Guest Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) Anyhow I got it from Roy from a public post and thought it applied to this. This is Roy. I will see if I can get him to post here. Just now, bardegaulois said: If you can show me a time I, or for that matter any decent Catholic writer, has ever tried to malign the reputation of Pope Francis unjustly, moreover, I'd love to see it. Are you serious? You want me to start naming names? That's not a problem. Edited January 9, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bardegaulois Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Josh said: Anyhow I got it from Roy from a public post and thought it applied to this. This is Roy. I will see if I can get him to post here. Are you serious? You want me to start naming names? You can't say that others (myself included) have smeared the Pope without providing evidence, Josh. Provide evidence or drop your case. If you can't, then I too am done with this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Just now, KnightofChrist said: I think it's sad you've adopted worldly attacks on the Church Worldly attacks on the Church? Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 It is worth noting that the Pharisees in Our Lord's time spent considerable effort finding loopholes by which divorce could be more and more permissive, whereas Christ Himself told them to smarten up and knock it off. It is kind of weird, then, to accuse defenders of marriage of Phariseeism. I quite like the name of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. It is a timely reminder of Christ's absolute authority in both the secular and ecclesial spheres. Over the external world and our internal lives. His Word is law, and we conform ourselves to His law. Not vice versa. All in good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) I thought Roy made a good comparison. Maybe he was wrong and influenced me negatively. So do you disagree with the Cardinal that no correction is needed and that the public dubia was damaging to the Church? Edited January 9, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Josh said: I thought Roy made a good comparison. Maybe he was wrong and influenced me negatively. So do you disagree with the Cardinal that no correction is needed and that the public dubia was damaging to the Church? I believe that the issuing of the dubia is to the benefit of the Church and the papacy. Even if, in the short term, some individuals or groups feel rather affronted or stymied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Josh said: Worldly attacks on the Church? Where? The comparison of Cardinal Burke and the Pharisees. That is a typical type of accusation against Catholics from those outside the Church, ie accusing Catholics of being unloving, uncaring, judgmental, more concerned with ones outward appearance, etc etc because they believe what the Church has always taught. Growing up in the South with a great many anti-catholic accusers I've heard the Catholic = Pharisees comparison made many times when defending the Church, in short Canon Law = the Pharisees enforcing the Law of Moses, Catholic Tradition = the Tradition of the Pharisees, Catholic Prayer = the Pharisees who prayed for attention. It always makes me sad me to see the same kind of comparisons are made by non-traditional Catholics against traditional Catholics. Have you seen what Christ says about the Pharisees? Among His many woes to them he says they are fit for hell and those that follow them are twice as fit for hell than they. (Matthew 23:15) If you think the comparison is good then I ask you is Cardinal Burke fit for hell and those that follow him twice as fit? Does Cardinal Burke preach what he does not practice? Does he give burdens to others he is not himself willing to do? Does he do deeds only to be seen by others? Is he a hypocrite? Does he shut the kingdom of heaven to himself and others? Is Cardinal Burke a "child of hell" are those that follow him twice the "children of hell"? Is Cardinal Burke blind and is he a fool? Is he full of greed and self-indulgence? Does he outwardly appear righteous to others, but within he is full of hypocrisy and lawlessness? Is he a serpent, a brood of vipers? I could go on, but these are some of the sins that the Pharisees were guilty of committing which Christ condemned them. Comparing Cardinal Burke and the others to the Pharisees is extremely serious. Do you still believe the comparison to be good or do you wish to admit it was a mistake that you didn't think out? If you still think the comparison is good please show comparable examples of Cardinal Burke's sins that are like the sins of the Pharisees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) Just now, KnightofChrist said: Among His many woes to them he says they are fit for hell and those that follow them are twice as fit for hell than they. (Matthew 23:15) If you think the comparison is good then I ask you is Cardinal Burke fit for hell and those that follow him twice as fit? Does Cardinal Burke preach what he does not practice? Does he give burdens to others he is not himself willing to do? Does he do deeds only to be seen by others? Is he a hypocrite? Does he shut the kingdom of heaven to himself and others? Is Cardinal Burke a "child of hell" are those that follow him twice the "children of hell"? Is Cardinal Burke blind and is he a fool? Is he full of greed and self-indulgence? Does he outwardly appear righteous to others, but within he is full of hypocrisy and lawlessness? Is he a serpent, a brood of vipers? I could go on, but these are some of the sins that the Pharisees were guilty of committing which Christ condemned them. Comparing Cardinal Burke and the others to the Pharisees is extremely serious. Do you still believe the comparison to be good or do you wish to admit it was a mistake that you didn't think out? If you still think the comparison is good please show comparable examples of Cardinal Burke's sins that are like the sins of the Pharisees. Well......When you put it like that then I could see how the comparison is not a good idea. I will concede I was poorly influenced by Roy with his post and it wasn't prudent of me to repost it and perhaps gravely sinful. I apologize. I hope you accept it. Now if only Hillary White and other best Catholics of all time could also find the humility to apologize for the wicked and demeaning things they have written/said about the Holy Father and CONTINUE to write and say. Like calling him a ******. That's pretty serious as well correct? I mean he is our Pope right? Edited January 9, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 It certainly seems to be probably sinful to resort to vulgar insults with regards to the Holy Father. But criticism of him would not be per se sinful, so there is a fine line there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I'm all for criticism. I just think the line has to be drawn when you're calling him a fa****, saying he's a false prophet, not a valid pope ect ect and showing straight up hate and contempt for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, Josh said: Well......When you put it like that then I could see how the comparison is not a good idea. I will concede I was poorly influenced by Roy with his post and it wasn't prudent of me to repost it and perhaps gravely sinful. I apologize. I hope you accept it. Now if only Hillary White and other best Catholics of all time could also find the humility to apologize for the wicked and demeaning things they have written/said about the Holy Father and CONTINUE to write and say. Like calling him a ******. That's pretty serious as well correct? I mean he is our Pope right? Pope Francis is the Holy Pontiff and calling him or others names like that is unacceptable. They should repent, because we will have to answer for ever idle word we state. But if they do not you cannot allow them to endanger your own soul. I don't read Ms. White's works. I stay away from those that would use language like that yet claim to be proclaiming the Faith. I would suggest that you also stay away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Do you read the Remnant? They publish her articles. How about One Peter Five? They also publish her articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Josh said: Do you read the Remnant? They publish her articles. How about One Peter Five? They also publish her articles. I don't read her articles, but I have read those outlets. I also don't read Mark Shea and others like him (whom I also do not care for based on similar reasons) when he worked for EWTN but I still watched, listened and read EWTN. And whatever outlet he works for or with now I would perhaps read just not his works. Edited January 9, 2017 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) I think EWTN is above and beyond the other two in legitimacy. I browse all 3. The remnant I think may be in grave danger. Not my call though. Prayers for all "Catholic" media outlets. Edited January 9, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Josh said: I'm all for criticism. I just think the line has to be drawn when you're calling him a fa****, saying he's a false prophet, not a valid pope ect ect and showing straight up hate and contempt for him. Certainly. I do not remember if you showed me context for that quote, but in any case to actually call the Holy Father that word is not acceptable. Using that word in the context of a broader critique seems imprudent at the very best. (But perhaps not necessasrily sinful in the same manner.) 15 minutes ago, Josh said: Do you read the Remnant? They publish her articles. How about One Peter Five? They also publish her articles. They may publish her, but they do not necessarily formally support every single one of her utterances. We can debate the prudence of giving a platform to problematic statements, but you cannot just assume a point-to-point correspondance between all of them just because of the association. (As a side point, are we entirely certain that was Hilary White and not that one woman who sounds like she is channeling Ayn Rand all the time? Forget her name... But do not like her, anyway.) Ann Barnhardt. That is the very disagreeable woman who sounds like she is channeling Ayn Rand. Are we sure that it was not her? Because it sounds rather more like something she would say. I read that Ms. Barnhardt recently denied that Francis was validly elected, and considers Benedict to remain pope. Perhaps that is why she has not been published on The Remnant recently. Edited January 9, 2017 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now