Now that we are safely in December the time has come to start thinking about New Year’s resolutions for 2020 and we should be considering what they might be. But I am not asking you to do that here – I am going to ask you what you think Pope Francis’ resolutions should be. Some of them could be completed within the year but others might be started in the year but will take longer to complete.
We are aware that at the senior levels of the Church there is a strong tension about Francis’ whole approach. He appears to be altogether too flexible — particularly on moral matters. His focus does not appear to be altogether based on the long, impermeable, tradition of the Church’s teaching on moral matters. For instance, he stands back from condemning homosexuals, and he actually suggests the possibility of allowing adultery in second marriages.
Another area of importance is the rôle of women in the Church. There is the question of women deacons. What would be their rôle? Would they have the same activities and powers as male deacons or be restricted to those best suited to the ‘second’ sex? And, despite, recent, firm contrary teaching, does he sometimes wonder about the possibility of women priests? (I do)
He may well feel that the relationships within the Church do not conform with St Paul’s description of the Mystical Body (1 Corinthians 12). Is the sharing of the Spirit between all of us fully shown in the relationships between authority and the laity? Might the Church learn from successful secular organisations the importance of every member contributing to the task? What could he do about this?
That’s just a sample which spring into my mind. You may disagree. You may have better ideas. This is a Blog which enjoys disagreement.
Among the large number of comments to this item there are some serious accusations concerning Pope Francis, with inadeqate evidence to support them. I would emphasise that such comments do not reflect the views of Secondsight Blog. They are the responsibity of the contributor.
Just imagine, Holy Father, being asked to make resolutions for you!
But first happy birthday for the upcoming occasion on December 17th.
I wish you all the happiness and good health to keep you well as our Holy Father for a long time to come.
Now our task master here is always keen to hear different views on his topic so I better get to his invite and prepare your resolutions for the future.
I recall your interview in America Magazine in 2013 when you said –
“I see clearly that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful … I see the church as a field hospital after battle.”
Your years as our shepherd have certainly proved to be like the battle ground you mention.
I hope and pray that you will continue with this resolve, along with the rest of us whom you urge to do likewise, to heal wounds of scandal and division.
And may this warming of the hearts of all those who seek and follow Christ with faith, also continue to be your resolution in 2020 – whosever and wherever those hearts may be.
And then there were you words in an interview on a flight to Rome (also in 2013) when you said
“Women in the church are more important than bishops and priests”.
May your bold statement continue to be heard and your resolve to make good this great need in our Church for greater participation of women at every point, continue with you also into 2020.
Furthermore, when you also said
“But this is what we are being asked to do here. Instead of being just a church that welcomes and receives by keeping the doors open, let us try also to be a church that finds new roads … to those who have quit or are indifferent”.
Holy Father, you never fail to reach out to those, whom you describe as indifferent or those who quit, and your Pastoral concern is so much like that of the Master himself in this regard.
May you resolve to continue too on this path of keeping our Church alive and unafraid of travelling new roads in order to meet the pastoral needs of all in the year that lies ahead.
And if you can manage all that, then I think you will be doing very well.
Just remember that you are not on your own and will continue to be in our prayers too.
I pray for this man of God daily, so should we all, I second the above response.
And, further more, Holy Father, may your resolve to deal with the Sexual Abuse scandal that has plagued the Church for so long, continue too in the new decade in 2020.
As in the new instructions (December 17th 2019), “On the Confidentiality of Legal Proceedings”, in which you deal with the “Pontifical Secret” so long a serious impediment to justice for victims.
Finally, you make ecclesiastical confidentiality less of an obstacle to reporting to civil authorities,
to cooperation with civil authorities,
or to the public manifestation of allegations by alleged victims and witnesses.
A long awaited but still very welcome step in managing this very extensive and intractable problem.
// Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. //
So what part is Francis? A disrupter, an enabler of destruction? He’s been quoted as recommending that people should “make a mess” (hagan lio):
// The editors of America wish him many more. “Hagan lio,” he told a crowd of millions at World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro in 2013, “Make some noise,” and there is no question that this pontificate has done just that. // – https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/02/23/five-years-pope-francis-papacy-there-much-more-noise-be-made
On the face of it, considering that the Church is the custodian of nearly two millennia of tradition and intellectual and spiritual development, that is wrong-headed advice for its maximum leader to give. Ours is a culture in which “make a mess” has been the order of every day for a half century. Now, more than ever, a little order is in order.
// He appears to be altogether too flexible — particularly on moral matters. His focus does not appear to be altogether based on the long, impermeable, tradition of the Church’s teaching on moral matters. //
I confess to disliking much of what I know of Francis. It’s largely emotional, knee-jerk, I know, but not entirely. I suppose it’s uncharitable, but as my dislike hurts me and doesn’t hurt Francis at all, I’m inclined not to reject it out of hand but to use it as a guide, a reference, a starting point in thinking around the issue of what there is about this man that elicits ill feeling in so many people.
The only resolution I can think of that would satisfy Pope Francis and his ever-growing amount of detractors would be to retire, don’t you think?
I resolve to continue to resolve the following ….
“I resolve to let God use me as a thorn in the flesh of all who consider they know the absolute truth”
“I resolve to recognise and remove the thorn in other’s caused by my ‘authority'”
“I resolve to discover the thorns in the flesh i personally cause others, and heal the harm caused”
“I resolve to accept the thorns others give me, and forgive without retaliation.”
I resolve to continue to resolve the above ….
Francis is reportedly appalled that some European countries want to protect their borders. What he plans to do about it isn’t clear. Perhaps he’ll make a New Year’s resolution to withdraw all Vatican diplomats from countries that persist in not declaring open borders.
G.D suggests he might resolve to rid the Church of dogma. (“I resolve to let God use me as a thorn in the flesh of all who consider they know the absolute truth”) For that to work, he’ll probably need to stack the College of Cardinals a little more thoroughly. That’s doable.
The most important resolution that Francis could make, although it is not in his character, would be to acquire the genuine humility shown by so many of his predecessors, not the faux, Uriah Heep-ish humility which only fools ignorant people.
Were he to do this, he would refrain from insulting his fellow-Catholics, realize that as Pope he is not the arbiter of doctrine but its defender, free himself from the influence of mountebanks like Fernandez, Spadaro and Rosica who fuel his egotism, and do what he has signally failed to do in six-and-a-half years, namely to ‘confirm the brethren’.
I won’t hold my breath, though.
// The most important resolution that Francis could make, although it is not in his character, would be to acquire the genuine humility shown by so many of his predecessors, not the faux, Uriah Heep-ish humility which only fools ignorant people. //
I agree that he should pray for genuine humility. In what certainly looks to me like both arrogance and an almost flippant disregard for the health of the Church he was elected to lead and hold steady, he has sown a great deal of confusion while opening great gaps through which some other conspicuously arrogant churchmen have driven their trucks.
I wonder whether Francis may not be simply terribly unqualified for this job, not up to it either intellectually or morally. If that should be the case, I suppose he may not be to blame, ironically, for the damage he’s doing. The principal blame, in this case, would fall on the cardinals who elected him. I’d not be inclined to blame the Holy Ghost, who may have been whispering good advice into deaf ears.
There have been bad popes before. If Francis is truly a bad pope, I hope the Church will survive him.
It’s interesting a traditionalist would see Francis’ engagement with the world as “Uriah Heep-ish humility”. His predecessor was an amazing intellect but a person who had zero capability to engage with the world. I’ve just watched a commentary on G K Chesterton which includes the phrase “The church is superior but never supercilious”; so many of the Cardinals who oppose Francis appear to me as the very embodiment of superciliousness.
I do worry about this papacy and orthodoxy – a key Chesterton concern but I also worry that few people who encounter the church encounter the loving mercy of God – we’re stacked to the roof with Pharisees and Sadducees.
Engaging with the world can have different connotations. Evangelization is one thing, but St Paul warns us in Romans 12:2 ‘Et nolite conformari huic saeculo’.
Most Catholics do not read the Catholic Herald or visit Catholic blogs, and so their perception of Francis is the one carefully crafted for media consumption.
Those who are better informed know different.
My message to Pope Francis would be as follows:
“It was great to meet you at the Deacons Mass for the year of Mercy in 2018. You have been an inspiration to myself and many others. In our prison we see you on the prisoners morning prayer booklet washing the feet of prisoners, for this many of those struggling in confinement take hope in your teachings. I have read much of your writings especially Evangeli Gaudium which is a beautiful piece of writing. I am deeply grateful to you for assuming the office of Pope and will continue to pray for your spirit.”
Yours with affection
He comes across as a kindly grandfather figure who makes simple down-to-earth utterances which people can easily relate to. He appears modest and self-effacing. Yet in reality he is a dictatorial and irascible individual who brooks no contradiction and has moreover a radical agenda which, if implemented, would lead to disaster.
Jeremy Corbyn? Pope Francis? You choose.
Deacon Christopher: I know you are a company man, but your sycophancy is a bit over the top, unless, of course, it was meant ironically.
Hi John Nolan,
Why do you deride genuine affection and gratitude? You sound as if you are an expert on Pope Francis, John, have you met him?
I was speaking the other day with someone who I suppose is a liberal Catholic, a member of a Jesuit church attached to a Jesuit university. I read him the first part of a John Newman advent sermon, in which Newman discusses the need to fear God. My companion said that fear is old theology, old scholarship, that the times have passed that by, that the Church today is too enlightened to teach that now. My sense is that Francis is on board with that. God is love and light and kindness, not a stern and strict god. The god of Francis is apparently a modern liberal. I’ve read that Francis believes in the Devil, but I’ve not read what or who, exactly, he thinks the Devil is.
I suspect that Francis may have been a fine fellow on the ground, in the slums, a pastor for the poor. But I wonder what sort of Catholicism he taught them.
“My companion said that fear is old theology, old scholarship, that the times have passed that by, that the Church today is too enlightened to teach that now. My sense is that Francis is on board with that. God is love and light and kindness, not a stern and strict god.”
One of the most helpful things I ever heard anyone say came from him speaking about mercy. It was simply that mercy must always grow out from justice and without justice there can be no mercy. This is the view we take in the prison and it gives a healthy balance.
// One of the most helpful things I ever heard anyone say came from him speaking about mercy. It was simply that mercy must always grow out from justice and without justice there can be no mercy. This is the view we take in the prison and it gives a healthy balance. //
What little I’ve read of what he’s said leaves me with a feeling that I’ve listened to something that can easily be interpreted in various ways. Evidently, you take this to refer to the system of justice that affects you in prison directly. To me, though, those words are all but meaningless. This kind of speaking in generalities is almost oracular – it means whatever one takes it it to mean. Like, of course, “Who am I to judge?”. I find it irritating.
No, I take it to mean that there needs to be both justice and mercy. You may translate it as Law and Grace if you wish. In other words we are accountable for our actions but there’s a bit more to it than that. In regard to prison life it boils down to is:
” it is what it is but lets see if we can help it be a bit better”
For me the phrase “Who am I to judge ” also has solid meaning, something along these lines:”Yes I recognise I may not agree with this particular thing but actual judgement does not belong to me so I may not pass it. In the context it was spoken I would take it as meaning make sure your inner resentments do not lead you to value your opinion more highly than you ought in case you drift into self righteousness.
Let me be clear on this, I do not belong to a cult of Francis any more than I belonged to a cult of Corbyn. But I agree with most of what Francis says or writes and I see in it a depth which you obviously do not. This means that for me, Francis is a man to be thankful for and for whom I pray on pretty much a daily basis; but perhaps I’m just easily pleased..I liked the little chap with red shoes too! (Benedict I mean) I liked Benedict for his brilliant writing.
Well done John Nolan. You’ve hit the nail on the head again.
Try reading this article if you haven’t seen it already; “Edward Feser criticises the idea that “an inoffensive ‘niceness’ is somehow the essence of the true Christian”.”
I found this article in the 4th Dec ‘must reads’ on the Catholic Herald’s web site. It is well-worth reading. It says a lot about the modern attitudes to Christianity. Why was Our Lord crucified?
What was it that the Psalmist said?
‘Beatus vir qui timet Dominum.’
‘Initium sapientiae timor Domini.’
Bergoglio, it would appear, was hardly a resounding success as Abp of Buenos Aires, which may explain why as Pope he has never visited his homeland and has no plans to do so any time soon. An analysis of Francis’s character, background and methods is found in Henry Sire’s ‘The Dictator Pope’. The fact that its conclusions concerning this papacy amount to a condemnation should not dissuade people from examining the evidence for themselves, and Sire has produced plenty of it, much of which is incontrovertible.
Showing off in Latin is never a good starting point; Blessed the man who fears the Lord and Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom both work perfectly in our native language but then someone might ask what does “fear of the Lord” really mean?
Quoting well-known psalms in the Vulgate is not showing off, and in any case I would expect an educated Catholic to have at least a passing acquaintance with it. And my comment was addressed to David Smith, who gives every indication of being an educated Catholic.
Perhaps it means what it says, but then those determined to put a gloss on everything won’t admit that possibility. And although your translation is an accurate one, that cannot be said for every rendition into the vernacular, which is a good reason for avoiding it.
‘Showing off in Latin is never a good starting point’. Two unwarranted assumptions in a single supercilious comment.
// Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom //
Exact translation is impossible. The best that can be accomplished is never more than an approximation. That’s one good reason why discarding Latin was a grievous mistake of the 1960’s reformers. Millions of people lost a vital link with their heritage.
“Initium sapientiae timor Domini” is four words – four nouns. “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” is nine words – four nouns, two prepositions, two articles, and a verb. The Latin is terse, spare, straight to the point; the translation is wordy. And one can no more equate two words in two natural languages than one can equate an oak tree and a beech tree.
David – “Exact translation is impossible. The best that can be accomplished is never more than an approximation. That’s one good reason why discarding Latin was a grievous mistake of the 1960’s reformers. Millions of people lost a vital link with their heritage.”
How is the actual/original meaning of the Latin (as opposed to the approximation) learned?
// How is the actual/original meaning of the Latin (as opposed to the approximation) learned? //
Through study and familiarization. Words and phrases define themselves through usage and in context.
I do a little tutoring in English for a tiny scattering of native Spanish speakers. The other day, I came across a children’s English dictionary published in 1942. It’s analogical, with brief, simple definitions and examples of usage written entirely within a small universe of words. All definitions are written using only those words. Where a word has more than one common meaning, an example sentence is used to illustrate each one. Drawings are plentiful. This can be, I hope, a very useful small text for guiding students in their first efforts at learning English. They study a simplified grammar, and they do the exercises embedded in both the grammar text and a workbook, but they need to become familiar not only with translations and model usage but with real-life usage. Both the exercises and the dictionary will provide the needed context, as will explanations offered as we go. I hope. We’ll see.
One can learn the rudiments of a language through studying its grammar and memorizing a potted vocabulary, but that’s just a beginning. A student who wants to begin to understand some of the power and subtleties of the language also needs to immerse himself in reading and writing texts and, when possible, in conversations.
Latin, of course, is a dead language, but there are many texts, one rich source of which is nearly two thousand years of Christian writing. Up to about fifty years ago, it was common for children to be exposed to Latin grammar and usage through courses in school and to some context through prayers and hymns and missals. Masses were in Latin everywhere. A Swede, a Russian, an Englishman, and a Chinese, could travel throughout the world and never be exposed to mass in a language with which they were unfamiliar.
What does the fear of the Lord mean asks milliganp? The fear of the Lord does not mean an imposed worldly fear of punishment, what it does mean is to have an attachment to God, a relationship, whereby we are not only full of awe but also love and wonder. It is a desire that is of the new nature to please God and to obey Him. It is the love of God shed abroad in our heart and with such a fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom, receiving from Him the fount of all Wisdom.
I would agree with what you say, with the exception of your remark about Latin being a ‘dead language’. Fr Guy Nicholls of the Birmingham Oratory, in a talk about sacred language, remarked that Latin was being spoken in Britain even before Julius Caesar landed in 55 BC, and since then not a day has passed when Latin has not been spoken somewhere in this island. In the second half of the 20th century new prayers were being written (in Latin) for Paul VI’s new Mass, and no fewer than 43 hymns in the Liber Hymnarius are original compositions by Dom Anselmo Lentini, who died in 1989.
Anglo-Saxon is a dead language, although people still study it; Latin is not. Translations abound, and some are more accurate than others. We should not forget that for forty years we used texts that were corrupt paraphrases of the originals. The translators used the principle of ‘dynamic equivalence’ to leave out things that they didn’t consider important, insert things that weren’t there, and distort the meaning to suit their theological preferences. This was particularly marked in the Proper orations (Collects etc.) but even the words of the Consecration were not immune – ‘pro multis’ being rendered as ‘for all’.
When I began serving Mass (aged 8) in 1959 I used to wonder why the word endings in the second part of the Confiteor were different from those in the first. Only when I started learning Latin at school did I discover noun and adjective declensions and case endings. But I knew what the words meant. In the Gloria virtually every word has an English cognate; we have a language which is heavily latinized. Germans and Poles do not have the same advantage, but they manage to cope.
John Nolan writes:
// I would agree with what you say, with the exception of your remark about Latin being a ‘dead language’. //
I suppose it’s a matter of viewpoint, John, whether one is thinking of some speakers or of large communities for whom Latin is a mother tongue. I was thinking of the latter and you, of the former. We’re both right – you more than I, most likely :o)
There’s an article in the current issue of the Herald on the Church’s recent rapprochement with the Chinese government. Cardinal Joseph Zen is quoted:
// The former bishop of Hong Kong accused the Vatican Secretary of State of “manipulating the Holy Father”. //
The gist of the accusation is that the cardinal believes that the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, has hoodwinked the the Pope, preventing him from learning the position of people like Zen, who believe that the Church has gone much too far in giving ground to a Communist government that is an active enemy of religion. In doing that, they believe, it has legitimized a schismatic church.
The implication here, I’m afraid, is that Francis may be far from the most intelligent pope in history. If that’s true, one cannot, alas, expect him to recognize the problem. Nevertheless, he, like all of us, should pray constantly for humility. Modern man is characterized by arrogance, and Jesuits, as I understand them, may be near the head of the pack in that respect. A good New Year’s resolution for Pope Francis might be to pray in future that all of mankind might learn to think less highly of themselves.
You wrote, ‘The gist of the accusation is that the cardinal believes that the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, has hoodwinked the Pope, preventing him from learning the position of people like Zen, who believe that the Church has gone much too far in giving ground to a Communist government that is an active enemy of religion. In doing that, they believe, it has legitimized a schismatic church.’
I have been saying this about Pope Francis for some time on the blog, far from being hoodwinked by anybody, he is a Globalist linked to the Chi-Comms (Chinese Communists). There is nowhere for him to hide now, better he makes the New year resolution to retire ASAP.
” I have been saying this about Pope Francis for some time on the blog, far from being hoodwinked by anybody, he is a Globalist linked to the Chi-Comms (Chinese Communists). There is nowhere for him to hide now, better he makes the New year resolution to retire ASAP.”
Far be it from me to question your impeccable record as prophet of truth,
but, oh dearest Nektarios, of this slander, can you show some proof?
Yes, but to provide the details of proof you are asking for could be risky for me and expose others.
// I have been saying this about Pope Francis for some time on the blog, far from being hoodwinked by anybody, he is a Globalist linked to the Chi-Comms (Chinese Communists). //
I’m not inclined to paint Francis as a devil, Nektarios. My sense is that he’s simply an ambitious Argentinian cleric caught up far too much in the materialistic spirit of the modern West. I’m sorry we lost Benedict. But here we are. Life goes on.
‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was …. the light of men … that darkness could not overpower’ …. What followed are mere shadows – symbols & signs – not absolute truths.
“There’s a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in”
Pope Francis’ (re)solution? ‘Let go : Let God’. …. For the only truth we can utter comes from that.
The only absolute truth we can grasp is ‘silence’ …. that allows Light to shine through our own ‘absolutes’. ….. Let go : Let God
// The only absolute truth we can grasp is ‘silence’ …. that allows Light to shine through our own ‘absolutes’. ….. Let go : Let God //
Sounds nice, but it’s hardly Catholic, is it? Catholicism, as I understand it, is a balanced mixture of heart and mind. Take away the mind, and one might do as well or better with drugs, no?
Who said anything of ‘take away the mind’? ….. ‘balanced mixture of heart and mind’ … absolutely right!!
Now ‘Let go’ of your own assumptions about what that means and ‘Let God’ influence your truths; they will become more & more balanced in heart & mind …. … There is more to Universal truth than man’s symbolic representations of it. …. We loose nothing of mind or heart by ‘silencing’ our opinions from time to time & listening without judgement. …. We can always come back to the shadows we cast after …
// ‘he has an agenda for radical change’ …. is it not needed? …. as is Corbyn’s. //
Some folks thirst for radical change and some don’t. De gustibus non est disputandum.
‘De gustibus non est disputandum’ ….. Only them that can afford to taste can live by this maxim. Those that can’t afford, suffer it from those that live it.
Just an excuse for not saying ‘ ‘I’m all right Jack, it works for me; sod everyone who don’t doff their caps to us.’ …. As i said Let go of your absolutes and Let God enlighten your self satisfactions ….
It would be a grave mistake to see Francis a holy fool who is easily manipulated by clever and unscrupulous men. What he lacks in intellectual heft he makes up for in political shrewdness and cunning. Both his admirers (Austen Ivereigh) and his detractors (Henry Sire) maintain he has an agenda for radical change which is more than just nostalgia for the 1970s. The comparison with Jeremy Corbyn is by no means inapt.
Fortunately the electorate saw through Corbyn before it was too late. Let’s hope ordinary Catholics will see through Francis before he can do too much damage.
‘he has an agenda for radical change’ …. is it not needed? …. as is Corbyn’s.
Anyone can see both church & British society are full of corporate sin; and from oppressive selfish ‘leadership’ that heap unneeded suffering on many for their own gains. ……….
…… ‘I’m all right Jack, it works for me; sod everyone who don’t doff their caps to us.’ …..
You are quite right of course, but radical change with its agenda of Pope Francis is not the answer. What does one expect when the Church as Society is of this world acts as it does, does that surprise you? The old worldly order of the class system and doffing one’s cap to one’s betters is not long gone as some suppose, but the end is the same of corporate sin and oppressive selfish leadership with all the problems and orchestrated poverty. There is a war on for your mind and if we don’t wake up as man appear to be doing most all will be lost.
There is but one way for the Christian, that is not a radical change that man can bring about, but God and returning to Him, to Christ and to the Apostolic doctrine, teaching and practice.
‘Corporate sin’ is no surprise for me; i see it and, see others (blindly) condone it. ……….. ‘Radical’ is the word that gets in the way; most people think of it as ‘sudden and extreme’. But i see the ‘change’ as a ‘slow evolution’ towards the ‘fundamentals’ of what we all truly are, in the deepest spirit & Spirit of God. ……. And of course we will all have our own differing ‘ideas & concepts’ what that is & how it’s to be reached.
….. But, those, of whatever mind set, that sincerely seek ‘love & unity’ in ‘Spirit’ (words brought into disrepute by insincere use) will recognise each other, and bring about that evolution gradually for all ‘factions’ and recognise UNITY in that ‘awakening’.
( As painful a Cross as that ‘work of awakening’ can be).
As you say, there is a ‘war’ and if we’re not to wake up then …???.. a dystopian future would be all we inherit ……
Yet i firmly believe God’s embrace is for ALL eternally.
(i know you, and many others disagree with that, but to me that’s superfluous, as i would be, if i cast others ‘awakenings’ not of ‘my way’ as ‘wrong’).
…… Eventually all will ‘awake’ ‘repent’ & accept ‘God’; simply because it’s God’s good creation, and it’s created for God’s absolute purpose – that darkness can not over come. …. Then all differing ‘hues & colours’ will identify with God’s one Light. As indeed many of all (re)’f(r)actions’ are awakening to! ….. Thanks be to God.
Meanwhile we all pick up our Cross and walk on …
God knows all who are His already even those yet unborn. As you say,’ God’s embrace is for all eternally’, not the same thing as all will ultimately be saved. Nor does Scripture back that assertion up. Scripture, God’s word tells us, ” God is not willing that any should perish, and this gives us a hope that everyone will be in heaven, but God is the Judge, as human beings we can only HOPE that everyone will be in heaven. As for the other place, Scripture gives us to understand, if we refuse to repent, we are in danger of ending up there, this is all we can say, again, because God is the ultimate Judge.
As for Unity among believers, Yes indeed, then we have to be quite sure what that Unity consists of, not opinion-based. but scripturally based.
Our unity is in Christ and His life in us. Therefore, we hold fast to the things surely believed among us, this is the whole basis of Christian Fellowship and unity.
Indeed one needs to be awakened before one experiences that unity. The central focus of that unity is the Lord Jesus Christ, of course. And with a little spiritual growth, one begins to recognise Christ in one another. It is all of grace!
// Corporate sin’ is no surprise for me; i see it and, see others (blindly) condone it. ……….. ‘Radical’ is the word that gets in the way; most people think of it as ‘sudden and extreme’. But i see the ‘change’ as a ‘slow evolution’ towards the ‘fundamentals’ of what we all truly are, in the deepest spirit & Spirit of God. ……. And of course we will all have our own differing ‘ideas & concepts’ what that is & how it’s to be reached. //
I’m glad to hear you’re not pushing for immediate and total destruction of the Church as we know it. Slow and total destruction is, I agree, a less alarming prospect. If your fellow revolutionaries are on board with that, there is hope for peace in the nave.
Would you be violently opposed to the return of the altar rail? I know, I think, that you’d be opposed. I’m just curious about how hot the reaction might be. What are the first-line priorities in your program of radical reform? I confess to being generally puzzled about what reformers on what I suppose it’s fair to call the religious left feel we’re in need of. A little list might help clear away the fog. At any rate, I’d welcome it.
People do what they must – if there is a want for alter rails let them be erected; what does it matter other than yet one more ‘symbol’ to express the preferences of one faction or another. I have a choice to kneel at them or not.
Often external impositions of this kind are the fancy of one man’s authority imposed on others. To me issues of that kind have become superfluous over the years. Although i will still express my preferences if i consider them correct still!
Having spent many hours heatedly debating with self, others & God about such specifics, my only personal ‘priority’ is what (i see as) causes harm to others is not acceptable – ACCEPTABLE TO ME. And i will/do express why in definite terms at times. But if others see such as ‘corporately acceptable’ there is no authority i have to alter it; and i have learnt to bring force to bear on such issues is pointless. … And the ‘Cross’ becomes a reality to suffer & accept!
…. Where we are is where we are, where we will be is open to Evolution (NOT Revolution) …. which i trust is in the hands of God.
If the rails had sharp edges i might object more forcibly. But, even then … again i have learnt … only my obvious & public rejection & peaceable witness is of any real worth. Any ‘forcing’ vocal or otherwise, is of no use. Even though i do still find it a struggle and do fall into ‘forcing’ at times; mea culpa.
A hard lesson to accept i find, having been of a more fiery disposition in the past. ….. If only i knew then what i know now, i would have been a more able witness, maybe?
Left right centre? ….. One of my favourite ‘descriptions of God’ is ‘a circle whose circumference is nowhere and centre everywhere’. It’s all a question of balance. And it seems, or at least i hope, i am starting to live that equilibrium, having experienced both acceptance & rejection from people in all areas of the spectrum.
So, i’m sorry, David, but i have no ‘list’; only responses to the moment as it occurs. No ‘fellow revolutionaries’ i know of to check with either.
Let go : Let God. Be.
“Yes, but to provide the details of proof you are asking for could be risky for me and expose others.”
Ok, till you can then we may regard your accusations as just your usual slanderous nonsense..never mind, nice to have that settled…. Happy Christmas anyway 🙂
I wish you and yours a very Happy Christmas.
What you regard as my accusations and slanderous nonsense, is not my own per se,
much coming from within your own camp and from some of those in the know within the media etc. Check what is happening within the Vatican first, then some of your fellow Catholics on the blog have to say too and where you don’t ascribe to them the same complaint against me. Rather biased wouldn’t you say?
It is too early for you to say in all honesty it is ‘nice to have it settled’.
There’s a lot for many of us to dislike about the current pope. We are, for the most part, I’ll guess, people who have learned to find the world a pleasant place and feel no need for immediate and drastic change. It’s mostly, I’ll guess again, among those who find the world a terrible place, overflowing with pain and injustice, who like and admire Pope Francis. In him they see a reformer, even a revolutionary, who will tear down the two-millennia whited sepulchre that the Church of Rome has become and replace it with something a lot more politically activist.
I don’t know how the billion Catholics of the world came to be so mentally and emotionally torn between two camps, one focused on beauty, reverence, tradition, eternal verities, and measured improvement here on earth and the other raging against tradition and intent on ridding the old whited sepulchre of money changers and worse. At first glance, it looks to me like a generational divide, between older and wiser, on the one side, and younger and idealistic on the other. One side seem to be focusing on making a reasonable best of the material world while remaining conscious of its impermanence and the ultimate futility of making it anything even remotely close to perfect. The other side seem dedicated to the goal of earthly purification, perfection, no matter the human cost.
Preservationists and purifiers. Both are types of human beings. Both have co-existed for a million years of human history and both will endure so long as humanity exists. In the past, wars have been fought and people slaughtered when co-existence between them seemed impossible. At this moment in time, on this battlefield, wars are again being fought but without the possibility of a final solution that wars in the past seemed to promise. Under the new dispensation, the wreckage and devastation must take place in the minds of men, rather than on their bodies. Conflict without end is the curse of mankind. It’s a grand pity that this particular war is being fought over the body of the Church.
The extremes you cite are (i guess) initially a minority in each case – with the ‘loudest voices’ and ‘biggest guns’ that ‘convince’ others, by nefarious means ‘their way’ is best and worth killing for. Hence violence & hatred are instilled by them in the (blinded!) followers.
(Propaganda, sowing hatred and discontent, scapegoating etc work very much better than most realise; not to mention the punishments & fears instilled for resisting).
So, yes, ‘war mongers’, of both persuasions gain support; and are able to ENforce on the one hand the injustices of the ‘status quo’, and, on the other Force REvolutionary changes.
That’s why CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION can only be brought by people that ‘WAKE UP’ to ‘corporate sin’ & ‘violent change’ ( both which perpetuate conflict) and oppose it, in any way they can, by choosing to witness to & live ‘love’, rather than the ‘violence’ so easily imposed by the despots on both sides. ( Not many, particularly any in positions of ‘authority’ pick up that cross!).
Despots are ‘elected as leaders’; put on pedestals by misguided followers.
…. What was the example set by Jesus? …. ‘You call me Lord, and rightly, so i am, but i call you friends’ … giving equilibrium freedom & responsible self rule … a servant king. ….. As all with any ‘authority & power’ should imitate; and no present ‘leaders’ seem to know anything about. …. Blind still lead the blind ….
When we do get a ‘leader’ that comes anywhere near to Jesus’ example they are crucified by both self obsessed ‘status quo’ & ‘revolutionaries’ …. Blinded Madness!
I can agree with most of what you posted above, then the question comes, is it possible to live without conflict?
// That’s why CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION can only be brought by people that ‘WAKE UP’ to ‘corporate sin’ & ‘violent change’ ( both which perpetuate conflict) and oppose it, in any way they can, by choosing to witness to & live ‘love’, rather than the ‘violence’ so easily imposed by the despots on both sides. //
Conscious evolution. I came across that phrase somewhere else recently, also from a Catholic, I think. Is it a popular notion now in Catholic thought? If my guess about what it means is more or less on target, I suspect it of being a creation of a group who hope that people of good will can overcome or at least cancel out the worst of the successes of science folk working assiduously to turn humans into vastly more efficient and productive computers. If so, I wish you luck.
David Smith says:
“There’s a lot for many of us to dislike about the current pope. We are, for the most part, I’ll guess, people who have learned to find the world a pleasant place and feel no need for immediate and drastic change. It’s mostly, I’ll guess again, among those who find the world a terrible place, overflowing with pain and injustice, who like and admire Pope Francis. In him they see a reformer, even a revolutionary, who will tear down the two-millennia whited sepulchre that the Church of Rome has become and replace it with something a lot more politically activist.”
I hold neither of the views expressed in David Smiths considered post above though I do visit dark places and find there often that Pope Francis is held in esteem. However there is another David whose view is appropriate here:
A Song of Ascents. Of David. My heart is not proud, O LORD, my eyes are not haughty. I do not aspire to great matters or things too lofty for me. 2 Surely I have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with his mother, like a weaned child is my soul within me.…
Perhaps we might try, this Christmas, to put all the negativity and criticism expressed here on this thread to better use over Christmas, by turning it round in the other direction…for every critical thought about Francis we have, perhaps we might also utter a prayer FOR him?
“I don’t know how the billion Catholics of the world came to be so mentally and emotionally torn between two camps, one focused on beauty, reverence, tradition, eternal verities, and measured improvement here on earth and the other raging against tradition and intent on ridding the old whited sepulchre of money changers and worse. At first glance, it looks to me like a generational divide, between older and wiser, on the one side, and younger and idealistic on the other. One side seem to be focusing on making a reasonable best of the material world while remaining conscious of its impermanence and the ultimate futility of making it anything even remotely close to perfect. The other side seem dedicated to the goal of earthly purification, perfection, no matter the human cost…”
I don’t know about the billions but I’m pretty sure that the two or three hundred I know from parish life are in neither camp, most of them are just trogging along as best they can trying to live their lives before God and make sense of their lives in the best way they know how..just like you and me I guess.
With all the conflict that has been going on since the Fall of Mankind, as I asked G.D, is it possible to live without conflict? How does one defend oneself in conflict even in the house of one’s friends?
Having a resolution is a futile exercise and seldom lasts ending in failure be it for Pope Francis or ourselves.
Learning to live without conflict can be costly, but the end is peace, getting control of our members(body and mind) and ends with peace with God, assurance, and a grace-filled life in the midst of worldly and religious conflicts.
Your last paragraph says a lot and generally true and shows failure, conflict, fear, helplessness, it this all the Gospel offers and teaches, surely not?
// I don’t know about the billions but I’m pretty sure that the two or three hundred I know from parish life are in neither camp, most of them are just trogging along as best they can trying to live their lives before God and make sense of their lives in the best way they know how..just like you and me I guess. //
Those are the bodies the two sides are fighting over, the people who will adapt to practically anything the church and the clergy throw at them. They’re not much into thinking outside whatever box they find themselves in.
Interesting thought, that wars are caused by thinkers, not by doers. The human brain is at the root of much misery. One might wonder why God made it – or allowed it to evolve.
David ….There is no box that can hold people of this sort; they are becoming free of all ‘limiting thought’. As ignatius indicates their ‘faith’ is the only boundary they live by. Maybe these people have somehow learned to quiet the ‘human thoughts’ and pay attention to the Spirit in ‘silence’.
Necktarios …. that’s the Way, the voice, when heeded, that enables one to live in the midst of conflict, without embracing it, or adding to it’s partisan evils.
// There is no box that can hold people of this sort; they are becoming free of all ‘limiting thought’. //
It’s a strange sort of freedom, G.D. In a culture and a society saturated with so many voices, all competing for everyone’s attention and all claiming to tell the truth, the voice of the church has become just one small part of the background noise. In defense of their sanity, people are almost compelled to believe everything all at once. The result is relativism, a belief that everything must be in some way true and good.
“Those are the bodies the two sides are fighting over, the people who will adapt to practically anything the church and the clergy throw at them. They’re not much into thinking outside whatever box they find themselves in…”
Its never a good thing to resort to ‘They’ especially when ‘They’ are sitting next to you in church or when, as is most likely ‘They’ is your friend, your family ..and even yourself. On this blog we seem to suffer from terminal “theyism” which we seem to think is a kind of objectivity, when in fact it is often a self imposed alienation…dangerous ground.
// David Smith,
“Those are the bodies the two sides are fighting over, the people who will adapt to practically anything the church and the clergy throw at them. They’re not much into thinking outside whatever box they find themselves in…”
Its never a good thing to resort to ‘They’ especially when ‘They’ are sitting next to you in church or when, as is most likely ‘They’ is your friend, your family ..and even yourself. On this blog we seem to suffer from terminal “theyism” which we seem to think is a kind of objectivity, when in fact it is often a self imposed alienation…dangerous ground. //
I disagree, ignatius. There are always “theys”. Human societies form around the basic idea of “we” and “they”. Christianity, too, if you think about it. There are the saved and the yet to be saved. That tension will always be there. If it were otherwise, Christianity would be a very different religion. There’s no other way to talk about it, if one is going to be honest. Pretending that everyone is a friend is sugar coating life, falsifying it, pretending it’s something it is not and cannot be. There’s far too much of that in the mindset of the currently dominant cultural group in the West today. We’re all children of God, but only God has that view.
“Your last paragraph says a lot and generally true and shows failure, conflict, fear, helplessness, it this all the Gospel offers and teaches, surely not?..”
Actually, for the people I know and share my life with on a daily basis, my last paragraph declares the triumph of faith, in ordinary lives, lived in the challenge of the present, against the backdrop of uncertainty, living and dying as we go through our days here on earth, while looking always towards the mystery of faith. One of the reasons many people miss the presence of God in the everyday is the invisibility of God’ s presence clothed as it is in the genuine humility of the believers who do not count themselves as particularly important but just get on quietly with being Christians. The ‘failure,conflict, fear, helplessness’ spoken of by Nektario do not remotely reflect the strength, beauty, dignity and reality of faith I see plainly in the eyes and faces of my fellow parishioners. Yes we may be outwardly wasting away but inwardly we are being renewed..Happy Christmas everyone!!
I never said that it did not reflect faith or the reality of faith.
As a semi-retired pastor, what I have seen and said holds true, even though one sees the light of faith in some. But, I sometimes think, dear Ignatius, you look through rose coloured glasses.
Nothing wrong with being an optimist, having hope, but the real thing is very different. Many see their Christian lives are a mixture of gains and losses, failures, the Saints mostly all said that etc. Sadly, the sense of failure of which we are all well aware of, this is due to a lack of right understanding, a lack of good solid teaching, a lack of the preaching of the Gospel and the whole counsel of God.
Thankfully, God does not leave us to ourselves we can be overcomers and useful servants to the Lord’s people and fruitful.
// Sadly, the sense of failure of which we are all well aware of, this is due to a lack of right understanding, a lack of good solid teaching, a lack of the preaching of the Gospel and the whole counsel of God. //
I wonder, Nektarios, whether in this age it’s possible to catechize effectively in the old way. It seems to me likely that the media and the other culture setters have managed to convince the masses that only an uneducated, ignorant, and probably at least slightly stupid person would believe in such things as consubstantiation, the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth, heaven and hell, the ascension and the assumption, and the final judgement. My guess is that most catechizers these days soft pedal or even skirt all that, both for fear of offending many parishioners and because they have learned that many of the clergy themselves do not believe in it.
“As a semi-retired pastor, what I have seen and said holds true, even though one sees the light of faith in some. But, I sometimes think, dear Ignatius, you look through rose coloured glasses.”
You may think what you like Nektarios but, try as you may, you are unlikely to find a prison chaplain wearing rose tinted glasses, such a person would be , as they say, rarer than hens teeth.
David … It’s precisely the ‘many voices’ that they are freed from. Listening to the ‘voice’ of the Spirit – in ‘silence’, those voices are silenced.
“‘…. Silence is the great power of transformation – more universal than the greatest poetry because it works deeper than language or thought itself. ….. it changes our minds, cleansing the doors of perception, withdrawing projections and ending the blame game and obsessive fantasies. It releases the creative imagination that is essential for any new order.” …
( Meditatio Newsletter October 2019, Laurence Freeman OSB )
Slowly a change evolves … how & what we recognise as ‘truth’. It takes nothing away from belief in the Church’s teachings!! Makes it clearer for many.
These are Francis’s New Year’s resolutions.
Work up the courage to abolish celibacy and allow women to become priests.
Root out and destroy clericalism within Catholicism.
Any member of the LGBTIQ community can marry inside our church.
Any person who has remarried after divorce is allowed to receive the eucharist.
Private confessions can remain, but whenever anyone attends mass in good faith with a repentant heart, their sins are forgiven.
Abolish original sin & papal infallibility.
The freedom of theological enquiry is to be respected, and the human conscience is as essential as the Christian teaching on forgiveness.
Most of the resolutions you refer to Pope Francis should have, for the most part, has to be agreed by the whole Church not just Pope Francis.
Pope Francis is a Jesuit, and they are the root and source of clericalism which defends both him and all the other corrupt practices that exist among many of the clergy today.
LGBTIQ is a community of what, sexual immaturity around the age of three or four, Gays hiding behind the label not to mention paedophiles, what has that got to do with the Church?
It is not priests that forgives sin and gives absolution – only God. Another corrupted doctrine to give an elevated status for these corrupted or deluded priests.
One cannot abolish Original sin, it is a consequence of the Fall in our old nature, so not in the Pope’s power. Papal infallibility was always a devious and corrupt myth. Pope Francis knows that yet this idea continues, it suits a corrupted idea of Pope.
Freedom is essential if one is going to enquire into anything, not just theologically.
If the conscience is the sum total of all our past and experience, that is a fact, then I don’t quite understand what your demand for freedom is, however, Christian teaching on forgiveness is Apostolic doctrine and teaching and not up for grabs, to be given by an already corrupt priesthood or any other.
John Candido writes:
// These are Francis’s New Year’s resolutions. //
My goodness, John, you’re confirming the worst fears of Francis’s opponents. If he does all that, he’ll go down in history as the guy who pulled down around him the pillars of the Roman Catholic Church. Should he also liquidate everything the Vatican owns and give the proceeds to the poor? Declare the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth, and consubstantiation to be merely useful allegories? Dan Brown would have a field day with all this. All the little Jesuits would die in ecstasy. I think you’re on to something.
” There’s no other way to talk about it, if one is going to be honest. Pretending that everyone is a friend is sugar coating life, falsifying it, pretending it’s something it is not and cannot be.”
Perhaps this is why Pope Francis’ comment ‘Who am I to judge’ annoys you. Understanding that one is part of the human race..and then that all ‘those’ people in church are the same as ‘you’ is a far cry from ‘pretending everyone is a friend’ Recognising one’s own hopeless fallibility and seeing it in others is to abandon ones right of ownership of the self as far as is possible and then to declare our human solidarity, both in Adam as in Christ. Disagree all you like, David but do try to get behind your ‘disagreement’ and have a good look at it!! I have few friends, David and I value their friendship highly but that does not mean I regard all others as somehow lacking.
// Disagree all you like, David but do try to get behind your ‘disagreement’ and have a good look at it!! //
David Smith writes:
“Those are the bodies the two sides are fighting over, the people who will adapt to practically anything the church and the clergy throw at them. They’re not much into thinking outside whatever box they find themselves in…”
The thing I find difficult about this statement, David, is that I don’t find many around this particular brand of ‘They’s’ around. I teach and catechize across a variety of settings, for example a middle class parish, a distinctly working class parish, a prison and, from time to time, my fellow deacons in a seminary. I also sometimes assist with whatever teaching courses get put on in our deanery and help out with pilgrimage and retreats here and there across the UK. I’ve been doing all this for several years now and so would dare guess think that I may have a broad idea of how quite a number of ordinary ‘parishioners’ operate their religious lives. Of course human beings differ in many ways but we are all imbued with a heart a soul a mind and a conscience. Perhaps you could substantiate your points a little better?
// David Smith writes:
“Those are the bodies the two sides are fighting over, the people who will adapt to practically anything the church and the clergy throw at them. They’re not much into thinking outside whatever box they find themselves in…”
The thing I find difficult about this statement, David, is that I don’t find many around this particular brand of ‘They’s’ around. … Perhaps you could substantiate your points a little better? //
Probably not, ignatius. You and I have fundamentally different ways of seeing life. You’re on the ground, working with lots of people. You see their differences. I have very little contact with people. I look at life mostly indirectly, from a distance, like a visiting alien; I see the similarities.
I wasn’t so much criticizing “normal” as remarking on how it perpetuates and strengthens conformity. Normal, typical, healthy citizens don’t fight authority because they have what they understand to be much more important things to do with their lives, like rearing families, surviving and prospering on the job, and staying healthy and safe and sane. One of the last things they would consider important is questioning what the Church tells them to think about their religion. They don’t want to turn their church experience into something stressful. Quite the opposite.
Yes, you are right in all this. I do live in very close contact with people, I’m also still an osteopath for 3 days a week as I refuse to retire completely…so sometimes it feels as if I swim in a tight packed shoal indeed!
But for persons of faith small or great, the questions still find their way into the heart where the real conversation is.
I think you are on target when you say that ordinary people have a good understanding of what actually the more important things in life are and that it is through these ordinary important things that genuine faith is revealed in such simple ways as fidelity,truth, compassion kindness etc and yes we come to church in the hope mainly of solace and companionship..all good.
I see plenty of sadness and darkness in this world-I was a nurse once, and I worked for Samaritans over a period of years as well as my current occupations. Nonetheless it is the light which comes into the darkness which is ours to celebrate so I agree with the words of Thomas Merton who, on returning from a rare trip to a nearby village and noticing the everyday kindness around him noted that ‘ if only people could see that they were walking around shining like stars ‘
Happy Christmas all..
TO QUENTIN, FELLOW BLOGGERS AND THE MANY READERS OF SECONDSIGHTBLOGDOTNET, I WISH YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND GOD’S BLESSING IN THE COMING YEAR.
Thank you, Nektarios. The same from me to you and yours and to everyone else here.
I think your position would change if you were privy to some of the info I have about Pope Francis.
This bit comes from American Intelligence.
In 1970, the new Pope Francis was directly connected and a collaborator with the then Junta in Argentina.
He was directly responsible for the deaths of four American Catholic nuns and many, many other people at that time.
America wanted to have him arrested as a criminal which he should have been. If he had moral stature, he lost it then and never regained it.
His present Globalist views are not mere views but actions he is taking to bring it about. If you want to know anything about Globalism, the EU and the UN its roots are in Nazi Germany and these plans for Globalism, which is evil and anti-human, against Nations and borders were thought up then.
He is a criminal, there is much more that can be said about the Pope’s character, actions and involvements but I am not going to speculate.
The issues you raise are actually included in the recent film “The Two Popes”, I commend it to everybody as it is about sin, repentance and conversion. Francis openly admits that priests died as a result of his decisions at the time of the Junta.
This is all encouraging paranoia, and fear. How do we know what is fake news and what has actually happened. We know that Christ came to love and redeem and save us. and we are celebrating his birth this very night. . A very Happy Christmas to all!
I have sent the file by my reputable source to Quentin. If you want to see and listen to it
I am sure he will provide it. Have a blessed Christmas.
I should just say the file to which Nektarios refers has not arrived here. However. I am unlikely to have time to study it. It would take time — which I have not got.
I have been approached by some of you criticising me for not excluding the comment in question. That is not my usual way. I prefer to leave the readers to comment. I think, however, that they have a case.
What Nektarios needs to do is to is to produce leads to receptable studies. That is, studies by experts published in respectable sources. It would need to include at least some published in the Catholic media. I need to to see this in the next 48 hours lest the Blog might be seen as supporting a libel.
I sent you the file to your blue yonder address. what I have given you is multi-layered,
by a reputable expert and post-American Intelligence information. By the nature of it, I did not post in on the blog. Thought it would be better for you to listen and watch it.
I would suggest you take the time to watch what I sent even if it pressures you a little.
Like I say this is multi-layered of which a part concerns Pope Francis. Helps one see the big picture clearer. And as you know events move pretty fast in world affairs on some things political and religious, usually hidden from sight till the very last moment.
I would certainly not post what I sent you in the Herald or Catholic Media, for then, even though the article in question isn’t mine, it is known and dynamite.
So you still make your claim, publicly, as you did on Dec 24th, that Pope Francis is a murdering criminal?
Because, as I read quentins post it says that you have been given 48 hours to prove your case using reputable sources some of which would have to be already published -not by yourself but by recognised experts. Some of the material you would need to produce must also be already existing within Catholic media. If you cannot produce this within 48 hours of Quentin’s requesting, then the question of libel may arise. Quentin may of course correct me on this if my reading is incorrect.
Yes, this is roughly what I said. But it will take Nektarios a good bit longer than that as we should have to take into account his other, and similar, comments. So far I have spent nearly three days to deal with all of this.
As I wrote to Quentin, I did recognise the incendiary nature of what I posted, but referring to Pope Francis was not my words but the words of my source who was in American Intelligence, a Doctor and Psychiatrist in the 1970s.
One knows when one is over the target as it were when it brings forth all sorts of defence mechanisms.
I admit it is alarming, not a false flag as some may say, but information that is not fake, but has been hidden from us all till recently.
If anything it was a wakeup call and be informed what is happening in the Church/ churches around the world then leading to all that is happening now.
And Quentin, I am sorry if it has bogged down your time. As this was my reliable source, on claiming the now Pope Francis was a criminal in the sense he was directly responsible for the deaths of four American Catholic nuns and many others as he collaborated with the Junta then.
This was known to American Intelligence and had plans to get him out and put him on trial.
My source was involved in all of that then, that is how my source knows about all that more or less first hand.
I won’t be bringing out more evidence on this, and I certainly would not expect to find it from those in authority within the Catholic Church unless they submitted it with proof.
Forgive me but these words below are your own words, are they not? For these words you are responsible are you not?
“He is a criminal, there is much more that can be said about the Pope’s character, actions and involvements but I am not going to speculate”
Yes, I did place my authoritative source’ statement on the blog, it is their words I am quoting. Anyway, as he has in part already admitted to some of it already. What actions and involvement were involved, I can only go on reliable source material.
Sorry but it is best to be honest about ones actions, the words you used in your post were not quotes were they? The words you used were written by you, yourself, and no one else. I will copy them here again for you in case you have forgotten them.
…If you want to know anything about Globalism, the EU and the UN its roots are in Nazi Germany and these plans for Globalism, which is evil and anti-human, against Nations and borders were thought up then.
He is a criminal, there is much more that can be said about the Pope’s character, actions and involvements but I am not going to speculate……..
These are your words, your accusation, Nektarios, you wrote them and they are not a quotation but a dogmatic assertion naming Pope Francis as a criminal. You are therefore liable for them are you not?
All these are quotes from my sources including the one where the evidence by the American Intelligence at the time said he was a criminal. I posted them on the blog because the source was reliable and it was a quote from the source who was involved with the matter at the time.
All that I have done is pass on the information, that is all. These are known facts, you should be awake and alert to what is going on in your Church.
So, Ignatius, please stop trying to incur guilt on me. It was not me that was a collaborator with the Junta and responsible directly for the deaths of four American nuns and many others some of which he has admitted by the present Pope Francis.
You are dodging the issue.
Ignatius, look at the note I have added to the Blog itself. It wasn’t practical to remove so many items and still leave the discussion itself coherent.
Ah yes, sorry, I missed that. Makes the issue of Nektarios’ personal responsibility very clear.
And what would my personal responsibility be would you think since you think it oh so clear?
in case you haven’t scrolled back to the beginning of these posts and missed the caveat Quentin has felt obliged to post here it is for you:
“Among the large number of comments to this item there are some serious accusations concerning Pope Francis, with inadeqate evidence to support them. I would emphasise that such comments do not reflect the views of Secondsight Blog. They are the responsibity of the contributor. ..”
These are Quentin’s words posted at the top of this thread. Go back to the top of the post about Francis and you will see see it quite, written clearly and plainly, for all to see.
There were some serious allegations about the Pope’s time previous to being made Pope going back to the 1970s when in charge in Argentina, and with inadequate evidence to support them, says Quentin.
Not so, as these revelations came out a little later, Pope Francis admitted he was responsible for the deaths at the hands of the Junta with whom he was collaborating, of many priests, 4 American nuns, and many more. These are facts. Hard though it is these are the facts. I know it is difficult to accept but these are some of the facts concerning this matter.
Like so many atrocities, conveniently swept under the carpet while these leaders walk free and not only save their own skin but get promoted.
Clearly, you see me attacking the Pope, I am not. Something came up and I presented a little to you and the file to Quentin because I saw this was the reaction I expected.
So please these are known and accepted facts and admitted by Pope Francis. It is an end to the matter as far as I am concerned.
Lets try and get at least a little light to shine upon your messianic tendencies towards febrile fantasy, lets try with some credibly sourced journalistic insight:
Your ability to present conspiracy theory as truth worries me Nektarios. Clearly you believe yourself to be infallible.
You do talk tosh sometimes. I am well aware of the situation Pope Francis faced back then.
I am far from infallible as you are or any man.
As to the merits or demerits, I cannot speak.
Error: Should have read, As to the merits or demerits of the Guardian I cannot speak.
an anonymous American intelligence source is credible but a mainstream UK newspaper which is pretty left wing absolves Francis of guilt and you are nor sure of merits or demerits.
Anyone unsure of the US position in South America at this time should look up Operation Condor. One of the techniques favoured by the US is to send Evangelical Protestant missionaries into South America to undermine the Catholic church because our Gospel based ‘preferential option for the poor’ is too left wing.