"But you must be constructive in criticism, because there is a destructive criticism, which only makes a lot of complaints but does not offer a new way forward." He talks about a "new way forward". There is only ONE way, the way of the Cross. Then he mentions the importance of being a "critical thinker", but goes on and on about criticizing.....which implies indicating faults, but in a disapproving way. Critical thinking is good, but criticising in the way he is speaking? Not so much, imho. I don't believe "critical thinking" and "criticizing" are the same thing. One seeks and is open to truth, the other, well, just criticizes. Later he goes on to say the following: "Young people must have the courage to build, to move forward and go out of their “comfort zones”. A young person who chooses always to spend his or her time in “comfort” is a young person who becomes fat! Not fatter in body, but fatter in mind! That is why I say to young people, “Take risks, go out! Do not be afraid!”. Fear is a dictatorial attitude that paralyzes you." Courage is good, if one has discerned that one is being called to do "such and such" a thing. How does one do that? Why prayer of course!! Pray, hope and don't worry! He does not mention that word even one time. My brain translates this as "Go do whatever you believe and don't worry about the mistakes!!" Well, if you follow that, as anyone who is prone to making rash decisions knows, there's probably gonna be some sort of reckoning.. Then we have this gem: "One of the things that has impressed me most about the young people here is your capacity for interfaith dialogue. This is very important because if you start arguing, “My religion is more important than yours...,” or “Mine is the true one, yours is not true....,” where does this lead? Somebody answer. [A young person answers, “Destruction”.] That is correct. All religions are paths to God." There's a big difference between "arguing" over religion and presenting respectfully the tenets of the Faith one follows or at the very least, purports to believe. He doesn't get that. And, astonishingly enough, the word PRAYER, does not appear even once in his speech, nor does Jesus' Name. The word "christian" appears once. The insidious "dialogue" appears 12 times. Dialogue in this context, as well as in synodal jargon is more akin to verbal diar****; something to wash away down the drain. Dialogue does not, imho, lead to truth. It leads to confusion and anger. The photos we have seen lately pretty much prove the effect of constant "dialogue" on one's countenance. St. Philip Neri offers the following ~ " He who runs away from one cross, will meet a bigger one on his road." The scariest part of the speech, imho, is this - "I would like to tell you something about history: with every dictatorship in history, the first thing it does is to cut off dialogue." Who spent more time in real conversation (the kind that leads one to truly think) with people than Jesus Christ during His time here in the flesh? And He never criticized anyone (except the Pharisees, that is). He humbly spoke the Truth and people were free to take it or leave it. Our Jesus never imposed anything on anyone, not even dialogue...... https://www.vatican.va/content/fran...ber/documents/20240913-singapore-giovani.html
It is only a wild guess but an awful lot of what he says and does reminds me of a very immature boy of about 15 or 16 years old. Sometimes for one reason or another people seem to get frozen at a certain age of emotional growth and never move forward. Never develop further. If we are in real terms dealing with a young teen here it would explain a lot.
As I see it, "an argument generates a lot of heat but no light". I'm thoroughly Catholic and believe this Faith is the "straight and narrow path" to heaven. But I also believe God love a ALL His children and ONLY HE can Judge. I believe the mystics when, with the 'Good Thief', they see the most unexpected people in heaven, or on their way, in Purgatory. I also see so much 'Personality Politics' as distinct from policy, as well as deliberate misinformation and very deliberate scripting of speeches for a purpose. The media [and Pope critics] harp on every word, casual word and those out of context. I'm no fan of Pope Francis, yet I know 'catholic trads' who think St Pope John-Paul II started the demise. I cannot understand how you could not love the man. I was shocked when a protestant friend called him 'the antichrist' Conservative sources point out how Kamala Harris addresses different crowds differently [while Trump simply speaks his mind] I'm not a fan, but the Pope has given his life to God more than I. He addresses different crowds differently - he is not addressing you or I, he is not preaching the Truth to 'the choir' but reaching out to those not as gifted with the Faith as you and I, hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit. We must pray for him and all the clergy - without them we have nothing!
Who were the 'teenagers' that assisted him on the path to the papacy, instead of keeping him tending the garden in some out-of-the-way Jesuit monastery?
I fully agree with you about St JPII. I pray to him as often as I can. I can see no comparison whatsoever between this staunch pope and Pope Francis. Any pope that would genuinely strive to reach out to the alienated and confused would require a completely different approach than the indifferentist, confused and self-contradictory one adopted by Pope Francis. The alienated and confused need a sharp focus, not more of the fuzzy, differentiated landscape they already occupy. As JPII often preached, with great success, to young people; they need CHRIST.
I have always understood in the teachings that I got under JPII and Pope Benedict that the largest number of converts into Christianity came from Pagan people, and not from the people of the 1st covenant whom we call Jews today but were really Israelites back then (Jews then were just one tribe and they were mostly the bad guys in the time of the Messiah cause they were into controlling the Temple instead of saving souls for God...) So were past Vicars out to lunch too? Cause it seems like the first House had gone off track big time and because the people in charge and a good part of the faithful were super prideful about being "chosen" they were in the dark and hence did not understand their own Son the Messiah. So being in the true House when it veers off course seems like it was more of an impedement to understanding anything at all and the pagans were better disposed to receive the teachings of Jesus and then so many of them, our heroes in the faith today, were pagans. Honestly this forum seems like it is in the muck with all the pope bashing, it is sickening. Try thinking about new converts please and consider how they would feel coming here seeing this stuff - they would be lost to see a house so divided that seems to hate its own father. If I get blasted for this, then let me remind everyone that 1st Friday and Saturday is coming up soon giving us chance to repair again. I may leave the forum by then. God Bless those of good will.
If I've contributed to your angst in this regard, I wholeheartedly apologize. To my mind, the new converts know well and good the situation, and yet they still come. Grace abounds in times such as these. Imho, they are strengthening God's Kingdom on this earth; may God abundantly bless every single one of them. As for Pope bashing, it seems like there's been a lot of calls as well to pray for the pope. Like the rest of us, he needs them. I pray you stay on the forum. Your kindness and wisdom adds a great deal here, imo.
Good post. For myself I pray for PF and decline to comment on the rest. I don't condemn those who do but I keep my own counsel on the subject. The priest at Mass yesterday gave a wonderful homily. Here is a particularly good gem worth pondering: We are always impatient but God is never in a hurry. All day I thought on this and took comfort from it. God is working this out. According to His sovereign Will which always for our best good.
I love what your priest said! And what you thought about it! The old adage comes to mind: Least said, soonest mended.
I don't see this so much as Pope bashing as much as people frustrated with what Pope Francis says and does on a regular basis. People have genuine concerns and express them. It's my observation that this board is quite balanced overall with both criticism and expressing the beautiful parts of the church. The daily prayers and prayer requests comes to mind. Interesting conversations as of late regarding living in the Kingdom of Heaven/Spirit. Church history and the Saints. If the board was leaning too much one way or the other I would be concerned. This isn't meant to criticize you, but to give you my impression of this message board, which isn't quite the same as yours.
my pet peeve is he doesn't reference or emphasize Jainism religion ,but yes Islam or Judaism. of all pagan religions Jainism is the nicest, I haven't found any record at all of a jain terrorist group or attack. they don't even kill bugs, their founder Mahavira preached pacifism but some judaism has become an excuse of militarized settlers and islam, well...
Effectively, Pope Francis is telling present pagans that they have no need to convert. How is that going to achieve many converts? As regards your accusations against many forum members, of 'pope-bashing', perhaps you ought to look back over some historical posts, extending from the appointment of Pope Francis, which would reveal the reluctance of all of us to believe what was happening before our very eyes and our imaginative attempts to defend his earlier decisions.
I do not think there is any Pope-bashing on this forum. We are Catholics and honour the Popes. Regarding Pope Francis, the first question is whether he is actually the Supreme Pontiff. This is a question of fact and depends on the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict, the validity of his election by the self-declared "St. Gallen-Mafia", etc. A second question is, if Pope Francis was truly the Supreme Pontiff, whether by way of teaching heresy he has lost the papacy or even excommunicated himself. Personally, I think this second question is dangerous territory for the laity, whilst the first question seems quite clear in my mind. This thread seems to be about the second question, so I must admit I have not followed it entirely. But of course, different people emphasise different things. I just wanted to respond to your post, because you also speak about "hate", and I find this off-putting. I don't think anyone here on this forum is a hater; rather, the people who use these kind of accusations (such as some leftits) often project their own hatred on others. In the end, I am only a layman, so I only have reservations about whether Pope Francis is Pope. I publicly declare that he is truly the Pope, following a "recognise and resist"-stance, in line with the SSPX. Anyway, truth can be found by way of discussing the objective facts, not by glossing over them. This approach is actually helpful for new converts, many of whom will struggle observing the strange actions and teachings of 'Pope Francis'. You say that Pope Francis is our father. That is begging the question. The objective facts regarding numerous severe problems with the papacy of Pope Francis are obvious. They need to be discussed freely, and with charity. God bless you and all here on this forum!
If anyone on the forum ever wanted or wants to post in support of Papa Frankie and his various goings on they have always and will always be free to do so. If anyone wants to critique Papa Frankie they have always been free to do so. If anyone thinks I am going to censor people's opinions, one way or the other, they are going to have a long wait.
