Is there anyone free from his insults?
"There are parishes with parish secretaries who seem to be 'disciples of Satan' and scare people; parishes with closed doors." Francis of Rome
Nope, I guess not.
A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
55 comments:
muslims and left wing argentine peronists are safe from the ire
Nuns on the bus too but not contemplatives. I guess they pray too much, my guess is not enough for him.
This pope hates Catholics.
Vox, I hope that you continue to post excerpts from Pope Francis' meeting with the Polish bishops. The transcript of the Pope's remarks is filled with one traditional comment after another.
Traditional Catholic blogs often accuse the news media of hiding from view orthodox Catholicism. The secular news media will likely, for example, latch onto the comment..."There are parishes with parish secretaries who seem to be 'disciples of Satan' and scare people; parishes with closed doors."
That will generate controversy and enable the news media to direct attention from the Pope's many beautiful comments offered during his meeting with the Polish bishops.
I am sure that certain Traditionalists will spin the Pope's remark into..."see, the Pope hates the Church, etc." But when I read the context of the Pope's comment, I understood the meaning of his comment. In reality, as the transcript indicated, Pope Francis gave a "ringing defense of the parish as the basis of ecclesiastical life."
But, of course, the news media, with it's anti-Catholic agenda, will focus upon and present the "parish secretaries" remark out of context to obscure the following:
-- Pope Francis offered to the Polish bishops a "fiery rejection of “ideological colonization,” especially the promotion among children of the theory that people are free to choose their own gender."
-- His defense of the elderly, who are trampled by the dominate secular Throwaway Culture.
-- Pope Francis is 100 percent in support of the Polish bishops' insistence that Catholics must be defended from an increasingly "atheist-liberal contemporary culture."
-- Pope Francis denounced the world's determination to overthrow the fact that "God created man and woman; God created the world like this and we are doing the exact opposite."
Vox, there are so many great things that Pope Francis said to the Polish bishop. It is obvious as to why the Polish bishops characterized their meeting with Pope Francis as "very warm."
I hope that you use your great blog to help thwart the secular news media as they will misrepresent and focus upon the "parish secretaries" remark to shift attention from Pope Francis' tremendous meeting with his brother bishops in Poland.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox, last week on your blog, we discussed a Lifesite News story that offered the following claim:
Pope spoke of ‘decentralizing’ decisions on Communion for divorced/remarried: Polish bishops’ head
KRAKOW, Poland, July 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The head of the Polish bishops conference says that in a private meeting this week Pope Francis held with the country’s bishops, he spoke of allowing local bishops conferences to make decisions about the controversial practice of giving Communion to those who are divorced and remarried.
“The Holy Father says that general laws are very hard to enforce in each country, and so he speaks about decentralization,” Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki told reporters after a July 27 closed-door meeting with the Pope in Krakow. The pope had traveled to Poland for World Youth Day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vox, I just read the Vatican's official transcript of the question and answer session that Pope Francis conducted with the Polish bishops. Here is the transcript. Is there anything in the transcript to support Lifesite's claim? I didn't find anything.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/july/documents/papa-francesco_20160727_polonia-vescovi.html
Vox, I also remain unable to find anything that supports Lifesite's claim in regard to Archbishop Gadecki's comments.
If anybody is able to substantiate Lifesite's story in question, please let me know.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"There are parishes with parish secretaries who seem to be 'disciples of Satan' and scare people; parishes with closed doors."
— Francis of Rome.
Vox, the Vatican's official transcript of Pope Francis' remark in question differs dramatically from the above. The Pope's actual words and, just as important, the context, render things quite different from the initial quote.
Here is the Vatican's official transcript of the Pope's comment in question...as well as the context, which makes it clear that Pope Francis' remark in question is 100 percent valid.
Pope Francis: "There are parishes with ungodly parish secretaries who scare people off."
====================================================================
Now, the all-important context: Here is what Pope Francis said about parish secretaries during his meeting with the Polish bishops.
First reference:
"Since I am talking to bishops about closeness, I think I have to talk about the most important kind of closeness: your closeness to your priests. A bishop must be available to his priests. When I was in Argentina and I would give the Exercises (I love to give the Exercises), I would say to priests: “Go talk to your bishop about this!”
“But no, I called him but his *******secretary******* tells me that he is very busy right now, but he can receive you three months from now”.
"Priests treated like this feel orphaned, without a father, without closeness, and they begin to lose heart. When a bishop sees that a priest has called him, he should call him right back, either that evening or the next day. “Sure, I am busy, but is this important? Let’s see if we can work something out”. The priest can then sense that he has a father."
=================================================================
Second reference:
"The renewal of the parish has to be a constant concern of bishops. How is this parish doing? What is it doing? Is the church open? So many things… I think of one parish in Buenos Aires.
"Whenever an engaged couple arrived to get married, the *******secretary******* would immediately begin by saying: “Here are the prices”. This is wrong, parishes like this are wrong.
"How do we greet people? How attentive are we to them? Is someone always in the confessional? In parishes – not those in the country but in city parishes and those on the highways – if there is a confessional with the light on, people always come. Always!"
======================================================================
Third and final reference:
"The parish must remain. It is a structure that we must not discard; it is the home of God’s People. The problem is how the parish is organized!
*******"There are parishes with ungodly parish secretaries who scare people off."*******
"Parishes with closed doors. But there also parishes with open doors, parishes where when someone comes to ask a question, they are told: “Come in, make yourself at home, what can we do for you?” And someone listens to them patiently, because caring for the people of God requires patience; it takes effort!"
=========================================================================
Wow! How different than..."There are parishes with parish secretaries who seem to be 'disciples of Satan'..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... "There are parishes with parish secretaries who seem to be 'disciples of Satan' and scare people; parishes with closed doors." — Francis of Rome.
Vox, the Vatican's official transcript of Pope Francis' remark in question differs dramatically from the above. The Pope's actual words and, just as important, the context, render things quite different from the initial quote.
What evidence do you possess that "the Vatican's official transcript of Pope Francis' remark in question" reflects "the pope's actual words"?
Mark Thomas said... Vox, the Vatican's official transcript of Pope Francis' remark in question differs dramatically from the above. The Pope's actual words and, just as important, the context, render things quite different from the initial quote."
Taken directly from the Vatican website, the Italian translation.
Papa Francesco:
Grazie! Io vorrei sottolineare una cosa: la parrocchia è sempre valida! La parrocchia deve rimanere: è una struttura che non dobbiamo buttare dalla finestra. La parrocchia è proprio la casa del Popolo di Dio, quella in cui vive. Il problema è come imposto la parrocchia! Ci sono parrocchie con segretarie parrocchiali che sembrano “discepole di satana”...
Vatican website, French version.
Pape François:
Merci ! Je voudrais souligner une chose : la paroisse est toujours valide ! La paroisse doit rester : c’est une structure que nous ne devons pas jeter par la fenêtre. La paroisse est vraiment la maison du Peuple de Dieu, la maison où il vit. Le problème, c’est comment j’organise la paroisse ! Il y a des paroisses avec des secrétaires paroissiales qui ont l’air d’être des ‘‘disciples de Satan’’.
Vatican website, Spanish version.
Papa Francisco:
Gracias. Quisiera subrayar una cosa: la parroquia es siempre válida. La parroquia debe permanecer: es una estructura que no debemos tirar por la borda. La parroquia es precisamente la casa del Pueblo de Dios, esa donde vive. El problema está en cómo la oriento. Hay parroquias con secretarias parroquiales que parecen «discípulas de satanás».
Vatican website, German version.
Papst Franziskus:
Danke! Eines möchte ich unterstreichen: Die Pfarrgemeinde ist nach wie vor wertvoll! Die Pfarrei muss bleiben: Sie ist eine Struktur, die wir nicht über Bord werfen dürfen. Die Pfarrei ist ja gerade das Haus des Gottesvolkes, in dem es lebt. Die Frage ist, wie ich die Pfarrei gestalte! Es gibt Pfarreien mit Pfarrsekretärinnen, die „Jüngerinnen Satans“
Vatican website, Polish version.
Papież Franciszek:
Dziękuję! Chciałbym podkreślić jedną rzecz: parafia jest ciągle aktualna! Parafia musi pozostać: jest strukturą, której nie wolno nam wyrzucić przez okno. Parafia jest właśnie domem ludu Bożego, tym domem w którym on mieszka. Problemem jest to, w jaki sposób ustawić parafię! Są parafie z sekretarkami parafialnymi, które wydają się „uczennicami szatana”
Vatican website, Portuguese version.
Papa Francisco:
Obrigado. Quero sublinhar uma coisa: a paróquia é sempre válida! A paróquia deve permanecer: é uma estrutura que não devemos jogar fora da janela. A paróquia é precisamente a casa do Povo de Deus, a casa onde vive. O problema está no modo como organizo a paróquia. Há paróquias com secretárias paroquiais que parecem «discípulas de satanás».
Mark, why do you bother defending this wicked man still? It is patently clear how bad he is. Your rambling Francis apologetics serve no one any good. Quit it already!
In all fairness, I've met a few of those officious and patronizing parish secretaries. They are usually able to be so dominant due to a milquetoast pastor.
Actually, they don't call them Parish Secretaries in my part of the world anymore. The new term is Church Manager and that is exactly what they do. Manage everything. The priest is usually an appendage - I'm talking about a Novus Ordo Church. I do wish Mark Thomas would not use a 50lb. mallet to hammer a point home. It takes forever to read!
DJR, thank you for the information. I appreciate your keen interest in this matter. We should pay close attention to the Holy Father's addresses.
Now, to important issues related to the Pope's meeting with the Polish bishops.
1. Do the translations that you listed change the context of the Pope's remarks about secretaries? I was far more interested in the context of the Pope's statement. After having discerned, via the English-language translation, the context of his statement, I realized that the news media has attempted to manufacture another controversy related to Pope Francis.
2. It is interesting that of the many outstanding things that the news media could have focused upon, such as Pope Francis' having exhorted the bishops to promote Confession to the hilt, the news media, Catholic and secular, focused upon a few words about parish secretaries...and failed to report the context of those few words.
The context of the Pope's remark is what interested me greatly about his statement in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR,
In the translations that your read of Pope Francis' remarks to the Polish bishops, did the translations include remarks that Lifesite News reported last week about the Pope having approved (supposedly) Communion for remarried divorcees?
Lifesite News claimed that "Pope spoke of ‘decentralizing’ decisions on Communion for divorced/remarried: Polish bishops’ head" Lifesite claimed that Archbishop Gadecki reported the above information. I did not find support for that claim.
I also failed to find in the English-language translation of the Pope's meeting with Poland's bishops any trace of Pope Francis having authorized bishops conferences "to make decisions about the controversial practice of giving Communion to those who are divorced and remarried."
Please let me know whether you found confirmation of the above in the translations that you read.
I believe that Lifesite published a false story. But I'm always open to correction.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Eirene said..."I do wish Mark Thomas would not use a 50lb. mallet to hammer a point home. It takes forever to read!"
Eirene, I appreciate your point. Unfortunately, I lack intelligence. I am a poor writer. I am a nobody who struggles to make points in clear, concise fashion. I beg your prayers and patience.
I also thank Vox for having tolerated me.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Eirene said..."Actually, they don't call them Parish Secretaries in my part of the world anymore. The new term is Church Manager and that is exactly what they do. Manage everything."
If they are grounded in Church teaching and skilled, then their management of a parish would be a good thing. But Pope Francis' point about certain parishes having been run poorly by "ungodly" secretaries, disciples of satan, is of great importance. The report about parish secretaries and "disciples of satan" has been taken out of context to manufacture another fake Pope Francis controversy.
The context of Pope Francis' comment is beautiful and uplifting. His Holiness simply exhorted bishops to make certain that parishes are holy and at the service of the Faithful.
Too many Catholics have reported poor experiences in regard to their parishes.
Pope Francis' point: As he said..."How do we greet people? How attentive are we to them?"
Establish holy parishes. Work to advance Jesus' Gospel. Do not run parishes in an officious manner. Welcome people.
Most beautiful of all in regard to Pope Francis' comments about parishes...
"Is someone always in the confessional? In parishes – not those in the country but in city parishes and those on the highways – if there is a confessional with the light on, people always come. Always!"
Beautiful. As he has done from the beginning of his Pontificate, Pope Francis has promoted Confession, Confession, Confession.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
There was a Secretary at one Parish, she literally ran the Parish. She hated men. She refused to take orders from the Pastor. She ran the Parish like it was Ft. Knox. Everyone hated her. She finally left not at the boot of the feminine Pastor. Nope, she was at the good ole ripe age of retirement. Thanks be to God and good and good ridens. A lot of Parishes have this problem and it's because the Pastors are Feminine or Homosexual and promote Feminists in the Catholic Church.
Mark Thomas you seem to have a dislike for Lifesite News and are you calling them a Liar and false reporting to undermine Lifesites credibility with faithful Catholics?
Mark Thomas said... DJR, thank you for the information.
Mark Thomas said... Vox, the Vatican's official transcript of Pope Francis' remark in question differs dramatically from the above. The Pope's actual words and, just as important, the context, render things quite different from the initial quote.
The intention of my post was to correct the misstatement regarding "the pope's actual words," which you stated were different from the quote you included.
All the other Vatican translations show the pope using the words "disciples of Satan."
The logical conclusion is that the English translation is a false one and therefore "the pope's actual words" were not "quite different from the initial quote."
Mark Thomas said... Lifesite News claimed that "Pope spoke of ‘decentralizing’ decisions on Communion for divorced/remarried: Polish bishops’ head" Lifesite claimed that Archbishop Gadecki reported the above information. I did not find support for that claim.
The Lifesite article conflated things.
In his public statement after the meeting with the pope, Archbishop Gadecki mentioned the "decentralization" issue, but he was talking about what the pope had said last year. The bishop never stated that the pope spoke about that at their recent meeting.
Another article can be found here:
https://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/head-of-polish-bishops-pope-francis-listened-to-us
Anonymous said..."Mark Thomas you seem to have a dislike for Lifesite News and are you calling them a Liar and false reporting to undermine Lifesites credibility with faithful Catholics?"
I have referenced LifeSiteNews several times in comments that I've posted to Vox's blog. But I always check closely the accuracy of their stories as they have a history of having misrepresented His Holiness Pope Francis.
"Liar"? All that I'm saying is that LifeSiteNews has published its share of accurate stories. Unfortunately, they have published their share of inaccurate stories.
As compared to LifeSiteNews, I have far greater confidence in the following pro-life news site:
http://www.lifenews.com/
Pax
Mark Thomas
Mark,
I try to stay out of the combox; I post and then let all you good folks have a debate.
But!
I know John-Henry Westen and Steve Jalsevac personally. These are good men. They have the utmost integrity.
I am shocked that you would make such statements about the work of the people at LifeSiteNews.
Vox, I said that LifeSiteNews has published inaccurate stories. An anonymous poster said..."are you calling them a Liar..." I don't recall labeling LifeSiteNews a "liar." But they have misrepresented Pope Francis. They have published inaccurate stories.
The manner in which such stories had come about, perhaps via honest mistakes, is unknown to me. But I can support my claim that LifeSiteNews has published inaccurate stories.
I begin with the most recent, to my knowledge, inaccurate story offered by LifeSiteNews.
The LifeSiteNews story last week, "Pope spoke of ‘decentralizing’ decisions on Communion for divorced/remarried: Polish bishops’ head" is false.
Did LifeSiteNews make an honest mistake? That may be the case. But the fact is that not one quote reported from Archbishop Gadecki's press conference supports LifeSite's claim.
Thanks to DJR's posts, I searched and found access to the Italian and Spanish translations of the Pope's meeting with Poland's bishops. Including the English-language translation, none of the above official Vatican transcripts supports LifeSite's claim in question.
1. The Holy See's official transcripts do not support Lifesite's claim.
2. Archbishop Gadecki's comments during his press conference in regard to the Pope's Q&A session with the Polish bishops do not square with Lifesite's claim.
Archbishop Gadecki said that Amoris Laetritia took into account the Polish bishops' “more conservative proposal” which was to “retain the truth of the Gospel” in regard to admitting to the Sacraments Catholics who had divorced and remarried.
Vox, how does that square with Lifesite's story that Archbishop Gadecki declared that "Pope spoke of ‘decentralizing’ decisions on Communion for divorced/remarried"?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox said..."I know John-Henry Westen and Steve Jalsevac personally. These are good men. They have the utmost integrity. I am shocked that you would make such statements about the work of the people at LifeSiteNews."
Vox, I supported with facts my comments about LifeSiteNews' inaccurate story about Pope Francis' supposed comments to the Polish bishops.
I have additional examples of LifeSite having published stories that misrepresented His Holiness Pope Francis.
May 23, 2014 A.D., Lifesite published the following story:
-- "Pope kisses the hand of, concelebrates mass with pro-homosexual activist priest"
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-kisses-the-hand-of-gay-activist-priest-allowed-to-concelebrate-mass
=======================================================================
Several days later, LifeSiteNews published the following admission:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-meeting-with-homosexual-activist-fr.-de-paolis-the-unanswered
Excerpt:
"Editor's note: LSN’s intention in publishing the story below was to present the known facts about a public meeting between the pope and one of Italy’s leading Catholic dissidents – a newsworthy event in itself.
"However, in retrospect we recognize that in the absence of certain necessary clarifications and contexts the facts alone, as presented, unnecessarily lend themselves to misinterpretation.
"We have since published an explanation, which should be read in conjunction with this article."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox, here is an additional LifeSiteNews story from that misrepresented His Holiness Pope Francis:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/life-site-news-gets-a-pope-story-wrong/
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox said..."I know John-Henry Westen and Steve Jalsevac personally. These are good men. They have the utmost integrity. I am shocked that you would make such statements about the work of the people at LifeSiteNews."
Vox, what did I say about LifeSiteNews that is shocking? Here are quotes of mine on this page.
-- "I have referenced LifeSiteNews several times in comments that I've posted to Vox's blog."
-- "All that I'm saying is that LifeSiteNews has published its share of accurate stories."
-- "Unfortunately, they have published their share of inaccurate stories. But I always check closely the accuracy of their stories as they have a history of having misrepresented His Holiness Pope Francis."
Vox, is that shocking? Should we not check the accuracy of news stories? Should we not check the accuracy of LifeSiteNews stories? I think that we should.
The fact that Lifesite has made mistakes, which, as far as I know, were not made purposely, doesn't have anything to do with John-Henry Westen's integrity. That applies also to Steve Jalsevac's integrity. But that doesn't change the fact that Lifesite News has made mistakes.
I believe that we should check LifeSiteNews closely for accuracy. That is certainly valid as, which I had noted earlier on this thread, LifeSiteNews offered the following admission:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-kisses-the-hand-of-gay-activist-priest-allowed-to-concelebrate-mass
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
Even the illustrious New York Times has printed a retraction from time to time.
Bergoglio is indeed intending to decentralise. What do you think he has been saying for these three awful years. He will do this by allowing Conferences implement Holy Communion for adulterers and deaconesses!
Let's here you on that heretical action. He will do it. The matter was settled in a former commission. I expect the commission to recommend it, if not, he will force it. Conferences may or may not implement it.
He is a Peronist. A Lutheran. An insulting boor.
Let me see, Mark. Why have you not commented on the fact that he is participating with a private business to sell access? Should the rich and famous get a tour of the Sistine Chapel? The Gardens? Have a meeting with him?
Please Mark, comment there.
Vox
Postscript...
Mark,
Any Catholic writing on Patheos should be ignored. How dare they work for a group that equates the Truth with pagans, satanists, heretics and wiccans!
LifeSiteNews' people are either Catholic or devout protestant Christians.
Get real!
Dear Vox - Mark Thomas can't comment on the money making appearances scheme of the Bishop of Rome because there is a gi-normous great pic. of him (PF) having a selfie taken with adoring fans. One can't GET to the combox.
Actually, I would love to see a comment from Mark Thomas on that appalling story, as long as I didn't have to stay up all night to read it! And all that "faux" humility about him being unintelligent, etc. etc. is just a whole lot of codswallop to my mind. No-one that rambles on and on and on thinks he/she is unintelligent!
Mark Thomas: Of course it is regrettable that the media have taken this remark out of context and not reported the many good things Pope Francis said. But whose fault is that? If you make unwarranted accusations about people being disciples of Satan (which is undoubtedly the correct version) what do you expect other than for the media to pick out that alone? People are much more interested in remarks about Satan than ones about God. Pope Francis needs to control his language.
Eirene,
The picture is from the feed at Denzinger-Bergoglio. It has been doing this for a few says, I do not know why. You can click on the title and put the post at the top of the page. The photo from DB moves down as the feed is renewed from newer posts.
Vox said..."Even the illustrious New York Times has printed a retraction from time to time."
Vox, that is my point in regard to my statements about LifesiteNews. I said that they have published accurate stories. They have also published inaccurate stories. They published a "walk back" from a story that they published. Is it wrong to indicate that? They, not I, offered that admission. They, not I, made the mistakes.
I never said that there was anything nefarious about Lifesite.
Vox, I don't understand what is controversial and shocking about fair and balanced comments about LifeSiteNews. But I am sorry that I have upset you. I wish you peace.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox said..."Any Catholic writing on Patheos should be ignored. How dare they work for a group that equates the Truth with pagans, satanists, heretics and wiccans!
LifeSiteNews' people are either Catholic or devout protestant Christians. Get real!"
Vox, Scott Alt, who set the record straight in regard to inaccurate claims made in certain LifesiteNews stories, also has written for National Catholic Register. Scott Alt, as noted on Catholic Register, "is a freelance writer and blogger, and managing editor at Catholic Stand, living in Cincinnati."
"He has an M.A. in English literature (1998) from Southern Illinois University, and in a past life taught introductory college composition and literature. Scott converted to the Catholic Church in 2011, after many years of Protestant church-hopping. He is a Third Degree Knight of Columbus and Benedictine Oblate of St. Meinrad Archabbey."
Vox, Scott Alt either presented facts accurately about certain LifesiteNews stories or he didn't.
But Scott Alt aside, the fact is that Lifesite News has admitted the following in regard to accuracy issues:
"Editor's note: LSN’s intention in publishing the story below was to present the known facts about a public meeting between the pope and one of Italy’s leading Catholic dissidents – a newsworthy event in itself.
"However, in retrospect we recognize that in the absence of certain necessary clarifications and contexts the facts alone, as presented, unnecessarily lend themselves to misinterpretation. We have since published an explanation, which should be read in conjunction with this article. It can be found here."
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-meeting-with-homosexual-activist-fr.-de-paolis-the-unanswered
I have supported with facts my comments about LifeSiteNews' inaccuracies. I guess that that is enough about Lifesite. I have never attributed evil intent to LifeSiteNews' inaccuracies.
Vox, peace to you and your family. Peace to the people at LifeSiteNews.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nicolas Bellord,
His Holiness Pope Francis did not say anything wrong. He addressed the Catholic bishops of Poland. My understanding is that he and the bishops had met privately.
Pope Francis has to "control his language" when addressing bishops in private? Based upon the Vatican transcripts of his Q&A with the Polish bishops, I didn't find anything wrong in regard to his comments. Did you?
At a press conference in regard to their meeting with the Pope, the Polish bishops described their meeting with him as "very warm."
Archbishop Gadecki, president of the Polish Bishops Conference, insisted that Amoris Laetitia was in line with the Polish Bishops teachings on the administration of the Sacraments to divorced and remarried Catholics...no Communion in Poland for unrepentant divorced and remarried Catholics.
As to Pope Francis having to "control his language"...perhaps it's time for people, Catholics in particular, to obey the following in regard to their language directed at Pope Francis:
Catechism of the Catholic Church. #2478, #2479:
"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:"
"Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Vox said (posting in a different thread)..."Let me see, Mark. Why have you not commented on the fact that he is participating with a private business to sell access? Should the rich and famous get a tour of the Sistine Chapel? The Gardens? Have a meeting with him? Please Mark, comment there."
Okay. Vox, I am here.
I read a couple of days ago the headline and a couple of sentences from the story. Sorry...there isn't anything personal in the following: Vox, I don't have any interest in the story. I don't know anything about the story.
Vox, my disinterest in the story doesn't, of course, reflect upon you. I am certain that I'm interested in things that disinterest you. I scan headlines on various blogs and news site, then ignore this or that story...or have interest in this or that story.
Thank you, Vox. I wish a holy and happy weekend to you and your family. Please pray for me, Vox. I ask in particular that if you are able, to just say a quick prayer this weekend for my family and I during Mass. I will pray for you and your family.
Vox, the following just came to me. I hope that you will reconsider serving via your great musical talents at the Novus Ordo Mass. God has blessed you with holy and great talents. Vox, your brothers and sisters at the Novus Ordo were blessed by you.
Perhaps you may reconsider your decision from a few weeks ago. I mentioned something about that then. Please think about that. Anyway, I just felt inspired to say that.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas:
One should control one's language at all times whether in public or in private. If Pope Francis thought that he could say something in private that he did not want publicised then he should not allow a transcript to be published on the internet in half a dozen languages. Evidently someone responsible for the English version thought that it was over the top and changed it to 'ungodly'.
Did Pope Francis say something wrong? No doubt there are Parish Secretaries who fail at times; although I have never had any such experience. Maybe they are not always at their best; I suspect they often have to deal with religious nuts who must be very trying. But to describe them as 'disciples of Satan' is way beyond charitable paternal correction. There will probably be Parish Secretaries who remember having been a bit abrupt and will wonder whether they are therefore 'disciples of Satan'.
Pope Francis is too often on record insulting with extreme language some group of Catholics of whom he does not approve. He is in danger of coming across as rather unpleasant.
Nicolas Bellford,
1. Who said that His Holiness Pope Francis didn't want his words publicized? The Apostolic See released transcriptions of the meeting. That would not have been done without the Pope's approval.
2. The difference in the English-language transcript does mean anything other than that is the manner in which the translator rendered the comment in question.
3. As far as His Holiness Pope Francis having to control his language...
He enjoys tremendous love and approval among the Faithful. The People of God love Pope Francis. The secular news media/traditionalist blogosphere-contrived Pope Francis "controversies" have had z-e-r-o impact upon the tremendous love and approval that the massive majority of Catholics have for Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... The secular news media/traditionalist blogosphere-contrived Pope Francis "controversies" have had z-e-r-o impact upon the tremendous love and approval that the massive majority of Catholics have for Pope Francis.
The "massive majority" of Catholics have tremendous love for Pope Francis? What good is that going to do them in eternity?
The "massive majority" of Catholics don't practice the Faith; i.e., they don't love God.
Aren't we supposed to love God first?
The majority of Catholics are on the road to hell, and their alleged "love" of Pope Francis will avail them nothing in that regard unless they repent and start loving God.
What exactly is the point of your statement?
DJR said..."The "massive majority" of Catholics have tremendous love for Pope Francis? What good is that going to do them in eternity? The "massive majority" of Catholics don't practice the Faith; i.e., they don't love God. Aren't we supposed to love God first? The majority of Catholics are on the road to hell, and their alleged "love" of Pope Francis will avail them nothing in that regard unless they repent and start loving God. What exactly is the point of your statement?What exactly is the point of your statement?"
Please note that I first said the following: "He enjoys tremendous love and approval among the Faithful. The People of God love Pope Francis."
I set up the phrase, "massive majority of Catholics," by having established that my focus was upon the "Faithful/People of God." A "faithful" Catholic...a Catholic who is counted among the "People of God"...isn't, I believe, "on the road to hell".
You said that "their alleged "love" of Pope Francis will avail them nothing..."
He who hears the Vicar of Christ's hears Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Faithful/People of God will benefit from their love of Pope Francis as where Saint Peter is, there is the Church.
My point is that the contrived "controversies" related to Pope Francis have unleashed confusion and outrage among Catholics, according to traditionalists. But in fact, the contrived controversies have had z-e-r-o among the Faithful/People of God.
The Faithful/People of God love and respect Pope Francis. They recognize that through Pope Francis, they hear Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as I suggested to Nicolas Bellord: As to Pope Francis having to "control his language", perhaps it's time that certain folks obey the following in regard to language directed at Pope Francis:
Catechism of the Catholic Church. #2478, #2479:
"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:"
"Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity."
The Faithful/People of God support Pope Francis strongly.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I still think the ever-energetic and talented Mark Thomas, who always seems to have news releases and citations at hand, and endless time to formulate responses, (did I mention skillful deflections from the topic?) works for the press office of a huge Archdiocese, maybe even a national bishops' conference, or conceivably at the big enchilada in Roma. The fact that he is here daily, as you and most of your readers know, Vox, is a tribute to you.
Mark Thomas:
You asked: "Pope Francis has to "control his language" when addressing bishops in private?"
The implication of this was that it was okay to call people disciples of Satan in private but not in public because one does not have to control one's language in private. Even if one accepts your premise, which I do not, Pope Francis allowed this remark to be made public so your premise that private remarks of this kind are okay no longer applied.
I never said that Pope Francis did not want this remark publicised as you suggest.
Somebody who translates "disciple of Satan" as "ungodly" is no longer translating accurately but editing the text.
As to Catholics appreciation or otherwise of Pope Francis we could argue endlessly about that. However there are controversies and difficulties raised by serious people and you should respect them and perhaps address them rather than just dismissing them by labelling them as 'traditionalist'.
You also write "He who hears the Vicar of Christ's hears Jesus Christ." Pope Gregory XVI condemned railways as demonic whilst Pope Pious IX reversed his policy and introduced railways into the Papal States. Was this because Jesus changed his own mind? Incidentally a priest in our Parish says that this was a change in 'doctrine' proving that Popes are never infallible. I take it you are at the other end of the spectrum on that one!
Mark Thomas said... My point is that the contrived
"controversies" related to Pope Francis have unleashed confusion and outrage among Catholics, according to traditionalists. But in fact, the contrived controversies have had z-e-r-o among the Faithful/People of God.
You realize, do you not, that your statement implies that "traditionalists" are not part of "the Faithful/People of God"?
If "traditionalists" claim that confusion and outrage occurs among Catholics, but "the Faithful/People of God" have "had z-e-r-o," then "traditionalists" are not part of "the Faithful/People of God."
However, if "traditionalists" ARE part of "the Faithful/People of God," then your statement is false.
"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way."
Does that apply to the pope also? He is the one who, contrary to your initial assertion, called people "disciples of Satan."
Only lay people have a duty to control their language? Isn't the pope under a HIGHER duty?
DJR..."You realize, do you not, that your statement implies that "traditionalists" are not part of "the Faithful/People of God"?"
I said that Pope Francis "enjoys tremendous love and approval among the Faithful. The People of God love Pope Francis. The secular news media/traditionalist blogosphere-contrived Pope Francis "controversies" have had z-e-r-o impact upon the tremendous love and approval that the massive majority of Catholics have for Pope Francis."
I believe that that is a correct statement. I believe that based upon surveys of Catholics, as well additional indications, His Holiness Pope Francis enjoys "the tremendous love and approval" of the "massive majority of Catholics have for Pope Francis."
Did I say that that applied to each member of the Faithful/People of God or the "massive majority" of the Faithful/People of God? I believe that the majority, not every one, but the majority, "massive majority" of Catholics love Pope Francis.
Where in my statement did I exclude traditionalists from being counted as Catholics?
I also said that the "secular news media/traditionalist blogosphere-contrived Pope Francis "controversies" have had z-e-r-o impact upon the tremendous love and approval that the massive majority of Catholics have for Pope Francis."
I again employed the phrase "massive majority", rather than "every one." Therefore, how does that exclude traditionalists from membership in the Church?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way." Does that apply to the pope also? He is the one who, contrary to your initial assertion, called people "disciples of Satan." Only lay people have a duty to control their language? Isn't the pope under a HIGHER duty?"
CCC #2478...yes, that teaching applies to a Pope. But Pope Francis supplied the context of his "disciples of Satan remark." He had given examples of parish secretaries who acted contrary to God.
Pope Francis did not label just any parish secretary a disciple of Satan. Suppose that Pope Francis had selected a parish secretary at random. Pope Francis didn't know parish secretary "X". But suddenly, Pope Francis said, "parish secretary "X" is a disciple of Satan. Such an accusation would have been improper.
But His Holiness didn't do that. Again, he had given examples of awful parish secretaries who mismanaged parishes and had driven people from said parishes.
If person "A" is a heretic, then it's proper to label person "A" a heretic. That is not a rash judgment. That is not out-of-control language.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nicolas Bellord..."However there are controversies and difficulties raised by serious people and you should respect them and perhaps address them rather than just dismissing them by labelling them as 'traditionalist'."
"Serious people...I should respect them..."
There are "serious" men and women who insist that the Catholic Church is a fraud. There are serious people who insist that God doesn't exist. Does that mean that their claims are to be treated seriously?
There are "serious" people who claim that Pope Venerable Pius XII was "Hilter's Pope." Should we respect such claims about Pope Venerable Pius XII?
We should treat people respectfully. But does that mean that we should treat seriously each idea advanced by a so-called "serious" person?
By the way, what is a "serious" person? What does that mean? I just employed that term, but honestly...I'm not certain that I know what that means. I don't mean the following in nasty fashion, but who determines that this or that person is "serious"? Is there a test for that?
There are brilliant, "serious" Catholic theologians who insist that the Church is wrong to condemn the sin of the Sodomites. There are brilliant, "serious" Catholics who support homosexual "unions."
There are "serious" people who can "prove" that the Early Church ordained priestesses and deaconesses. They are brilliant people. Should we take seriously their "serious" scholarship (research/findings)?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Uhmmmmm..... let's not forget that the "massive majority" of Catholics don't know their faith very well.
The "massive majority" also love Kim Kardashian.
Mark:
The problem is that you keep changing your statements as you go along.
One time you said this: "He enjoys tremendous love and approval among the Faithful. The People of God love Pope Francis. The secular news media/traditionalist blogosphere-contrived Pope Francis controversies have had z-e-r-o impact upon the tremendous love and approval that the massive majority of Catholics have for Pope Francis."
You see what you said?
You said the pope enjoys tremendous love and approval among "the Faithful."
We know for a fact that he does not receive approval from traditionalists. Are they part of "the Faithful"?
If so, then the converse is also true: The pope also receives tremendous disapproval from among the Faithful.
In that section, you don't speak about only practicing Catholics; you stated "the massive majority of Catholics." Period.
I pointed out that "the massive majority of Catholics" does not practice the Faith.
In addition, the fact that someone doesn't practice the Faith does not stop them from being part of "the People of God."
Further, you said this:
"My point is that the contrived 'controversies' related to Pope Francis have unleashed confusion and outrage among Catholics, according to traditionalists. But in fact, the contrived controversies have had z-e-r-o (sic) among the Faithful/People of God."
If "the contrived controversies have had z-e-r-o among (sic) the Faithful/People of God, that means that, if any group has experienced more than zero (I assume you meant to insert the word "impact" there), then they are not among the Faithful/People of God.
Are you claiming that the controversies have had zero impact on "traditionalists"?
It can go only one of three ways:
1. Your statement is correct because traditionalists are part of the Faithful/People of God, and the controversies have had zero impact on traditionalists. (WRONG)
OR
2. Your statement is incorrect because the alleged contrived controversies have had more than zero impact on traditionalists, and traditionalists ARE part of the Faithful/People of God. (RIGHT)
OR
3. Your statement is correct because traditionalists are NOT part of the Faithful/People of God; therefore, it is true that the controversies have had zero impact on the Faithful/People of God because traditionalists are not included in that group. (WRONG)
Only 2 is correct, which means your initial statement about zero impact among "the Faithful" is incorrect.
Be that as it may, the idea that the pope enjoys popularity among the Faithful, even the majority, is meaningless. He also enjoys tremendous popularity among the faithless.
What does either one of those matter?
It's meaningless in the eyes of God.
Mark Thomas: It is perfectly plain from the dialogue we have been having that I was talking about serious people having controversies and difficulties about Pope Francis. So please do not sidetrack by talking about serious people in general.
By serious people I mean well-educated intelligent people who advance rational arguments and command our respect. Examples are those who signed the recent letter to the Cardinals about the need to clarify Amoris Laetitia.
If one disagrees with the views of serious people one can endeavour to argue rationally with those views in a respectful manner without labelling them and ignoring the argument.
Join the great Illuminati church of devils to be rich famous and powerful, to ride upon the high place of the earth and to live without pains and poverty.
Email or call and do all it takes to say goodbye to poverty and say welcome to riches for ever.
If you like to be a born again member of this church just email us at.....churchofdevils666@hotmail.com or call lord Denis in Kenya +254731601758 or Lord Rich +2348137342387 for immediate initiation.
Nicolas Bellord said..."By serious people I mean well-educated intelligent people who advance rational arguments and command our respect. Examples are those who signed the recent letter to the Cardinals about the need to clarify Amoris Laetitia.
If one disagrees with the views of serious people one can endeavour to argue rationally with those views in a respectful manner without labelling them and ignoring the argument."
I agree that we should discuss matters in respectful fashion. But that doesn't mean automatically that a claim issued by a so-called "serious" person is sound and/or worth considering.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."We know for a fact that he does not receive approval from traditionalists."
Perhaps the following goes to the root of our discussion (and disagreement or misunderstanding): What is a "traditionalist"? What is a "Traditional Catholic"?
I know many Catholics who assist only at the Novus Ordo Mass. They hold and cherish the True Faith. They are holy people. They love and respect His Holiness Pope Francis. Are said folks "Traditional Catholics"?
To be a "Traditional Catholic," submission of one's "mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."
DJR, do you agree with that?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark:
I post again just to make a comment. The idea that only "traditionalists" among "faithful Catholics" have serious problems with the pope is not accurate.
There is a growing number of "faithful," "nontraditionalist" Catholics who are not pleased with the pope at all.
Recent news from China, which has some of the most faithful Catholics on the planet, having suffered underground for decades, tells us that people are beginning to use very strong language against the pope.
In fact, if you were to go to the Cardinal Kung Foundation website, which tracks events among Chinese faithful Catholics, you would see on their front page photos of the following:
1. Cardinal Kung as a young priest.
2. Pope Paul VI.
3. Pope John Paul II.
4. Pope Benedict XVI.
Conspicuous by its absence is any photo there of the reigning pope, Francis.
That speaks volumes about what the faithful Chinese Catholics think.
Speaking of my own experience in the Byzantine Rite, there are not a few that have serious misgivings.
I overheard one of our deacons and another priest talking about this matter a couple weeks ago; the comments were serious. And our bishop has made some comments as well. One of them was quite pointed. I heard it with my own ears.
DJR, Catholics in China, as well as Byzantine Catholics, have the right (quoting the Latin Code) "make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church. They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church.
"They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals."
But do traditional Chinese and Byzantine Catholics submit their minds and wills "in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."
Can traditional Latin Church Catholics remain a traditional Catholic while declaring that His Holiness Pope Francis is "satanic, heretical, determined to overthrown the Church..." as certain traditional Catholics proclaim daily?
How can such an anti-Pope Francis traditional Catholic be counted as a traditional Catholic when he (the traditional Catholic) refuses to submit his mind and will "in such a way that his (the Pope's) supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will"?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said… How can such an anti-Pope Francis traditional Catholic be counted as a traditional Catholic when he (the traditional Catholic) refuses to submit his mind and will "in such a way that his (the Pope's) supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will"?
Catholics are not required to submit to every judgment of a pope.
When the pope acts outside of his competence or authority, or acts in a manner contrary to the Faith, no one is required to submit to his judgment regarding whatever the particular issue is.
When Pope John XXII began openly preaching heresy from the pulpit regarding the beatific vision, would you have submitted to his judgment on that issue?
I assume you would have submitted to the judgments of Pope Formosus.
But then what would you have done when the successor of Pope Formosus, His Holiness Stephen VI, declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope and annulled all his priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations?
Do you contend that Catholics were required to submit to the judgment of the Vicar of Christ Stephen VI in that regard?
I assume you would have done so.
But then what would you have done when Stephen's successor, His Holiness Theodore II, REVERSED Pope Stephen's judgment and stated that, no, Pope Formosus was a true and valid pope, and all his ordinations were valid?
Were Catholics required to again flip flop regarding the validity of Pope Formosus?
Then later Pope John IX also CONTRADICTED Pope Stephen's ruling in that regard.
But then what would you have done when His Holiness Pope Sergius III REVERSED Popes Theodore and John and ruled that, no, Pope Formosus was NOT a valid pope, and Pope Stephen's ruling in that regard was correct?
Would you have flip flopped again and changed your views to suit the pope?
If you had lived during the reign of Pope Formosus, how would you answer the question as to whether he was a true pope?
If you had lived during the reign of Pope Stephen VI, how would you answer that question?
If you had lived during the reigns of Popes Theodore II and John IX, how would you answer that question?
If you had lived during the reign of Pope Sergius III, how would you answer that question?
If you had lived during ALL of those pontificates (a period of 20 years), what would have been your position on whether Pope Formosus was a true pope? Would you have flip flopped according to the whim of whichever pope was in office?
That's not Catholic. Catholics are not required to do that.
The judgments of Popes Stephen VI and Sergius III were WRONG concerning Pope Formosus, and no Catholic was obliged to follow them in that regard at all. Those who did follow them were wrong in doing so.
Pope Formosus was a valid pope.
DJR
DJR: I think one of the key words in Mark Thomas's quote (from Lumen Gentium?) is 'manifest' which means 'clear'. The problem with Pope Francis, in such documents as Amoris Laetitia, is that he far from clear as is evidenced by the varying interpretations that have been put on it. Hence it cannot be regarded as part of the Magisterium until such time as he clarifies it. This is what the 40 theologians have suggested to the Cardinals that Pope Francis should make his writing clear.
Nicolas Bellord said... DJR: I think one of the key words in Mark Thomas's quote (from Lumen Gentium?) is 'manifest' which means 'clear'.
Indeed.
But what would Mark have done, I wonder, if he lived during the reign of Pope Formosus and the next 10 or so popes?
Pope Stephen VI's will was certainly "manifest" when he had Pope Formosus' body dug up, put on trial, the cadaver's fingers cut off, the body thrown in the river, and then afterwards declaring Formosus to be an antipope and annulling all his acts and ordinations.
Mark Thomas' position is that we would be required to follow Pope Stephen VI's manifest judgment in that regard.
Then we would have to flip flop when Theodore II became pope, then flip flop back to Stephen's position when Sergius III became pope, then flip flop back to Theodore II's position after Sergius died.
That is nonsense and not Catholic.
Post a Comment