This is more about the passive aggressive actions of the pope and his delight and encouragement of "making a mess". The man talks out of both sides of his mouth and instead of "confirming" his brothers and sisters in the faith confuses them.
Chaos is a sign of a desire to disrupt both the understanding and practice revealed in Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It does not come from God.
This is more about the passive aggressive actions of the pope and his delight and encouragement of "making a mess". The man talks out of both sides of his mouth and instead of "confirming" his brothers and sisters in the faith confuses them.
Chaos is a sign of a desire to disrupt both the understanding and practice revealed in Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It does not come from God.
"making a mess" does not mean what you think it means. Pope Francis does not "talk out of both sides of his mouth", and confusion about what he means comes from bad faith interpreters, not from him.
I think that Amoris Laetitia is not an attempt to change the fundamentals of moral teaching, but is a correct nuancing of pastoral application. Pope Francis has not been silent on the German Synodal Way- he may not have denounced it as you might like, but it's simply not true to say that he has been silent.
I think people who are paying attention to what he says are aware that he is not trying to change the Church's definitive teachings- see for example Mary McAleese at the Root and Branch "synod" calling him an ultraconservative who will never support what they want.
As a Spanish speaker I know what тАЬHacer un lioтАЭ means, it could mean, тАЬshake things upтАЭ, тАЬmake a messтАЭ, тАЬraise hellтАЭ or тАЬto hassle.тАЭ Are any of these things the Holy Father should be encouraging in youth and others to do? In his colloquialism he confuses. I donтАЩt think anyone (of any stripe) can really believe he has not chosen to тАЬshake things upтАЭ, тАЬmake a messтАЭ or тАЬraise hellтАЭ.
I don't find it confusing. He said "The other day, a priest jokingly said to me: тАЬYes, keep telling young people to make a ruckus. But afterwards, we are the ones who have to clear it upтАЭ. So make a ruckus! But also help in cleaning it up. Two things: make a ruckus, but do a good job of it! A ruckus that brings a free heart, a ruckus that brings solidarity, a ruckus that brings us hope, a ruckus that comes from knowing Jesus and knowing that God, once I know him, is my strength. That is the kind of ruckus which you should make."
In what possible way can you interpret that as bad?
Yes, well not everyone is able to understand or interpret what he means. His comments donтАЩt often include any sort of explanation that common folks understand. As you say he did when he told the priest what he meant about making a mess. When we priests try to explain or make excuses for the often, contradictory, ambiguous or dismissals of peopleтАЩs concerns he is not тАЬconfirming the brothers and sistersтАЭ.
There has been more deference to the idol of Pachamama and the willful disregard of doctrine considering the blessing of the sin that is (and will ever be) same-sex unions in the German conference than there has been to prelates who hold to Catholic teaching. It is scandalous to appoint any cardinal that has a history with McCarrick, most especially one who would willfully give the Eucharist to someone known to manifest grave sin. I hold hope that the past 50 years will be a reawakening for the church. Those who are awakened to the fullness of the faith. The rejection of worldliness. Abortion, contraception, the desecration of the Eucharist, the desecration of marriage, has emboldened those who wish to renew the face of the church. The pontificate survived the Medici, the Avignon exile, the end of the Papal States, it will survive the тАЬSpirit of Vatican IIтАЭ and emerge stronger.
it is ridiculous to lay the blame on Pope Francis for the German Synodal Way.
while I don't agree with McElroy myself, I don't think his view is heretical, and he's not entirely wrong. and I certainly don't think that his actions with regard to McCarrick disqualify him from anything.
yes, the Church will survive, but the "Spirit of Vatican II" will be the cause of its survival, not a threat. because the only spirit of Vatican II is the Holy Spirit, who guides the college of bishops and their head, the bishop of Rome. the promise of the Spirit will never fail.
If Pachamama is not an idol, Francis is not the Pope.
Wikipedia describes Pachamama as a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. In Inca mythology she is an Earth Mother type goddess, and a fertility goddess.
The Vatican Dicastery for Communication explained that Pachamama is тАЬan image of motherhood and the sacredness of life, a traditional symbol for indigenous peoples representing the bond with our тАШmother earth.' "
Pachamama is pornographically naked. Her womb proclaims and depicts a fertile engorgement. The Pachamama is not the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Only the blind and deluded would deny the truth of the spirit which seeks to keep Pachamama present within the Roman Catholic Church.
Where are people seeking to "keep Pachamama present within the Catholic Church"? My understanding was that she featured in an indigenous presentation as a representation of the ancient spirituality of the Amazon. In Australia, we recognise the indigenous spirituality all the time at social and religious ceremonies as evidence of Gods presence among people outside and before the coming of Christ. It's a magnificent affirmation that God is everywhere since the beginning of time.
As you say, there are probably some people who rely upon a statue of a pagan god in order to proclaim that "God is everywhere." Similarly, some people likely see nothing wrong with pachamamaтАЩs presence in the Church.
The God of Catholicism is a jealous God who commands His people not to worship idols. Therefore, a pagan idol within a Church consecrated to the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass dishonors God and man who disobeys and denigrates God's command.
The Holy Eucharist is present in the tabernacles of all churches of the Roman Catholic faith. There is absolutely no comparison between the Real Presence of God in the Holy Eucharist and a statue of a pagan god. If the Real Presence of God in the Holy Eucharist does not assert the miraculous and magnificent God present in the world, nothing will.
At the Amazon synod, people on their knees bowed to pay homage to the figures, and Francis reportedly blessed them. After the Synod, some of the figures were taken to Rome and placed in a side altar at the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina. When they were removed and thrown in the river, the bishop emeritus of the Diocese of Xingu, Brazil, condemned the act, saying the statues could be integrated into [the Catholic liturgy], and asserting, тАЬthere are people who think that Pachamama is a goddess.тАЭ
About a year after the Synod, a parish in Guadalajara, Mexico, featured a Monstrance in the shape and image of the Pachamama. The Monstrance was used to display the Eucharistic Lord. So yes, there are 'Catholic' people who want to keep the Pachamama present in the Catholic Church.
This is more about the passive aggressive actions of the pope and his delight and encouragement of "making a mess". The man talks out of both sides of his mouth and instead of "confirming" his brothers and sisters in the faith confuses them.
Chaos is a sign of a desire to disrupt both the understanding and practice revealed in Scripture and Tradition in the Church. It does not come from God.
"making a mess" does not mean what you think it means. Pope Francis does not "talk out of both sides of his mouth", and confusion about what he means comes from bad faith interpreters, not from him.
not at fault for what?
what did he say that you think gives that impression?
I think that Amoris Laetitia is not an attempt to change the fundamentals of moral teaching, but is a correct nuancing of pastoral application. Pope Francis has not been silent on the German Synodal Way- he may not have denounced it as you might like, but it's simply not true to say that he has been silent.
I think people who are paying attention to what he says are aware that he is not trying to change the Church's definitive teachings- see for example Mary McAleese at the Root and Branch "synod" calling him an ultraconservative who will never support what they want.
As a Spanish speaker I know what тАЬHacer un lioтАЭ means, it could mean, тАЬshake things upтАЭ, тАЬmake a messтАЭ, тАЬraise hellтАЭ or тАЬto hassle.тАЭ Are any of these things the Holy Father should be encouraging in youth and others to do? In his colloquialism he confuses. I donтАЩt think anyone (of any stripe) can really believe he has not chosen to тАЬshake things upтАЭ, тАЬmake a messтАЭ or тАЬraise hellтАЭ.
I don't find it confusing. He said "The other day, a priest jokingly said to me: тАЬYes, keep telling young people to make a ruckus. But afterwards, we are the ones who have to clear it upтАЭ. So make a ruckus! But also help in cleaning it up. Two things: make a ruckus, but do a good job of it! A ruckus that brings a free heart, a ruckus that brings solidarity, a ruckus that brings us hope, a ruckus that comes from knowing Jesus and knowing that God, once I know him, is my strength. That is the kind of ruckus which you should make."
In what possible way can you interpret that as bad?
Yes, well not everyone is able to understand or interpret what he means. His comments donтАЩt often include any sort of explanation that common folks understand. As you say he did when he told the priest what he meant about making a mess. When we priests try to explain or make excuses for the often, contradictory, ambiguous or dismissals of peopleтАЩs concerns he is not тАЬconfirming the brothers and sistersтАЭ.
But, Joseph, we both can still pray for him.
There has been more deference to the idol of Pachamama and the willful disregard of doctrine considering the blessing of the sin that is (and will ever be) same-sex unions in the German conference than there has been to prelates who hold to Catholic teaching. It is scandalous to appoint any cardinal that has a history with McCarrick, most especially one who would willfully give the Eucharist to someone known to manifest grave sin. I hold hope that the past 50 years will be a reawakening for the church. Those who are awakened to the fullness of the faith. The rejection of worldliness. Abortion, contraception, the desecration of the Eucharist, the desecration of marriage, has emboldened those who wish to renew the face of the church. The pontificate survived the Medici, the Avignon exile, the end of the Papal States, it will survive the тАЬSpirit of Vatican IIтАЭ and emerge stronger.
"Pachamama" is not an idol.
it is ridiculous to lay the blame on Pope Francis for the German Synodal Way.
while I don't agree with McElroy myself, I don't think his view is heretical, and he's not entirely wrong. and I certainly don't think that his actions with regard to McCarrick disqualify him from anything.
yes, the Church will survive, but the "Spirit of Vatican II" will be the cause of its survival, not a threat. because the only spirit of Vatican II is the Holy Spirit, who guides the college of bishops and their head, the bishop of Rome. the promise of the Spirit will never fail.
If Pachamama is not an idol, Francis is not the Pope.
Wikipedia describes Pachamama as a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. In Inca mythology she is an Earth Mother type goddess, and a fertility goddess.
The Vatican Dicastery for Communication explained that Pachamama is тАЬan image of motherhood and the sacredness of life, a traditional symbol for indigenous peoples representing the bond with our тАШmother earth.' "
Pachamama is pornographically naked. Her womb proclaims and depicts a fertile engorgement. The Pachamama is not the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Only the blind and deluded would deny the truth of the spirit which seeks to keep Pachamama present within the Roman Catholic Church.
Where are people seeking to "keep Pachamama present within the Catholic Church"? My understanding was that she featured in an indigenous presentation as a representation of the ancient spirituality of the Amazon. In Australia, we recognise the indigenous spirituality all the time at social and religious ceremonies as evidence of Gods presence among people outside and before the coming of Christ. It's a magnificent affirmation that God is everywhere since the beginning of time.
As you say, there are probably some people who rely upon a statue of a pagan god in order to proclaim that "God is everywhere." Similarly, some people likely see nothing wrong with pachamamaтАЩs presence in the Church.
The God of Catholicism is a jealous God who commands His people not to worship idols. Therefore, a pagan idol within a Church consecrated to the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass dishonors God and man who disobeys and denigrates God's command.
The Holy Eucharist is present in the tabernacles of all churches of the Roman Catholic faith. There is absolutely no comparison between the Real Presence of God in the Holy Eucharist and a statue of a pagan god. If the Real Presence of God in the Holy Eucharist does not assert the miraculous and magnificent God present in the world, nothing will.
At the Amazon synod, people on their knees bowed to pay homage to the figures, and Francis reportedly blessed them. After the Synod, some of the figures were taken to Rome and placed in a side altar at the Church of Santa Maria in Traspontina. When they were removed and thrown in the river, the bishop emeritus of the Diocese of Xingu, Brazil, condemned the act, saying the statues could be integrated into [the Catholic liturgy], and asserting, тАЬthere are people who think that Pachamama is a goddess.тАЭ
About a year after the Synod, a parish in Guadalajara, Mexico, featured a Monstrance in the shape and image of the Pachamama. The Monstrance was used to display the Eucharistic Lord. So yes, there are 'Catholic' people who want to keep the Pachamama present in the Catholic Church.