. This Italian man according to Cardinal MCCarrick said that Cardinal Bergoglio can change the Church in five years. Isn't it interesting that Pope Francis says he has three years left of his papacy? Sorta fits into "the five year change the Church" promise by the influential Italian man Cardinal McCarrick publicly spoke about? The spin masters say oh no! Benedict resigned, remember he left his pallium at the tomb of Pope St. Celestine V . I believe there is something else that Pope BenedictXVI was trying to convey. I have read some of Pope St. Celestine's history and that of his " sucessor" pope Boniface VIII . Lots of intrigue in my opinion with Pope Boniface VIII while he was a Cardinal persuading Pope Celestine V to resign. Also after Pope Celestine V reigned Pope Boniface VIII had pope Celestine V hunted down and thrown into prison not once but twice where Pope ClestineV died in a very small prison cell. Pope Boniface VIII also changed the reforms of Pope CelestineV very short papacy and persecuted the "spiritual" Franciscans of that time that followed and loved very much Pope CelestineV . There is a lot to read about this interesting time period in the Church.
This Pope does not write down beforehand and reflect deeply on a lot of what he says. That is true. And looks like he made a mistake: he probably meant masochism, after which what he said would make perfect sense. I don't see what is the big deal here. He said sadomasochism instead of masochism... so? You come from a different culture and likely do not realize that the word masochism is most often used in Latin America without any trace of it's sexual meaning and without raising any sexual image in the one speaking it nor the ones hearing it. It just brings to mind the image of someone who enjoys pain for some reason.
It's definitely not something to call him and "incoherent pastor bordering on lunacy". Dear author, you really went too far this time in my opinion. If the Pope makes a mistake it can be said. Truth is truth. But it is a very different thing to run rampant with adjectives. Your adjectives are your own opinion and not facts. You should watch their use much more, specially when speaking about Peter, who, no matter how many mistakes he might make still deserves respect simply by being Jesus' vicar on earth! Every time you use an adjective please think about how the objectivity of your writing might suffer.
TLM, if he were to denounce Catholicism, I would understand, and I would leave him be to believe whatever his conscience or his advisers or his surveys of public opinion or progress (of idiocracy) or grandiose plans to save the world, very unbecoming of a follower of Jesus Christ the Saviour, dictate to him.
Since he is the pope, I have no choice but to call him either wicked or incompetent, or both. I think that he might be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Given that Benedict's successor knows what coprophagia means, I think we can safely assume he knows what sadomasochism means. There is no evidence of purity in this man, there is no evidence of Catholicism in him. In the vortex on the apostasy of Coren, Voris says, 'pray for his return [to the True Faith] and for his conscience to be troubled.' 'Papa Bergoglio', as Antonio Socci calls him, could do with this prayer.
Dear Carla,
Let us remember the various insults and adjectives used by this Vicar of Christ.
http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-pope-francis-little-book-of-insults.html
Truly, there is something wrong with him. Is he disturbed? Is he medicated and therefore, incoherent?
He does not prepare his homilies -- Why not? What priest should speak off the cuff. No priest should and especially not the Pope!
He must have a greater view to what the word sadomasochistic means when it is translated for the world and said by the Pope.
I'm tending agree with Carla on Pope Francis and think we should lighten up. More time should be spent praying for him than criticizing especially in a harsh way as I have done myself. Me culpa. God help Pope Francis to do your will and help us to try and help him do it--in a gentle way.
Michael Dowd
Yes, you may be right. I stopped writing or saying anything about him for the longest time.
I should do this again.
FYI the Pope Emeritus did NOT desert us. This is NOT his fault. Francis would have been elected if Benedict had died. They tried to get him in after John Paul died in 2005. The Team Bergoglio had been bound and determined to get him in not matter what the circumstance was. THE MAN WAS CANVASSED. Read the book Francis The Great Reformer and BTW nobody denies it
Vox,
the Pope's new "tone" has consequences to many people's souls, lives. careers.
People do not know the teaching of the Church, and are easily manipulated by simple emotional appeals of propagandists."Love is love" or "All we need is love" used by social engineers to vilify all of us, who actually think about issues, and think about the meaning of love within the context of the Word of God, has had bad consequences that need to be addressed for the sake of our children, our society, us. The Bible is more complex than those oversimplified postulates.
Not speaking up is playing into the goal of propagandists, which is a radical change of the teaching of the Church, including censorship of some parts of the Bible.
I pray for the Pope every day, that he would wake up and that he would understand the damage and many injustices his words and stunts have already caused.
I worked with people unable to care for themselves. I changed their depends, spoon-fed them, bathed them, brushed their teeth. Then I moved on to the homeless. I cleaned after them, talked to them, took verbal abuse every day. I did it all only after completing a university program, and I earned rather low wages for hard, back-braking work.
I know how easy it was to empathise with the needy and the downtrodden, and to want to help them.
Yet I do not consider myself a humble person, nor do I worship poverty or the poor.
I know that the poor and the homeless are often filled with pride and very lost, enabled by others to continue on with bad habits.
Before you decide not to speak about these things, spend a minute thinking about the consequences of this new "tone". You were but one of the many victims. There will be many, many more.
Were we deserted by Pope Benedict, whom I love? Well, in the sense that a father must not abandon his children, yes.
Do I blame him?
It is my fault. I did not pray hard enough for him not to "flee for fear of the wolves."
If he was "driven" out and if Bergoglio was elected through lobbing then we have a problem, a big, big problem, right?
Do we want to go there?
From what we can know, Papa Ratzinger's announcement and the election was done according to the Law. That is what we can know.
To think otherwise is going to be very dangerous and I am not sure that I want to go there.
We have had bad popes before. We have had odd and crazy and evil popes before. I'm not saying Bergoglio is anything more than a little "odd" but who are we to think that we should not be chastised if that is what is happening?
If Cardinal Bergoglio was indeed "Canvassed" then his election to the papacy is invalid. Those who took part in it are excommunicated. The proper authorities need to determine if that's the case. Pope BenedictXVI didn't desert us he was taken from and forced out by evil doing men. There have been alluded statements of this by several people, one being Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga bishop emeritus of the diocese of Karaganda Kazakhstan and also Dr. Robert Moynihan of "Inside the Vatican". We don't know all the inner workings of what has happened, perhaps some of the answers are in the 300 page dossier that Pope BenedictXVI had compiled. Yeah! No one wants to go there! Well some one better and better do it soon!
So, if we go there it means this.
Either Benedict still is Pope.
Benedict is not Pope.
Francis is not Pope.
We have no Pope.
We are still in a period of interregnum and sedevacantism and that would explain a lot of things.
Not that I agree with this, I'm just saying that these would be the implications.
We are in some boiling oil, that's for sure.
The rules of the Catholic faith:
1. any act of participation in or approval (not toleration) of non-Christian worship is an act of apostasy from Christian faith (complete loss of Christian faith);
2. public apostate from Catholic faith can't be validly elected a Pope even if he repents publicly (which Bergoglio, Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Luciani etc. haven't done anyway).
They had participated in or approved of non-Christian worship before they were elected (Vatican II documents are full of praise of non-Christian worship; Luciani publicly praised poet Carducci who wrote "Hymn to Satan"; no one of them has said a word against Vatican II or Luciani for that but they have even praised Vatican II and Luciani).
Of necessity follows that those men weren't Popes.
It is mortal sin to go against the rules of the Catholic faith by calling those men Popes knowing these particular things which they have done.
Denial of the rules of the Catholic faith entails the loss of the Catholic faith.
Approval of those particular acts of those men (which I have mentioned) is an act of apostasy too.
Can a false pope who appears to be the Pope "change" Church Teaching and "get away with it" in the sense he is not under the protection of Infallibilty? Nothing may not happen to him like being struck dead before declaring something heretical as Church Teaching? This is something that I have been thinking about since the last Family Synod and the latest with the Vatican conference on "climate change". What is the meaning of Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich vision of "two popes"? I know no matter what the case maybe, God protects the Church and I trust in Him and our Blessed Mother.
The Pope is a manifest, long-term heretic. The formal process of warning, and making declaration to that effect needs to happen, for the salvation of souls, for the good of the One Holy and Apostolic Church, out of reverence and holy fear of Our Lord God Almightly. The pretence, the denial of obvious truth by so many is diabolic. Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . .
Lynda. Kinder and gentler didn't last long. Folks are getting pretty hot about our dear Pontiff. I wonder if he is aware of any this discontent or outrage or scandal or whatever it might be called.
Have you ever had the feeling recently that someone may come knocking at your door to explain yourself. I have.
Michael Dowd
Dear Vox. Thank you for your reply.
I understand and am very concerned with what is happening: While we cannot judge internal motivations/intentions we can often judge the objective good of actions. And many of this Pope's actions are troubling and confusing. That much is clear. My first point is that all this still does not allow us to see ourselves above the Vicar of Christ and use derogatory language to describe him. We don't ignore the truth that there are problems, but how would we talk about the Pope if Jesus Himself were standing next to us?
Second point:
You have written very good articles that have informed me and helped me. But in this case I was surprised at what I saw. As I said before, the whole point of it is based on a misunderstanding of the Pope's words because of the language/cultural barrier. The dictionary definitions do not apply to how the term is usually used in Spanish in Latin America. Like I said before it is used colloquially without any sexual connotation. I can remember my mother telling me not to be a sadomasochist at age 8 because I would do things that would end badly for me, for example. So read with this in mind what he said in this case makes perfect sense and there is nothing incoherent or crazy about it. Should these things be better prepared, etc? I agree the answer is yes, and that's a big problem. He doesn't speak in English and I would blame who translated this time around. But I too wish the speaking of the cuff would stop, that retractions would be made, PLEASE OH PLEASE!, for so many things that have been said. I think that is the hardest: the silence. Etc.......
Third point:
I too have the problem of how to speak about the Pope. I am very frustrated by what is going on. But I fear that going into judging his motives and using adjectives will quickly lead into something the devil would like. There is no basis on which I could seriously talk about the Pope's mental health and I would ask you not to do that please. I just pray and know that God is with us. And hope there is no malice in any of this. I know it's hard not to form a theory about something that worries us so much. But I will give the benefit of the doubt for as long as possible. Right now I am hoping that it's mostly about the Jesuit formation and all that entails, together with a very different view of what being a Pope is about. It might be much worse, yes, but I cannot control that. What I can control is responding to it as much as Jesus would want me to. Hard, but I am trying to figure it out.
Post a Comment