I think his take on why we've seen what we have out of the current pontiff is the best explanation out there, because it encompasses more than one man or one wing of Catholicism:
It's as painful to read as it was for Prager to write. Leftism is indeed the most dynamic religion in the world today, and it's getting pretty late for turning back to real worship of the real God without incurring regrettable results.How are we to explain that at the very moment that the oldest Christian communities in the world are being violently destroyed; that while Christians are murdered, raped and tortured in Africa and the Middle East; and while horrific barbarities are committed daily in the name of God, the pope issues an encyclical and travels around the world to talk about climate change?It is happening because leftism has taken over much of Catholicism, most of mainstream Protestantism, increasing numbers of evangelicals and most of non-Orthodox Judaism. Not to mention the secular worlds of the news media, entertainment media and academia.It is happening because the default philosophic, moral and political position in Latin America is leftism. Support for big government and the redistribution of income, and condemnation of capitalism and corporate profits — these are givens in Latin America. And Pope Francis is Latin American to the core.His leftism was the primary reason he worked so diligently to get the United States to normalize relations with the Castro brothers in Cuba — instead of using his moral authority to condemn a brutal tyranny that has crushed and impoverished the Cuban people for 55 years.Senator Marco Rubio, a practicing Catholic, put it succinctly:“I would also ask His Holiness to take up the cause of freedom and democracy.”In the long run, this will bring down the Church — just as it has mainstream Protestantism and non-Orthodox Judaism — as well as diminish decency on earth.It is, moreover, clear that the pope has been so influenced by leftism that he appears to know only the propaganda, not the science. For example, the typhoon in the Philippines had nothing to do with global warming. The leading science journal, Nature, wrote as much:“Did climate change cause Typhoon Haiyan? There is limited evidence that warming oceans could make superstorms more likely.”Defenders of Pope Francis note that Pope Benedict, too, spoke eloquently about man’s obligations to protect nature. That is true. And it is irrelevant. First, he issued no encyclical on the issue; his encyclicals were, like almost every papal encyclical, non-political. Second, everyone knows we have an obligation to care for the planet. But caring for the planet has as much to do with left-wing environmentalism as protecting workers had to do with Communism.
You really should see if the jews will take you bloggie, lol.
ReplyDeleteCatholicism has always been leftist, er communal. Consider monastic life. Vows of poverty, chastity and obedience are taken, of course not always followed. Judaism, inferring a superior position as the chosen, on the other hand, has always prided itself on the success and reward coming from individual and collective achievement allowing its adherents to rule rather than follow. Jesus, a Jew, referred to his flock. The jews were the wolves. They hung the shepherd on the cross.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering what in the cosmos real worship of the real God looks like. That is quite a debate you surely know.
ReplyDeleteAnd, just as Prager observes, the global warming issue has become politicized. If it is indeed real, then it is the most single most important issue ever in all of history before us as rational sentient beings under whatever prime mover there may be.
ReplyDeleteThe divinely installed Vicar of Christ is still the Vicar of Christ whether it is today or a mere 2000 years ago. It is believed he speaks for Christ! Now schism on outta here as your Jewish commentator beckons for you to do.
ReplyDelete"To protect Jesus with Mary, to protect the whole of creation, to protect each person, especially the poorest, to protect ourselves: this is a service that the Bishop of Rome is called to carry out, yet one to which all of us are called, so that the star of hope will shine brightly. Let us protect with love all that God has given us! I implore the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph, Saints Peter and Paul, and Saint Francis, that the Holy Spirit may accompany my ministry, and I ask all of you to pray for me! Amen."
--from the HOMILY OF POPE FRANCIS at the MASS, IMPOSITION OF THE PALLIUM AND BESTOWAL OF THE FISHERMAN'S RING FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE PETRINE MINISTRYOF THE BISHOP OF ROME, HOMILY OF POPE FRANCIS, Saint Peter's Square, Tuesday, 19 March 2013, Solemnity of Saint Joseph
Perhaps the current VoC read this;
ReplyDelete"So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon. In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming."
read more at http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
You do understand that preconcliiar Catholicism has been described as Counter Enlightenment. Science wasn't much recognized and the Pope was considered even more infallible than he is today. Americans never bought either concept much. So don't be too afraid that Americans will buy what the Pope says today. Also, there have indeed been a few bad apples, if you want to read some Garry Wills, if his works aren't on your Index Liberorum Prohibitorum. You and Prager likely don't really know all that much about it, but, no matter to you whose traditions either were schisimed or schisimed. But, you need to know that papal authority was left untouched by Vatican II when some of your more conservative ilk claim the smoke of Satan entered the proceedings. So, what you worry? Thanks, though for predicting a schism. Now there will ensue arguments about which schism is the one true church, or, as you put it, the real worshipers of the real God. Deja vu all over again. That doggone God, He must speak a different language than us humans. My credentials? Cradle Catholic who wore a uniform the same as all the boomer faithful, force fed doctrine memorized and spat back on a test the next day, daily, marched into and out of Mass daily before class, who even took 6 hours of religious studies at a major cow college in America and reads widely on such matters to stay briefed. That's all. God is said to be found in a monastic life of reflection and prayer and meditaion which is, of course, grossly unamerican.
ReplyDeleteGo forth, as they say, to love and serve the Lord. Ita Missa est, until we gather together again.
It may be the Devil, it may be the Anti-Christ!
ReplyDeleteQuestion: "Is the pope, or the next pope, the antichrist?"
Answer: There are many speculations about the identity of the Antichrist. One of the most frequent “victims” of the speculation is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. In the days of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and some of the other Reformers were convinced that the Pope of that time was the Antichrist. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were commonly identified as the Antichrist. The current Pope, Francis I, will likely be an equally popular target. Why is this? Is there anything in the Bible that would indicate that a Pope will be the Antichrist?
Whoever the Antichrist turns out to be, the important thing is to be warned of his coming and learn to recognize him and all who possess his spirit. First John 4:2-3 tells us how to identify the spirit of Antichrist: "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God" (NKJV). The current Pope, Francis I, acknowledges Jesus as being from God and Jesus as coming in the flesh (see 1 John 4:2). While we disagree with Pope Francis I on numerous areas of Catholic doctrine, his view of the Person of Jesus Christ is biblical. Therefore, it’s hard to believe that Pope Francis I is the Antichrist. While we believe it is possible for a Pope to be the Antichrist, the Bible does not give specific enough information to be dogmatic. A future Pope very well may be the Antichrist, or perhaps the Antichrist’s false prophet (Revelation 13:11-17). If so, this future Pope will be clearly identified by a denial of Jesus as coming in the flesh.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/pope-antichrist.html#ixzz3OQusNCkL