In writing about any Pope, journalists (both secular and, sadly, Catholic) use political categories (conservative and liberal) and never tell their readers what the duties of a Pope are, and that is prolly because the vast majority of Catholic and secular journalists do not know what his job is.
How'n'hell can any man - Catholic or otherwise - decide whether or not any Pope is"doing a good job" if nobody knows what'n'hell his job is?
I don't know, but I think the journalists' labels of "liberal" and "conservative" more often err on the side of being naive, not wrong, so are still helpful despite their ill-informedness i.e. John Paul II was not actually overly conservative, but where the media called him so he was at least hewing to the better direction. Likewise, NeoCaths denial to the contrary, Francis is hardly "essentially" conservative in his public commentaries, but rather liberal. The journalists don't know the details, but they smell correctly. Francis is more like Obama, JPII like Reagan or Bush.The 'political' categories actually do help, since these popes are as a political as all get out. If they weren't, there would be no controversy.
Dear JM One major problem with applying political categories to Popes/Church/Doctrine is that, for instance, into what political category does one fit our opposition to usury?
Were a Pope to be faithfully discharging his duties, he would be hated by at least one-half of the world and the entirety of the Zionist controlled media but we Catholics are always so faltered by various polls showing how the world loves and or accepts us today.
When the world starts praising the earthly head of One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, then we know we are completely screwed.
We're ABS to be elected Pope (He is thinking of throwing his imaginary Triregnum into the ring, btw) we could be sure that more than one-half of the world would hate us
O, on second thought JM, maybe you are right for today's political conservatives are yesterday's liberals and that does reflect the conservative catholic laity who used to be aghast at the idea of chicks serving in the sanctuary but now bray and bellow that their presence there is no biggie.
And what can one say about the conservative Bishops at V2 who were not too keen on the revolutionary Lil' Licit Liturgy but rapidly began to not only embrace it but who turned down all requests for the Indult.
Still, unless one talks in terms of traditionalists and reformers vis a vis the praxis of Popes and Prelates, then there is no solid standard existing over time by which one can measure against it the praxis of the reformers.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, here is one way to judge the praxis of any and all Popes:
He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.
By that measure, Our Pope and Our Cross is a complete and utter failure when it comes to discharging his duties and his vestments, cavalier actions doing the Mass, heterodox proposals, ceaseless demands we accept surprises, calling the great commission solemn nonsense , etc etc etc are the semiotics signaling his radical creed to all who are not willfully blind.
4 comments:
In writing about any Pope, journalists (both secular and, sadly, Catholic) use political categories (conservative and liberal) and never tell their readers what the duties of a Pope are, and that is prolly because the vast majority of Catholic and secular journalists do not know what his job is.
How'n'hell can any man - Catholic or otherwise - decide whether or not any Pope is"doing a good job" if nobody knows what'n'hell his job is?
I don't know, but I think the journalists' labels of "liberal" and "conservative" more often err on the side of being naive, not wrong, so are still helpful despite their ill-informedness i.e. John Paul II was not actually overly conservative, but where the media called him so he was at least hewing to the better direction. Likewise, NeoCaths denial to the contrary, Francis is hardly "essentially" conservative in his public commentaries, but rather liberal. The journalists don't know the details, but they smell correctly. Francis is more like Obama, JPII like Reagan or Bush.The 'political' categories actually do help, since these popes are as a political as all get out. If they weren't, there would be no controversy.
Dear JM One major problem with applying political categories to Popes/Church/Doctrine is that, for instance, into what political category does one fit our opposition to usury?
Were a Pope to be faithfully discharging his duties, he would be hated by at least one-half of the world and the entirety of the Zionist controlled media but we Catholics are always so faltered by various polls showing how the world loves and or accepts us today.
When the world starts praising the earthly head of One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, then we know we are completely screwed.
We're ABS to be elected Pope (He is thinking of throwing his imaginary Triregnum into the ring, btw) we could be sure that more than one-half of the world would hate us
O, on second thought JM, maybe you are right for today's political conservatives are yesterday's liberals and that does reflect the conservative catholic laity who used to be aghast at the idea of chicks serving in the sanctuary but now bray and bellow that their presence there is no biggie.
And what can one say about the conservative Bishops at V2 who were not too keen on the revolutionary Lil' Licit Liturgy but rapidly began to not only embrace it but who turned down all requests for the Indult.
Still, unless one talks in terms of traditionalists and reformers vis a vis the praxis of Popes and Prelates, then there is no solid standard existing over time by which one can measure against it the praxis of the reformers.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, here is one way to judge the praxis of any and all Popes:
He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.
By that measure, Our Pope and Our Cross is a complete and utter failure when it comes to discharging his duties and his vestments, cavalier actions doing the Mass, heterodox proposals, ceaseless demands we accept surprises, calling the great commission solemn nonsense , etc etc etc are the semiotics signaling his radical creed to all who are not willfully blind.
Post a Comment