Fratelli Tutti- I interview Pedro Gabriel of WherePeterIs.com in response to recent criticism of the Encyclical

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

Like "Pope is silent because Jesus was silent" - an example discussed on this phorum a few times.

Fair enough.  But then in speaking to "Pope silent because Jesus was" (paraphrasing) why imply it was under discussion in this thread or implied in this thread.  It never has been insofar as this thread is concerned, that I am aware of any way.  Why not "it has been said on Phatmass before that ....and that is what I am speaking to now".

 

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Speaking bluntly - and I have been trying to refrain from it for some time despite your somewhat offensive messages - is not all about you although your latest message sound very much like it is. 

Sweeping generalization! 

I don't think everything is about me and false conclusion.  I think some things are about me.  Some things are because my name has come up or something I have said has come up.  At other times, I am probably butting in on a subject not related to me in any way.  That to me anyway is ok in a discussion.

If I have offended you, my apologies.  Offence is not intended and I have given into an increasing sense of bemusion about statements made and frustration consequently experienced.  Reasons but no excuses.

You have been rather blunt at times.  Or at least, that is the way I have received your statements.  That can happen perhaps most especially in written statements.  The person stating is in written mode.  The person on the other end of statements receives or 'hears' those statements in a way possibly not intended.

 

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

"it is right for PF to be silent despite the pleas of his flock". So it is not me who "imagining things"

I cannot recall at all making a statement about "imagining things" in connection with PF being silent in the face of pleas of his flock.  An additional problem is that what you are stating is certainly right outside of my thinking.  I would never say it - completely foreign to me.

You seem to be connecting unconnected statements to your own purpose.  Could you post a link please to where I stated what you have said I stated.

@HumilityAndPatience I think I am half way through the video you posted.  Re feedback - it is only me personally, I am not making a generalized statement re all.  I learn by reading and a transcript  of the Q&A is what I would prefer.  My other personal comment is that I would prefer a video of the actual conversation, rather than images changing only here and there. I can learn best in that way as well.

I will be listening to the end of the video.  Take a break and then listen again.  At that point, I think I would be able to give you feedback about actual content from my personal viewpoint.  So far, I don't think there is anything, in that I agreed with content - and really welcomed what had been stated.

Thank you again for posting the video.

Edited November 25, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Anastasia]

  

58 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I cannot recall at all making a statement about "imagining things" in connection with PF being silent in the face of pleas of his flock.

I did not say that you did. However, I feel I did more than enough of explaining my words, definitely more than PF did so I choose to stop now. Those who are interested to understand my argument can simply read my messages.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Anastasia

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I did not say that you did

 

You quoted words which only I had used (i.e. "imagining things")and so I responded that I had not used those words in connection with, as you stated, PF being silent in the face of the pleas of his flock.  You made a connection that does not exist.

 

3 hours ago, Anastasia said:

However, I feel I did more than enough of explaining my words, definitely more than PF did so I choose to stop now.

Stonewalling

 

 

 

[HumilityAndPatience]

On 11/25/2020 at 2:22 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

What on earth are you on about !!!  It is amazing, truly amazing that concepts suddenly appear in this thread coming from nowhere at all except the poster's own head.  Then that poster has an argument with the concepts... meaning he or she is merely talking to himself or herself, arguing with herself or himself.

 

 

At no point have I or anyone else in this thread stated that PF is acting like Jesus.  It is in your own head, your own mind.  If you want to argue with it?  Well, ok, free speech and all that.  It is the fact that you do not seem to recognize the reality of what you are doing, which could be a concern.

On 11/25/2020 at 5:45 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

I think I am half way through the video you posted.  Re feedback - it is only me personally, I am not making a generalized statement re all.  I learn by reading and a transcript  of the Q&A is what I would prefer.  My other personal comment is that I would prefer a video of the actual conversation, rather than images changing only here and there. I can learn best in that way as well.

I will be listening to the end of the video.  Take a break and then listen again.  At that point, I think I would be able to give you feedback about actual content from my personal viewpoint.  So far, I don't think there is anything, in that I agreed with content - and really welcomed what had been stated.

Thank you again for posting the video.

Thanks very much @BarbaraTherese I really appreciate the feedback (:

[Guest]

@HumilityAndPatience - not too sure when I will get around to it, but rest assured that it is on my To Do list 

 

 

 

[Aloysius]

Not particularly on the topic of Fratelli Tutti, but on the general point Lillabett was making I think there is a strong ring of truth: Pope Francis says something, it's widely reported as meaning one thing, and a litany of his orthodox defenders come out and explain what it really means and why it's not a contradiction to Catholic doctrine.  Lillabett's point remains: unless Pope Francis himself clarifies, he is permitting the alternative interpretation to run around the world and doing little to nothing to stop it.  Whether he does that on purpose or it's just a failure of his communication skills is a matter of opinion to be debated; but whether it is, in fact, the effect of many of his statements, I feel like that is irrefutable.  How many people out there think Pope Francis approves of gay marriage, believes there is no hell, believes divorce and remarriage is fine, wants to have women priests or at least deacons, thinks all religions are just as good as any other, etc. etc. etc.  and where are the pope's own words to quote to them to show where he corrected any of those misinterpretations of his words?

Now, the orthodox defenders of the pope can do a fine job showing that his words could be interpreted in an orthodox way, and it's all well and good to do that, but it is incumbent on Pope Francis himself to clarify if/when his words are widely misreported.  and it's not like it's just some niche traditionalist crank groups misinterpreting him--these are widespread, widely reported interpretations common people believe and many receive quite positively.

Sometimes it's the Vatican spokesman or secretary of state who comes out to clarify--that's a bit better, but it's still not the pope himself.  In the minds of many average people, such clarifications from the Vatican (if they even hear about them at all) are just the backwards old conservative Vatican doing damage control, Francis's image as someone who agrees with all the things they hope he agrees with them on remains.

So ultimately I think Lillabett makes a great point: these are your interpretations of something that, even if YOU don't think has ambiguity or ambivalence, nevertheless has been received with ambiguity and widely varying interpretations.  Your interpretations are just your opinion--the only one who could clarify is the pope himself, who really ought to do so.  anyway, it's a fair enough job you do trying to defend the pope's words--but the real business is not in convincing faithful Catholics troubled by it who wonder if he's contradicting a church teaching, but in convincing the masses of ordinary people who are convinced by Pope Francis's media reputation that people like you or the Vatican spokesmen are just getting in the way of a great progressive pope ready to finally get rid of all the things they dislike about Catholicism.  and for those people, just like for Lillabett, your words are just your opinion--it's Pope Francis's own words clarifying himself that would be necessary to change their mind.  But if Pope Francis actually came out and clarified on some of these issues in a clear and unambiguous way, he would likely lose many of these more worldly people's devotion and respect.

[Guest]

https://www.dw.com/en/vatican-clarifies-popes-comments-on-homosexual-unions/a-55478883

https://www.dw.com/en/vatican-clarifies-popes-comments-on-homosexual-unions/a-55478883

 

 

[Aloysius]

5 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

https://www.dw.com/en/vatican-clarifies-popes-comments-on-homosexual-unions/a-55478883

https://www.dw.com/en/vatican-clarifies-popes-comments-on-homosexual-unions/a-55478883

 

8 hours ago, Aloysius said:

Sometimes it's the Vatican spokesman or secretary of state who comes out to clarify--that's a bit better, but it's still not the pope himself.  In the minds of many average people, such clarifications from the Vatican (if they even hear about them at all) are just the backwards old conservative Vatican doing damage control, Francis's image as someone who agrees with all the things they hope he agrees with them on remains

The pattern remains.

I don't disagree that the pope's remarks were taken out of context especially in the gay civil unions debacle.  But by this being the Vatican spokesmen clarifying Francis gets to remain the 'who am i to judge' nice pope compared to his meanie predecessors or that big meanie Vatican who's always coming out with clarifications, his image doesn't get the backlash that would come with his own words coming out in a strongly worded statement.  This just seems to be the pattern much of his pontificate has followed, and believe me many average people who want Francis to be changing doctrines like this have this impression, I'd say based on media articles and coverage and anecdotal conversations with ppl who don't pay attention to much but things like this get filtered down to them through the media, it's probably the dominant media image of Francis on the issue.

[Guest]

Above Post is quite valid - but only as a strictly personal opinion.  Nothing to support statements other than other personal opinions, which seem to be drawn from some only media opinion and some only other people's opinions. Nothing is quoted in support.

I am loyal to The Holy Father and The Church and hope to be so, with Grace, until death.  

Media opinion "Deutsche Welle" : https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-has-the-catholic-church-had-its-day/a-55260944

Quote

 

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/spiritual-life/the-church-will-become-small.html Pope Benedict (when still Cardinal Ratzinger) Book - "Faith and The Future"

"She (The Church) will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members....It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will (Read MORE on above link)

 

Media article above - ABOUT "Deutsche Welle (DW) is Germany’s international broadcaster and one of the most successful and relevant international media outlets. In 2020, our multimedia content in 30 languages reaches 249 million weekly user contacts, thus significantly exceeding the company's target for 2021. In comparison with the previous year, the number of user contacts increased by 52 million (plus 26 percent) which is the highest growth rate to date."  https://www.dw.com/en/about-dw/profile/s-30688 Online offerings once again show" Read MORE on above link.

_______________________________

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

After a coffee, quiet think and a prayer:  Initially and personally, I thought it might be better if the Holy Father did speak out in an authoritative type manner underscoring his declarations on subjects with which others are loudly proclaiming they disagree.  A bit more thought, and decided I choose (obedience) to bow to a far superior wisdom than mine in Pope Francis and what he has already stated.  Not only that, I do tend to think personally that even if he did speak out with some authority underscoring what he has already stated to date, explaining why, there would be very loud proclaimers that they disagree; sort of, detractors detract.  I also, again, tend to think, possibly, that if he did speak as his detractors are demanding, he would be obeying his detractors.

If relatively remaining silent causes schism, as Pope Francis is hoping not but not afraid of it, then I tend to think better schism than to not proclaim Truth.

Why should I (and all) be unafraid of schism?  Our Doctrine of Divine Providence explains it.  One cannot take something out of the overall context of what is, after all, doctrine.

When Pope Francis was elected and shortly into his papacy, I did think and stated that when and if Pope Francis puts his foot down, it will go right through the floor! (Cambridge Dictionary "to put your foot down" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/put-your-foot-down) 

I think that Pope Francis has and is putting his foot down.........and right through the floor!  

___________________

Divine Providence: HERE

Divine Providence - Catholic Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm (Scroll down to "V God Carries Out His Divine Plan"  Excerpt only: "#303 The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God's absolute sovereignty over the course of events: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases."162 And so it is with Christ, "who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens".163 As the book of Proverbs states: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will be established."164"

In all that is good, it comes directly from God (His Direct Will)

In all that is not good, it comes by God's Permission only (His Permissive Will) 

"Ask Father Mike" - Explaining God's Direct and His Permissive Will

Edited November 28, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Anastasia]

  

9 hours ago, Aloysius said:

But by this being the Vatican spokesmen clarifying Francis gets to remain the 'who am i to judge' nice pope compared to his meanie predecessors or that big meanie Vatican who's always coming out with clarifications, his image doesn't get the backlash that would come with his own words coming out in a strongly worded statement. 

Thus the necessary dichotomy us being created, out of "a nice pope" and the magisterium somewhere at the background like an immovable pillar that represents the pope who cannot say anything against it. Those are two polarities or if you like the football gates; the game of "blur" is played between those two.

Years ago I wrote an essay about “the blur” that was created by mass media out of the moves of Putin and Patriarch Kirill, their meeting with Pope Francis and going to Athos. I called the phenomenon “the soup of meaning” made with many different interpretations of the actions of the key figures:  

“- [video] Patriarch Kirill meeting Pope Francis – [photo] Patriarch Kirill with penguins - [photo] Patriarch Kirill with the Catholic bishops in Latin America – [opinions] Patriarch Kirill betrayed Orthodoxy – [video] President Putin standing in the stacidia, the supposed Byzantine throne, in the major monastery on Athos – [opinions] “Putin was enthroned as the new emperor - [articles] Patriarch Kirill refuses to go to the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church - [opinions] Patriarch Kirill is the defender of Orthodoxy against the heresy of ecumenism -

This is a sample of what is being poured out of the Russian mass-media into the world on a daily basis over the time period preceding the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church.

Currently the mass-media in Russia and abroad are proposing, as usual, various more or less logical explanations of the behaviour of the Patriarch of the ROC MP who refused to come to the Great Orthodox Council. They say that:

- Patriarch Kirill went too far with the Pope and hence was pressed, by the Russian Orthodox fundamentalists, “to pull back” and not to go to the Council organized by the crypto-Catholic and NATO puppet, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - Patriarch Kirill is blackmailing Constantinople re his recognising the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Patriarch Kirill is nothing and simply does what Kremlin tells him - Patriarch Kirill only pretended to be crypto-Catholic, fooled the Ecumenical Patriarch so now everyone “sees it all” [what all is not clarified] – and then refused to go to Council - Patriarch Kirill, together with President Putin, simply needs the very murkiness of Orthodoxy and the Council, by its very purpose to clarify at least something in the Orthodox Church, threatens that murkiness, indispensable for the Russian’s murky deeds, in the Orthodox Church and in the secular world –“

The above is exotic (probably it reflects the Eastern Orthodox character); the situation with the pope is much less entertaining yet the mechanics of blur and its usage are quite similar.

I argued that there was a deliberately created “the soup of meanings” - many, often contrary, meanings are floating there so “the conductor” (whoever he is) could easily orchestrate whatever suits his needs and the needs of the moment. If you are aware of the situation in Russia then I think you will agree that such “soup of meaning” cannot exist without the approval and support of the Russian state government (those whose activity Russian state disapproves have been either pushed out of a country or killed, with some variations between those two options). Quite obviously, “the soup of meaning” was beneficial to the state otherwise they would stop it instantly.

My point is that a person in a position of a power always has the means to deflate or do away with his image that mass media has created, especially if that image is about his words and actions and not just his personality. A person who has a huge power can always not only speak but also make sure that he is being heard. Hence if he does not speak then it is quite clear that he considers the “misinterpretation” to be beneficial for him, just like Putin thought the news of his crowning on Athos were beneficial to his role of “the last Orthodox emperor, the saviour of Christianity and Christian morals from the rotten West”.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Anastasia

[Guest]

Previous post is interpretation and quite valid as a personal interpretation.  But interpretation can only be that and not necessarily the facts in a situation - and another might interpret differently and become another quite valid interpretation as a personal interpretation.  It then becomes, in all probability, two opposing camps as it were - if not more than two.  Mexican standoff.

Personally, to restate and as a Roman Catholic, I choose (obedience) to bow to a far superior wisdom than mine in Pope Francis and The Church.  I do tend to think personally, that the next conclave to elect a new pope, will be the direction in which The Church is heading, largely through the pope they elect.

My obedience to Pope Francis is not only because he is our Holy Father, but because I do agree with what he has stated.    And if I did not agree, I hope and pray I would still obey him with personal reservation on a particular matter(s) he has stated.   That would be dependent, of course, on the level of authority with which he is stating.

Pope Francis: Key to Christian Living - Obedience path to Wisdom:  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/obeying-god-central-to-christian-life-pope-francis-says-82829

Pope is Head of The Church - Catholic Catechism: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

 

 

New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/world/europe/pope-francis-cardinals-catholic-church.html

[Aloysius]

There's nothing wrong with honestly talking about all the good and the bad that a bishop or a pope is doing.  It doesn't mean you lack obedience.  We are not called to blindly agree with the pope in everything he says or does.  His OFFICE unifies us, the man holding the office is certainly subject to our criticism.

If you want to interpret the pope's words in the most favorably orthodox way, I do not begrudge you for it.  My issue is that your interpretation is as much a personal interpretation as any other, and only the Holy Father himself could clarify these matters authoritatively in terms of the public's perceptions of his positions.  again, I do not ask that he answer to every niche traditionalist crank with an ax to grind--just that when a massive public media representation of his words goes one way, that he not leave it to others to clarify but that he do so himself.  and really it's not a matter of asking him to answer to or to correct his critics, but to correct his supporters who believe that these are actually his positions and receive them positively.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Aloysius said:

There's nothing wrong with honestly talking about all the good and the bad that a bishop or a pope is doing.  It doesn't mean you lack obedience.  We are not called to blindly agree with the pope in everything he says or does.  His OFFICE unifies us, the man holding the office is certainly subject to our criticism.

I did not state that there was anything wrong with honestly stating one's personal opinion insofar as, of course, that one is stating it as one's own personal opinion.   After all, if every single Catholic and every media outlet (not just some of them) stated that PF was wrong or whatever, it does not and can not make it a fact. 

I also stated that what the Holy Father has to state and one's owed obedience to him might be dependent on the level of authority with which he makes a statement or whatever.  Documents out of the Vatican by the Pope have levels of authority. Undoubtedly, he knows this when choosing the manner in which he might make a statement.

It just might be impossible to fool the people all of the time, but it certainly is not impossible to fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

11 hours ago, Aloysius said:

If you want to interpret the pope's words in the most favorably orthodox way, I do not begrudge you for it.  My issue is that your interpretation is as much a personal interpretation as any other,

11 hours ago, Aloysius said:

but to correct his supporters who believe that these are actually his positions and receive them positively.

 

I have stated that my understanding is my personal opinion confirmed by the Vatican and I already have posted the link in support.  My opinion is that, again supported by a Vatican statement and one media outlet and I gave the links, is that the Holy Father does not have to do things they way we might want him to do things.  There does seem to be some sort of ganging up (bullying or mobbing) on him in an attempt to force him to do what they want and how they want. 

I also pointed out that my own thoughts were that even if Pope Francis did clarify himself in a public manner, probably those same detractors would state that they do not agree with him.  Detractors do detract.  PF is being oppressed by some as a form of attempted control.  The Laity, during and after Vatican II were recognized as never before in The Church - I tend to think that a bit of power has gone completely to our heads.  We have been given an inch as it were and are intent on taking a mile.

11 hours ago, Aloysius said:

again, I do not ask that he answer to every niche traditionalist crank with an ax to grind--just that when a massive public media representation of his words goes one way, that he not leave it to others to clarify but that he do so himself.

Yes, the above is what some others are asking or demanding.  Pope Francis does not have an obligation to respond in the manner those same people are demanding.  However, I posted a link to a statement he made during a media interview on a plane.  I am not going back to find the link as it has become too time consuming.

Unity is of great importance in The Church - but never to sacrifice Truth in an attempt to attain it.

Also, motivation of PF in remaining relatively silent are being presumed.  Those presumptions cannot make the fact of his actual motivation.  

 

 

[Lilllabettt]

39 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I did not state that there was anything wrong with honestly stating one's personal opinion insofar as, of course, that one is stating it as one's own personal opinion.   After all, if every single Catholic and every media outlet (not just some of them) stated that PF was wrong or whatever, it does not and can not make it a fact. 

I also stated that what the Holy Father has to state and one's owed obedience to him might be dependent on the level of authority with which he makes a statement or whatever.  Documents out of the Vatican by the Pope have levels of authority. Undoubtedly, he knows this when choosing the manner in which he might make a statement.

It just might be impossible to fool the people all of the time, but it certainly is not impossible to fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

I have stated that my understanding is my personal opinion confirmed by the Vatican and I already have posted the link in support.  My opinion is that, again supported by a Vatican statement and one media outlet and I gave the links, is that the Holy Father does not have to do things they way we might want him to do things.  There does seem to be some sort of ganging up (bullying or mobbing) on him in an attempt to force him to do what they want and how they want. 

I also pointed out that my own thoughts were that even if Pope Francis did clarify himself in a public manner, probably those same detractors would state that they do not agree with him.  Detractors do detract.  PF is being oppressed by some as a form of attempted control.  The Laity, during and after Vatican II were recognized as never before in The Church - I tend to think that a bit of power has gone completely to our heads.  We have been given an inch as it were and are intent on taking a mile.

Yes, the above is what some others are asking or demanding.  Pope Francis does not have an obligation to respond in the manner those same people are demanding.  However, I posted a link to a statement he made during a media interview on a plane.  I am not going back to find the link as it has become too time consuming.

Unity is of great importance in The Church - but never to sacrifice Truth in an attempt to attain it.

Also, motivation of PF in remaining relatively silent are being presumed.  Those presumptions cannot make the fact of his actual motivation.  

 

 

Come now ... you don't know "what" the Holy Father has stated, do you... no one does. Maybe the truth is, you are just professing obedience to the interpretation that tickles your ears?

The type of obedience you are describing isn't Catholic, because there's no "there" there. Obedience for Catholics is submission of intellect and will to what the Church teaches re faith and morals. A Catholic can't submit intellect and will to a hypothetical, to "whatever the Pope meant by that."  

It is true the Pope is not a robot, and can't be compelled, for example,  to answer directly if he is suspected of covering up sex abuse. It is true that if he gave a direct truthful answer his haters would still hate him. Still, it remains the right thing to do, a moral obligation he took on as part of the position he freely accepted, Servant of the servants of God - servant of the laity in other words.