Monday, May 23, 2016

Symbolic Meeting is Hugely Important Symbol, says Symbolic Catholic Leader

Pope Francis met the grand imam of Cairo's Al-Azhar Mosque at the Vatican on Monday in a historic encounter that was sealed with a hugely symbolic hug and exchange of kisses. 
The first Vatican meeting between the leader of the world's Catholics and the highest authority in Sunni Islam marks the culmination of a significant improvement in relations between the two faiths since Francis took office in 2013.
"Our meeting is the message," Francis said in a brief comment to a small pool of reporters present at the start of his meeting with Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb.
Hugely symbolic! And in case you didn't 'get it', the Pope spelled it out for you: "Our meeting is the message."

What exactly that message is supposed to be is unclear, but I suspect if pressed the Pope would explain 'That this is a hugely symbolic meeting!' Perhaps he would add that it's 'a pretty big deal.'

Likewise unclear is where the improvement of relations is showing up. Will Christians be killed less in muslim countries? Was there an agreement to scale back punishments for Christian converts in muslim countries? Was there any indication of any change along these lines whatsoever?

Spoiler alert: there was not. In fact, there was nothing but a photo op, which the most humble pope ever eats up.

But the article is great, if only for this line:
Ties were badly soured when the now-retired Benedict made a September 2006 speech in which he was perceived to have linked Islam to violence, sparking deadly protests in several countries and reprisal attacks on Christians.
All that's missing is Francis declaring that no true muslim would ever kill for their faith, and for THAT to be interpreted as an insult which spawns all kinds of reprisal attacks.

83 comments:

The Deuce said...

Come now, Crude, the message is "All you Christians complaining of increasing persecution at the hands of Muslims around the world, and all you Christians sounding the alarm about it and trying to stop its spread, are judgmental bigots! Unlike me, Pope Francis The Telegenic, a Different Kind Of Christian."

You realize this basically makes him the Glenn Beck of Catholicism.

malcolmthecynic said...

Brutal.

And Deuce is right. The "symbol" is crystal clear: I stand with the Muslims.

That he talks of ending the persecution of Christians in the middle east while simultaneously shaking hands with Muslim leaders and publicly rescuing MUSLIM refugees is nothing short of sickening in ways a newspaper can't twist.

Crude said...

It's the whole package with Francis which bothers me, rather than this singular event. I did find it obnoxious that he outright said 'our meeting is the message', since it screams 'Look at this! Symbolism right here! Here's your story!' in a galling way.

I really hope that this pope experiences some kind of brutal, in-his-face condemnation, in public and on camera, before his papacy ends. I'd love to see how he copes with that.

malcolmthecynic said...

Let's not downplay the "singular event". It's bad.

I've given up trying to find the pattern in Francis's actions. All I know is that it's very much in keeping with the "Spirit of Vatican II". And that is very bad.

Crude said...

That much I agree with. I had very high hopes for him - I thought he was going to be a mixture of an orthodox voice on Church matters, but with a more thoughtful delivery.

Instead, well. This.

planks length said...

You know, the Pope doesn't always say things the way I would, but I ain't the Pope! I have faith in the Holy Spirit, and am not about to join the chorus of "Catholics" who think they know better than Christ's Vicar on Earth.

Crude said...

I have faith in the Holy Spirit, and am not about to join the chorus of "Catholics" who think they know better than Christ's Vicar on Earth.

I have faith in the Holy Spirit too, but I also recognize that sometimes the Holy Spirit constrains.

Besides, Christ's Vicar on Earth reminded everyone that he makes mistakes and asked them to call him out on them. I'm just following the Holy Spirit's inspiration on this one.

Andrew W said...

Granting for now "St Peter as First Bishop of Rome" (first Pope), I observe Gal 2:11-13. St Paul wasn't unwilling to call out even Peter for systemic hypocrisy. Now, young "Crude" isn't Paul, but then Pope Francis isn't Peter. If even the first Apostle with his clear calling can fall into hypocrisy, it would be foolish to assume that modern popes are immune. (It would also be wise to be not-over-eager in looking for it, but that's a different issue).

malcolmthecynic said...

I like the quotation marks around "Catholics".

I have faith in the Holy Spirit too, which is why I don't believe he'll ever make heresy doctrine. But if the Holy Spirit is supposed to prevent bad Popes, He has a lot of explaining to do.

However, that was never claimed.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

I call bullshit!

Where was this hostility when Pope St John Paul II met with Yaser Arafat back in the day?


>>But the article is great, if only for this line:
>Ties were badly soured when the now-retired Benedict made a September 2006 speech in which he was perceived to have linked Islam to violence, sparking deadly protests in several countries and reprisal attacks on Christians.

As I recall an Orthodox Priest lost his life because of that. Also we tend to DEFEND the late great Pius XII for NOT SPEAKING OUT against Nazi atrocities for fear it would provoke greater reprisals against the Jews(see the historic actions of the then Archbishop of Utrech that led to the round up of Jewish converts to Catholic including St Edith Stein.)

So that is wrong now?

What the FUCK is wrong with you people? It is not the Pope's job to war on Islam or too kick the dragon. It is his job to make nice. It's fucking Donald Trump job to war on them (Romans 13:4)

I am pissed.

Crude said...

Ben,

Arafat and the Jews were killing each other. This pope cannot take a stand against anyone but social conservatives. And even then it's passive aggression. Small miracles, I suppose.

Are you seriously blaming B16 for a priest of another sect killed by Muslims? You cannot be. You do not seem the sort. Clarify?

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>I really hope that this pope experiences some kind of brutal, in-his-face condemnation, in public and on camera, before his papacy ends. I'd love to see how he copes with that.

But let us see if you can take the same from me. Because I am not holding back.


>Arafat and the Jews were killing each other. This pope cannot take a stand against anyone but social conservatives.

By your own inconsistent standard what "stand" is Benedict taking here?

His actions post Muslim Controversy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_Islam

Pope Benedict expressed his regret for any offense his words had given: "The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers," said Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone in a statement.[42][43}

In September 17, 2006, from the balcony at his residence at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome, Pope Benedict publicly expressed that he was 'deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries' and stressed that the words which 'were considered offensive' were not his own, but were quoted from a medieval text, and that his speech was intended to act as an invitation to mutually respectful dialogue with Muslims, rather than an attempt to cause offense.

On September 25, 2006, Pope Benedict held a meeting at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo with approximately 20 Muslim diplomats. At this meeting the Pope Benedict expressed "total and profound respect for all Muslims". Among the ambassadors invited included Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Morocco, and many other nations and Islamic Groups.[46]
On October 9, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI took another step to placate anger in the Islamic world over his remarks on holy war, making additions to his original text affirming that a quotation from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor was not his personal opinion.The original said the emperor's remark was made "somewhat brusquely". End Quotes

I could have a field day if I wanted to treat Pope Benedict with the same unjust disrespect you are treating Pope Francis. Especially if I filter them threw my personal right wing politics. Obviously Pope Benedict is (by the same standards you condemn Francis) a Pro-Muslim sycophant. Look how he back tracked after Quoting that Christian Emperor.

(Of course I don't believe that. I am channeling my in Rush Limbaugh)

But in the end I would not do that(I don't blame Benedict FYI I am merely illustrating absurdity by being absurd). Because I respect my Pope and believe in treating him justly, fairly and consistently. Try it sometime.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

PS.

>Are you seriously blaming B16 for a priest of another sect killed by Muslims? You cannot be. You do not seem the sort. Clarify?

My point is if Pope Benedict knew his remarks would lead to such violence (the brute fact his is not morally culpable is not relevant to my point)he would never have uttered them.

In a like manner given the thin skin of Muslims it is morally prudent for the Popes not to kick the dragon & make nice. Pius XII did it and John Paul II and Benedict XVI why Pope Francis is getting shit from from you for acting no different then his predecessors is anybody's guess.

Son of Ya'Kov said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Crude said...

Simple: Benedict was wrong to apologize, and so was PJP2. The difference is those were missteps that were minor among many positive steps. With Francis, good steps are the exception. And that sadly seems by design.

Crude said...

With respect, Ben, the sort of approach you take here is unacceptable. You are justifying institutional paralysis and retreat in the face of violence, and it encourages violence as the norm. If it is morally obligatory for people to keep quiet for fear of the mob, I have some mobs to arm.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Simple: Benedict was wrong to apologize, and so was PJP2. .

Well you are consistent I'll give you that. But you don't go far enough. You might as well add Pius XII or Pius XI for approving of the Concordant between the Vatican and Nazi Germany in 1933.

Justify every idiot simplistic anti-Catholic polemic since the dawn of time why don't you?

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>The difference is those were missteps that were minor among many positive steps.

So having a Positive meeting with a Muslim leader is a "misstep"?

Then it sucks to be Benedict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_Islam

Pope Benedict XVI has called for Christians as "to open their arms and hearts" to Muslim immigrants and "to dialogue" with them on religious issues. The Pope told participants that the Catholic Church is "increasingly aware" that "interreligious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world....


On September 11, 2006, the leaders of Muslim communities in Italy endorsed statements by Pope Benedict XVI who warned that Africa and Asia feel threatened by the West's materialism and secularism.....

On October 22, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI sent his "cordial greetings" to Muslims as they celebrated the ending of the holy month of Ramadan. "I am happy to send cordial greetings to Muslims around the world who are these days celebrating the end of the Ramadan fasting month", said the Pope at the Vatican."I send them all my wishes for serenity and peace", he added....


Pope Benedict XVI said dialogue among Christians, Muslims and Jews was vital and urged Christians in the Middle East not to abandon the region. "Inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is not just an option, but a vital necessity for our times", he told members of a foundation on inter-religious dialogue. Christians needed to find "the ties that unite" them with the world's other two great monotheistic religions.[9]

Pope Benedict XVI said dialogue among Christians, Muslims and Jews was vital and urged Christians in the Middle East not to abandon the region. "Inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is not just an option, but a vital necessity for our times", he told members of a foundation on inter-religious dialogue. Christians needed to find "the ties that unite" them with the world's other two great monotheistic religions.[9]

On April 16, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI, in his first Easter message, called for a peaceful solution in the nuclear standoff with Iran, saying, "Concerning the international crises linked to nuclear power, may an honorable solution be found for all parties through serious and honest negotiations.END

How dare that stupid German be so positive toward Muslims!!!!(Full Sarcasm mode)

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>You are justifying institutional paralysis and retreat in the face of violence, and it encourages violence as the norm. If it is morally obligatory for people to keep quiet for fear of the mob, I have some mobs to arm.

Well by this standard you just condemned Pius XII. I am sure a host of anti-Catholic Jews and Protestant Fundies will be pleased. I will alert James White.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Surely you see at least I have a point?

Son of Ya'Kov said...

> institutional paralysis and retreat in the face of violence.

That applies to governments not the Church.

Roman 13 is rather clear. The Government welds the sword not the Church.

So if Trump gets in and gives them Hell he will be doing his job. Just as Francis is correctly doing his job.

PS sorry for the massive number of posts.

Crude said...

Ben, if Pius XII said it was wrong to upset the nazis, that if we say something that they react to with violence then we are to blame, that we should welcome them onto our homes and that the xenophobic French were wrong to provoke them with their Jew talk, I would be condemning Pius XII too.

To hear you talk, Priests in the US were wrong to condemn nazism. Why, such insult only served to build barriers and encourage xenophobia.

Would this Pope even object to my criticisms of him? Hold me culpable? Woild he refrain from doing so if I threatened to beat someone to within an inch of their life in response?

Crude said...

And if the Pope condemns him for that, will you call the pope wrong? Popes hold their tongues when political leaders act, now?

Crude said...

Comment all you like. I welcome a fight from those I respect.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Ben, if Pius XII said it was wrong to upset the nazis, that if we say something that they react to with violence then we are to blame, that we should welcome them onto our homes and that the xenophobic French were wrong to provoke them with their Jew talk, I would be condemning Pius XII too.

Fallacy of equivocation. There where no Nazis fleeing Nazi Germany to escape persecution. I am sure Pius XII would have no problem taking in German Refugees.


>To hear you talk, Priests in the US were wrong to condemn Nazism. Why, such insult only served to build barriers and encourage xenophobia.

Can you point me to the Pope discipling any Priest who spoke out against Muslim Terrorists?

I don't see the Inquisition coming for Fr. Z?

>Would this Pope even object to my criticisms of him? Hold me culpable? Woild he refrain from doing so if I threatened to beat someone to within an inch of their life in response?

Fallacy of equivocation. As an individual if you threaten the Pope you can be arrested. It is the job of the government to arrest you.

What does this have to do with "meeting" on friendly terms with a Muslim leader?

If you have other charges against the Pope other than this one over him meeting this grand imam make it. I don't deal in ambiguity.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Comment all you like. I welcome a fight from those I respect.

ditto. I am glad you are man enough to take the fire.

Crude said...

There where no Nazis fleeing Nazi Germany to escape persecution. I am sure Pius XII would have no problem taking in German Refugees.

Would he have taken in fleeing nazis? Would he have advised everyone that it is wrong, immoral and xenophobic to judge all nazis by the extreme actions of some? Would it be wrong to say nazism was an immoral ideology? Please, keep in mind, Francis isn't exactly unequivocal in his condemnation of communists either.

There where no Nazis fleeing Nazi Germany to escape persecution. I am sure Pius XII would have no problem taking in German Refugees.

Why is it insufficient to point at his going back on helping out a Christian refugee family? Or washing Muslim feet? Or repeatedly defending Islam as peaceful and great and pure? Or attacking xenophobes, or of insisting that muslim terrorism is motivated not by religion but poverty? Whereas, by the way, any Christian acts he dislikes is due to pharisees. They never have an excuse.

As an individual if you threaten the Pope you can be arrested. It is the job of the government to arrest you.

I won't be arrested in plenty of countries. I won't even be arrested for beating people in many of them, especially if I pick the right targets.

Should he keep his mouth shut?

Nor is the problem with the imam. I could laugh off the imam meeting. It's the pattern which I'm tired of.

malcolmthecynic said...

Son of Ya'Kov,

Where condemnation of Pope JPII was, I do not know, as I am 21, and JPII died when I was young.

I don't much care about then, as I was not around, or young, then. I'm looking at Pope Francis now.

I don't have a problem with His Holiness taking in refugees even if they are sometimes Muslim. What I object to is that the motive here is clearly political; there are many Christian refugees he could have taken in, but he took in Muslims, met with an Imam, washed the feet of Muslims.

This is a pattern, not an incident. We are in a war, a literal, people-are-actually-being-killed-by-other-people war, and the best I can get from the head of the Catholic Church is that he's on the side of the Muslims, vague statements calling for the end of the persecution of Christians (while doing nothing to actually try and bring this about) aside.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

This reminds me of Mark Shea's simplistic political and religious analysis. In the opposite direction. I must give it a brutal fisking. Don't take it personally but I will go the full BenYachov as I must.

>Would he have taken in fleeing nazis?

Sorry Crude but that is intrinsically absurd. Like Paps asking "Who created God?". You are better then that. Nazis would not be fleeing Nazi Germany. Nazis are a political ideology that has no beneficent expression. They certainly aren't a religion unless you agree with the Gnus.

>Please, keep in mind, Francis isn't exactly unequivocal in his condemnation of communists either.

Thanks to St John Paul II Communists(in the USSR sense) are largely a dead or dying ideology.

The Pope doesn't condone Communism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/14/pope-francis-marxist_n_4447229.html

>Why is it insufficient to point at his going back on helping out a Christian refugee family?

Was that the Pope's fault or some idiot Vatican Bureaucrat?
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pope-francis-abandons-christian-syrian-refugees-takes-muslims-to-vatican-instead/

Quote" "The Pope told reporters on the plane back from Lesbos that it had been the idea of one of his aides and that he had immediately agreed.

‘I felt the spirit was talking to us,’ he said, adding that ‘everything was done according to the rules’, with documents provided by Italy, the Vatican and Greece.

Asked why they were all Muslim, he said there was something wrong with the papers of a Christian family that had originally been on the list."End quote

So the Pope is lying?


>Or washing Muslim feet?

To believe that is wrong is beyond stupid. It was a girl and she was a prisoner. The hostility of the Reactionary crowd
towards this reminds one of Our Lord's positive treatment of Samaritans(& the blow back he got) who where hated by the Jews and whose enmity with them was ancient and political.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

part ii

>Or repeatedly defending Islam as peaceful and great and pure?

Some Muslims interpret Islam that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hadi_Palazzi

Pro-Israel, Pro-west, anti-terror. Civilized view of religious freedom and Muslim Law.... I like this guy. Ironically if memory serves Palazzi thought St. John Paul II was too soft on Radical Islam. The irony........

The Radical Reformation produced some nutters but the Amish and the Mennonites came from it as well. Who thinks ill of them? Islam has not objective meaning and is a human tradition mixed with some valid natural theology. On the later terms it is "true" and has some potential for good. Like the extremist during the Radical Reformation the political version of it must be destroyed.

> Or attacking xenophobes, or of insisting that muslim terrorism is motivated not by religion but poverty?

I've indulged you long enough Crude. Now you have to cite primary sources & do your own homework. I no more trust the Right wing media's anti-Francis spin (like Breitbart and Newsmax) then I do the liberal media.

BTW I am predisposed to follow them on politics. But the com boxes are cesspools of anti-Catholic know-nothingism. The right is our ally for now. They are not really our friends.

>Whereas, by the way, any Christian acts he dislikes is due to pharisees. They never have an excuse.

Radtrad bullshit. The Pope is wise unlike the Reactionaries who are and let us be kind to them, Fucking idiots. Do you imagine Satan ever sleeps? Do you imagine if a parish has only orthodox Priests who teach correct doctrine the Prince of Darkness will just throw in the towel and say "Well I can no longer promote abortion or the women's ordination movement so I am going back to Hell to give up!"? No the evil one trades up tactics and temps orthodox Catholics to be Pharisees. It's obvious and Francis sees that.

The first to fall to the Dark one will be those asshole "conservative"/"Traditional" Catholics who complain about the Pope's warnings of Phariseeism, I've confessed to some milk sop Priests in my time. But I have also as of late encountered quite a bit of Pharisees.

>I won't be arrested in plenty of countries. I won't even be arrested for beating people in many of them, especially if I pick the right targets.

But you will be arrested if you threaten the Pope. That other counties won't protect other non-Papal people is their fault not the Pope's.


>Should he keep his mouth shut?

The Pope can say what he likes as he feels moved by his intellect and conscience. The Pope is judged by nobody save God alone and it is only the providence of the Bishops to "correct him". I never cared for Pope Paul VI's anti-Israel politics but I don't condone bagging on him for it.

>Nor is the problem with the imam. I could laugh off the imam meeting. It's the pattern which I'm tired of.

The "pattern" is phony narrative created by an anti-Catholic media. From both the left and the right. Supported by useful idiot Radtrad and Radcons.

Since Amoris I am threw giving them a pass. Now I am going to go over to Crisis to smack a few of them up.

Peace.

Stay fierce worthy opponent & brother.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Where condemnation of Pope JPII was, I do not know, as I am 21, and JPII died when I was young.

That is all Reactionary Trads did back in the day. The Remnant, pseudo-Catholic Family news, the Fatima Crusader..etc...

The pissing they do on Pope Francis today I've heard all before back in JP2's time. People went ballistic when St JP2 met with Arafat.


>I don't much care about then, as I was not around, or young, then. I'm looking at Pope Francis now.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I guess you are proof to me we are doomed. All the shit I hear about Francis I've heard before with St John Paul II. I am half a century old just about. My memory is long.


>I don't have a problem with His Holiness taking in refugees even if they are sometimes Muslim. What I object to is that the motive here is clearly political; there are many Christian refugees he could have taken in, but he took in Muslims, met with an Imam, washed the feet of Muslims.

It wasn't even his idea to take any refugees. It was one of his aides and the Christian family apparently had some problem with their papers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3550138/Betrayed-Pope-Lesbos-Christian-brother-sister-desperately-disappointed-told-rescued-Holy-Father-left-red-tape.html

Quote"The Pope told reporters on the plane back from Lesbos that it had been the idea of one of his aides and that he had immediately agreed.

'I felt the spirit was talking to us,' he said, adding that 'everything was done according to the rules', with documents provided by Italy, the Vatican and Greece.

Asked why they were all Muslim, he said there was something wrong with the papers of a Christian family that had originally been on the list. "END

>This is a pattern, not an incident. We are in a war, a literal, people-are-actually-being-killed-by-other-people war, and the best I can get from the head of the Catholic Church is that he's on the side of the Muslims, vague statements calling for the end of the persecution of Christians (while doing nothing to actually try and bring this about) aside.

Yep you sound exactly like St John Paul II's critics. they saw patterns and conspiracies. They haven't changed and I am even less likely to believe their bullshit.

The Pope is on God's side. This i believe. We will fight the political wars we must and the Pope will stay above it. As it should be.

The Pope is on the side of Islam? Fucking seriously son?

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/11/pope-francis-offers-litmus-test-for-religion-that-excludes-radical-islam/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/26/pope-francis-decries-fanatical-hatred-espoused-islamic-terrorists/

Pope Francis Canonizes Christians Who Refused Conversion to Islam
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/05/12/pope-francis-gives-church-hundreds-of-new-saints/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/30/pope-honors-bishop-who-died-rather-than-convert-to-islam/

Crude said...

Ben,

To believe that is wrong is beyond stupid. It was a girl and she was a prisoner.

Nope.

Nazis are a political ideology that has no beneficent expression. They certainly aren't a religion unless you agree with the Gnus.

Nazism has no beneficent expression, unlike communism? This is the move you want to make?

The Pope doesn't condone Communism.

We have different definitions of condone.

No the evil one trades up tactics and temps orthodox Catholics to be Pharisees. It's obvious and Francis sees that.

If we're playing that game, I think the Evil One's managed to tempt Francis more than once.

It wasn't even his idea to take any refugees. It was one of his aides and the Christian family apparently had some problem with their papers.

Heh, that's funny.

malcolmthecynic said...

Yep you sound exactly like St John Paul II's critics. they saw patterns and conspiracies. They haven't changed and I am even less likely to believe their bullshit.

Bullshit, Ben. You don't get to claim that with no support. I am making judgments based on what I've seen from the Pope, not assuming he's actively trying to dismantle the Church. I don't think there's a secret conspiracy here, and never said I did. I don't think the Pope is lying at all. I think he definitely wants Christian persecutions to end, and never said otherwise. Quote where I did.

When I say "The best I can get from the Pope is that he's on the side of the Muslims" is not conspiracy stuff. It's a point that what the Pope is saying and what he's doing are not consistent. They're not. And it's a pattern. Saying "No, it's not a pattern" doesn't make it not a pattern. If the Pope wants the world to conclude he's on the side of the Christians in the middle eastern genocide, he needs to act like it, not say it.

Your desire to respect the Holy Father is laudable, but you are blind to his faults. You act as if I've been brainwashed by rad-trads. I don't read rad-trads. I don't even know rad-trads, unless you call the Codgitator one, and I disagreed with him nearly as much as you did. This is all my observations, my opinions, me thinking for myself.

Saying "Well you were mean to the Pope, you need to take it" is wrong. That you don't like what I said about the Pope doesn't mean you get to say things that aren't true - for that matter, even if I said things, unintentionally, that weren't true, doesn't mean you get to pretend I'm some conspiracy nut.

For that matter, you're assuming all criticism of Saint John Paul II is wrong. Saying "People criticized John Paul II too!" is not an argument. Who's to say they were wrong? Pope John Paul II was a great man, not a perfect one. St. Augustine has been wrong. Thomas Aquinas has been wrong. So has John Paul II, and even Benedict the XVI.

You're out of line here.

malcolmthecynic said...

We will fight the political wars we must...

This is not a political war. It's a real, actual war. Since when has the Pope been obligated to stay out of it? This was never expected to be the case until very recently.

The Pope is on the side of Islam? Fucking seriously son?

Those are all great things he did. Now who are the people he actually helped? Answer: Muslims. He condemns radical Islam, but guess what? Islam itself is a heresy.

I get it. You are very angry, "son". I'm an adult here too, in a discussion with you; treat me like one. I'm not your "Son".

malcolmthecynic said...

The Pope is judged by nobody save God alone and it is only the providence of the Bishops to "correct him".

I don'y intend to correct the Pope. I don't judge the state of his soul; I'm sure his beliefs and love are sincere. I certainly intend to call him wrong.

malcolmthecynic said...

By the way,

I've indulged you long enough Crude.

No, you haven't. Crude has no obligation to let you comment here; he lets you. He is, definitionally, indulging YOUR criticisms and behavior, not the other way around.

Crude said...

I cut Ben exceptional slack, because we've talked a long time. Plus, as a guy who routinely gets direct and belligerent with little provocation, sometimes it's good practice to stay even-toned with someone who's gunning for me. I prefer it when it's someone I can largely relate to in most circumstances.

malcolmthecynic said...

Oh, I would allow Ben to comment as well. I like Ben normally. I'm just pointing out that that's a criticism with no teeth to it. In this context, Ben has no power to indulge anything or anybody (nor do I).

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Crude,

A short response & I'll deal with Malcolm's comments later after work

Nope?

Yep.

Pope washes feet of young Muslim woman prisoner in unprecedented twist on Maundy Thursday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/9960168/Pope-washes-feet-of-young-Muslim-woman-prisoner-in-unprecedented-twist-on-Maundy-Thursday.html

>Nazism has no beneficent expression, unlike communism? This is the move you want to make?

Where did I say that about Communism? I was responding to your specific remarks on Nazism and your impact claim Muslim refugees are somehow morally identical to fictional Nazi Refugees from Nazi Germany (which is still silly BTW).

>We have different definitions of condone.

Graciously accepting a gift is not condoning. I mean St John Paul II kissed Koran. This is less then that and that was a pretty big deal.

>If we're playing that game, I think the Evil One's managed to tempt Francis more than once.

Obviously, but that is between Him and God and His Father Confessor. That doesn't give us leave to ignore or mock his obviously rational spiritual advise.

>Heh, that's funny.

Indeed no good deed goes unpunished.

Anyway Peace out Crude. I salute you. I don't agree but I respect that you can both dish it out and take it.

PS I hope you are as happy as Moi Trump has clinched the Nomination formally as of last night.


Cheers.

Crude said...

Pope washes feet of young Muslim woman prisoner in unprecedented twist on Maundy Thursday

Let him wash Fellay's feet. Let's see everyone swallow and accept that. Wash Trump's next. And if half of his fans haven't torn him limb from limb, let him was Kim Davis'.

As for the communism talk: you can't say that 'nazism is an irredeemable ideology, not like Islam!' and then turn around and scuff your feet at the floor over communism and talk about what a gracious gift that is. To hear you put it, the Pope's basically useless on the international stage. He condemns nothing, he accepts every gift, he praises every leader, he condemns no ideology, and he says nothing that has the potential to provoke a response.

Yet somehow he can run around saying that people who want to build border walls aren't Christian, he can condemn as pharisees anyone critical of social liberals, he can go goddamn silent on gay marriage in Italy, he can rail against and condemn people who oppose illegal immigration or swarms of muslim 'refugees'.

I am not tasked with defending rotten decisions. I am loyal to the Church. My loyalty to the Pope goes as far as my loyalty to the Church.

And I say 'that's funny' because the idea that the freaking Pope couldn't find any Christian refugees to help and that the one he didn't take was due to -paperwork problems- is absurd.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-pope-himself-says-your-criticism-is.html

The Pope welcomes criticism. If he can accept a communist cross with a smile and a thank you, I'm sure he can roll with what I dish out.

Son of Ya'Kov said...


>Let him wash Fellay's feet. Let's see everyone swallow and accept that.

Done.


http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/04/11/pope-extends-another-olive-branch-to-traditionalist-catholics/

>Wash Trump's next. And if half of his fans haven't torn him limb from limb, let him was Kim Davis'

Let them present themselves next Easter.. Of course Kim Davis is a Oneness Pentacostal who denies the Trinity so one wonders if she will submit to a "pagan" Romanist ceremony?

>you can't say that 'nazism is an irredeemable ideology, not like Islam!'

Yes I can. You can't redeem a racist genocidal ideology. Palazzi's interpretation of Islam is quite amenable.

>and then turn around and scuff your feet at the floor over communism and talk about what a gracious gift that is.

I see no reason to get butthurt hysterical over it. Unlike St John Paul II kissing a Koran.

>He condemns nothing, he accepts every gift, he praises every leader, he condemns no ideology, and he says nothing that has the potential to provoke a response.

He condemns quite a bit & I linked to it above. He condemns goddlessness. That is all he need condemn. He is not a partisan of our political ideology or any ideology. That is not his function and I submit it is silly to expect otherwise.

>Yet somehow he can run around saying that people who want to build border walls aren't Christian,

He didn't say that. Even Trump walked it back when he read the Pope's actual words.
So I don't agree.

>he can condemn as pharisees anyone critical of social liberals,

I need specific words with a direct source. I savagely beat down some Radtrads over at Crisis for claiming Amoris allowed irregularly married couples who refuse to live chastely communion with the actual words of the Pope in context with a reference source.

I need evidence and specifics. I need to put my hands in the wounds. Thomas is my confirmation name after all.

>he can go goddamn silent on gay marriage in Italy, he can rail against and condemn people who oppose illegal immigration or swarms of muslim 'refugees'.

Ditto and he has been quite vocal on the evils of gay marriage and gender ideology.

>And I say 'that's funny' because the idea that the freaking Pope couldn't find any Christian refugees to help and that the one he didn't take was due to -paperwork problems- is absurd.

It wasn't his idea. He had to follow international law and the families papers where not in order. Have any of the Radtrad professional bitch squad tried to help this family get out? Let them stop their self righteous chanting in Latin and do something about that if they really care beyond using this family as a stick to hit the Pope then they can complain. Till then they are just so much hypocritical noise.

BTW he left them behind in Greece. Not a warzone. To hear you tell it he left them under fire about to be killed by Muslim mobs while saving Muslims.

Give me a break.

>http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-pope-himself-says-your-criticism-is.html

>The Pope welcomes criticism. If he can accept a communist cross with a smile and a thank you, I'm sure he can roll with what I dish out.

Ah yes Rorate-caeli home of Pope Bashers and holocaust deniers.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2013/04/traditionalist-or-radtrad-super-site.html

I don't put any stock in their nonsense anymore then I do Skojec over at OneLutherfive. I have been at odds with Reactionaries & Radtrads all my life. Particularly over the Jewish question.
That is not going to ever change.


Cheers Crude.

Go Trump.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

BTW when I have tried your patience let me know & if I am too harsh I apologize. It is getting hot in my corner of the world and I am getting old & grouchy.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Crude, did you read this AT piece?

#MAGA

Crude said...

Hey Codg, nice to see you around as always.

Ben,

That ain't washing feet. Let's see where that goes first, because I suspect there's something else going on there.

As for letting them present themselves, these muslims were selected and invited.

Yes I can. You can't redeem a racist genocidal ideology. Palazzi's interpretation of Islam is quite amenable.

Oh no. If you get to 'interpret', then nazism can be saved. In fact, everything can. I can interpret atheism in a way that's compatible with Catholicism - it's disbelief in every god, and belief in a prime mover and moral center. I've cut out the heart of atheism in the process, but you're not exactly leaving it intact with Islam.

I see no reason to get butthurt hysterical over it. Unlike St John Paul II kissing a Koran.

It's funny how Francis' defenders were all talking about how obviously repulsed he was at such sacrilege until the conflicting report came from the Vatican. I'm not hysterical, but to put it frankly, if a guy sucks one cock I can buy that he was confused. When he sucks ten, the only thing he's confused about is how obvious of a cocksucker he is.

He condemns quite a bit & I linked to it above. He condemns goddlessness. That is all he need condemn.

If you set the bar any lower here you'd be underground. No, I think he has to condemn a lot more than that, and not excuse it. ANd even 'godlessness' is something he redefines in squirrelly ways.

He didn't say that. Even Trump walked it back when he read the Pope's actual words.

No, Trump blew the Pope off and made it clear he'd stand up to him, at which point His holiness backed off via a front man. I don't think this guy would handle direct confrontation well.

It wasn't his idea. He had to follow international law and the families papers where not in order.

This is the most lame excuse around. Their papers weren't in fucking order? I guess all the illegal immigrants have to go home then according to him, huh? He could take whoever he pleases. He could have intervened. 'I can't take you, though I promised, your paperwork is iffy' is straight out of the good samaritan, this pope's favorite passage.

As for gay marriage and gender ideology - not nearly enough, and his boldest stances on it tend to be in the most hidden areas.

Rorate is just the source I cited for something he said, it's not exactly uncommon.

And by the way - if 'He left them in Greece, no big deal', then let's go ahead and say that his 'saving' of the muslims in Greece was a meaningless photo op. He rescued them - from Greece.

Give me a Pope who doesn't treat Christians as an afterthought who can be sacrificed, save for when the Christian is a valuable kind of heretic.

Crude said...

And also, no, I didn't see that Codg. Not surprising. We're living in an era of Christian slaughter and humiliation, and the Pope can only get in front of secular audiences and say 'Christians need to sacrifice even more! We're sorry, everything is our fault, we're pathetic! It's the people killing us and mocking us who deserve praise!'

I gave Francis chance after chance. But I am not blind. I can tell when I'm dealing with a Pope who the holy spirit works through, in spite of and not because of.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>As for letting them present themselves, these muslims were selected and invited.

So what? They where on hand. I doubt very much next Easter either Trump or Kim Davis will be on hand. Your example was not really serious or realistic. We both know that.How likely are Kim Davis or Trump to be around when that goes down? Also washing the feet of nobodies seems to be in keeping with the Gospel(see James). If he did wash their feet the
usual suspects would bitch Pope Francis is pandering too celebrity. I am even less impressed with this complaint then when you first made it. Sorry buddy.


>Oh no. If you get to 'interpret', then nazism can be saved.

Fallacy of equivocation. You are comparing an evil racist political ideology to a religion. This is as bad and as silly as Paps comparing Catholicism to Islam or the Nazis. This is an emotive form of argument void of rational substance and has little to do with Pope Francis washing the feet of Muslim Prisoners or peasants. The later is morally equivalent to Jesus asking Samaritans for a drink of Water. There really is nothing wrong with it, all this nonsense aside.

> In fact, everything can. I can interpret atheism in a way that's compatible with Catholicism - it's disbelief in every god, and belief in a prime mover and moral center. I've cut out the heart of atheism in the process, but you're not exactly leaving it intact with Islam.

Cut the bullshit Crude. Atheism, Kim Davis’ oneness Pentecostalism, Trumps nominal Protestantism, Islam etc are all false doctrines and there is only salvation in the Catholic Church. What are you objecting too? The Pope doing his job being kind towards others and being charitable? Because if you have a solid point to make please make it. Islam can not be compatible with Catholicism anymore than the Amish anabaptist religion can be. The issue is are their civilized Muslims & should we not show them good will or do we treat them all as enemies? Because the Church clearly endorses the former not the later. We should go with the Church. Doing so does not restrain the government from killing jihadists, Isis and the rest of the terrorist enemies of civilization. I could give a Rat arse about the “heart of Islam” as I do the “Heart of Lutheranism”. I also think we should restrict immigration to these counties.


>It's funny how Francis' defenders were all talking about how obviously repulsed he was at such sacrilege until the conflicting report came from the Vatican.

No it’s not. To this day I still don’t know what Pope St John Paul II really said when he saw the Passion of the Christ movie. The Vatican Bureaucrats & Papal handlers can’t make up their minds. This has not changed in 50 years. None of the Popes it seems reign them in. I don’t know why that is but I find it impossible to care.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

part ii

> I'm not hysterical, but to put it frankly, if a guy sucks one cock I can buy that he was confused. When he sucks ten, the only thing he's confused about is how obvious of a cocksucker he is.

Except it is the reactionaries who are letting someone put a dick in their arse. Which would explain the butt hurt. My backdoor is closed for business except on Chille night when i have need of it. Sorry for the visual.

>If you set the bar any lower here you'd be underground. No, I think he has to condemn a lot more than that, and not excuse it. ANd even 'godlessness' is something he redefines in squirrelly ways.

Condemning goddlessness is “low bar”? Then for the sake of my soul I pray I never raise it. He re-defines nothing except in your imagination. Again I need specifics with credible primary sources.


>Trump blew the Pope off and made it clear he'd stand up to him, at which point His holiness backed off via a front man. I don't think this guy would handle direct confrontation well.

You really don’t read primary sources now do you?

Here is what the Pope said. As we can see there was nothing to “back off” from.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-mexico-to-rome-85821/

I am sorry but you are wrong about Trump I saw it on TV myself. Trump said the next day “When I read the original transcript on what he said it wasn’t so bad”.

Sounded like backing off to me. Sure his initial response to what was filtered threw the media was harsh but I don’t
trust the media or believe them initially. I wonder why you do? I also find it hard to believe at the time the Pope was paying any close attention to Trump.

>This is the most lame excuse around. Their papers weren't in fucking order? I guess all the illegal immigrants have to go home then according to him, huh? He could take whoever he pleases. He could have intervened. 'I can't take you, though I promised, your paperwork is iffy' is straight out of the good samaritan, this pope's favorite passage.

Make up your mind Crude. The Pope is following the immigration Laws of Europe here according to Vatican treaty. He has never told us to break our laws. The Pope follows immigration law and you give him jazz? Like I said any stick to hit him with. Still it wasn’t his idea it happened at the spur of the moment and I still haven’t heard of the papal critics doing anything for this brother and sister to get them off Lesbos. They are a convent stick to hit the Pope and that seems to be their sole function to the usual suspects.


Son of Ya'Kov said...

part iii
>As for gay marriage and gender ideology - not nearly enough, and his boldest stances on it tend to be in the most hidden areas.

Bullshit. They are rather strong and fierce but the Media pays them little mind and one only reads them in the Catholic Press. Thought sometimes the pro-Catholic partisans at Breitbart and Newsmax report them. Predictably it is never enough and the goals posts are moved by the anti-Catholics in their commboxes. If the Pope says Muslim Jihad is evil he is condemned by the usual suspects for not calling it very evil ad infinitum. So tedious…..


>Rorate is just the source I cited for something he said, it's not exactly uncommon.

They are useless tits. Oh and Fellay that two faced jarkarse. He didn’t know about Williamson? I think not, since Williamson was quite open about his holocaust denial and the SSPX only cared about it when the press got hold of it during reunion talks between them & the Vatican. I am friends with Pete Vere. He gave me the dirt on them. Williamson was promoting holocaust denial for years and Fellay turned a blind eye. If he gets his feet washed by the Pope or his stupid schismatic cult is reconciled to the Church. He will have Francis to thank for it. It is more then he and his little cult deserve and they should be grateful to be accepted back into the bark of Peter. But Francis is better at mercy then moi.

>And by the way - if 'He left them in Greece, no big deal', then let's go ahead and say that his 'saving' of the muslims in Greece was a meaningless photo op. He rescued them - from Greece.

Again why haven’t the Radtrads done anything to bring this brother and sister out of Greece if they really give a shit (which they don’t it’s just a self righteous stick to hit the Pope with) and if they did what about other Christian families they can’t bring back too? If they bring an Orthodox Family but not a Catholic will you complain? Like I said and it was reported this was a spur of the moment thing. It wasn’t the Pope’s idea.

No good deed goes unpunished.


>Give me a Pope who doesn't treat Christians as an afterthought who can be sacrificed, save for when the Christian is a valuable kind of heretic.

Leaving People in Lesbos is not a “sacrifice”. It’s not like leaving Jews at Nuremberg. It is more like leaving them in Glasgow. Which is not pleasant but come on!

>I gave Francis chance after chance. But I am not blind. I can tell when I'm dealing with a Pope who the holy spirit works through, in spite of and not because of.

It really isn’t your place to make such judgements least you be judged. Beware of that my friend for your own sake. I keep it in mind for myself as well. So pray for me.

Now for Malcomn.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

malcolm

>Bullshit, Ben. You don't get to claim that with no support. I am making judgments based on what I've seen from the Pope, not assuming he's actively trying to dismantle the Church. I don't think there's a secret conspiracy here, and never said I did. I don't think the Pope is lying at all. I think he definitely wants Christian persecutions to end, and never said otherwise. Quote where I did.

You didn’t say any of that initially. But I thank you for clarifying it.

This is what you said.

>his is a pattern, not an incident. We are in a war, a literal, people-are-actually-being-killed-by-other-people war, and the best I can get from the head of the Catholic Church is that he's on the side of the Muslims, vague statements calling for the end of the persecution of Christians (while doing nothing to actually try and bring this about) aside.

It sounds like the anti-John Paul rhetoric & conspiracy rants I heard in his day. I was there and I am just reacting to what I see you say in front of me based on my past experience.

>When I say "The best I can get from the Pope is that he's on the side of the Muslims" is not conspiracy stuff. It's a point that what the Pope is saying and what he's doing are not consistent. They're not. And it's a pattern. Saying "No, it's not a pattern" doesn't make it not a pattern. If the Pope wants the world to conclude he's on the side of the Christians in the middle eastern genocide, he needs to act like it, not say it.

Again thank you for further clarifying yourself. The Pope is on the side of the Muslims. In so far recently he prayed for their conversion and for God to open their hearts. Specifically the ISIS nutters. He obviously sees this as a spiritual battle and is fighting it with the weapons of the Gospel. He is not fighting a political battle or a military war. That is not his job at all.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Malcomn Part II

>Your desire to respect the Holy Father is laudable, but you are blind to his faults. You act as if I've been brainwashed by rad-trads. I don't read rad-trads. I don't even know rad-trads, unless you call the Codgitator one, and I disagreed with him nearly as much as you did. This is all my observations, my opinions, me thinking for myself.

No I merely agree with Michael Voris it is wicked and unseemly to attack the Vicar of Christ. I will gladly say now that John Paul II is dead that he was a charismatic figure. A dynamic speaker and a good phenomenology neo-Thomist theologian and his theology of the Body is a gift to the Church. But he was crap as an administrator. Benedict was a superior administrator but he lacked JP’s charisma.

I said it before and I will say it again. This Pope will be awesome at some things, neutral at others and crap at others. That is just life and there will never be a Camelot church.

>Saying "Well you were mean to the Pope, you need to take it" is wrong. That you don't like what I said about the Pope doesn't mean you get to say things that aren't true - for that matter, even if I said things, unintentionally, that weren't true, doesn't mean you get to pretend I'm some conspiracy nut.

Son if you can’t take it you ought not to dish it out. If you react to what you “see” in front of you then you need not condemn me for doing the same to you. You clarified and I accept it naturally. But that doesn’t make you clear to me and it doesn’t immune you from being misjudged or misunderstood. As the Pope no doubt deals with on a daily basis.

>For that matter, you're assuming all criticism of Saint John Paul II is wrong. Saying "People criticized John Paul II too!" is not an argument. Who's to say they were wrong? Pope John Paul II was a great man, not a perfect one. St. Augustine has been wrong. Thomas Aquinas has been wrong. So has John Paul II, and even Benedict the XVI.

My point is they went overboard and became odious & unjust with John Paul and they are doing so with Francis.


>YoThis is not a political war. It's a real, actual war. Since when has the Pope been obligated to stay out of it? This was never expected to be the case until very recently.

The Vatican under Pius XII was officially neutral during the war with Nazi Germany. Does that make them collaborators? Or just prudent? The Pope’s job here is not to fight the military war with Radical Islam. Just as it wasn’t Pius XII job to fight Hitler. I am sure he is rooting against ISIS while praying for their souls.


>Those are all great things he did. Now who are the people he actually helped? Answer: Muslims. He condemns radical Islam, but guess what? Islam itself is a heresy.

He helped people who where Muslims not some abstract heresy named Islam.


>I get it. You are very angry, "son". I'm an adult here too, in a discussion with you; treat me like one. I'm not your "Son”.

You are 21 & I am almost 50 by Biblical Standards I became old at 40 & per Biblical standards you cannot rebuke me an elder but must exhort me as a father. I however can rebuke you and call you son which I mean affectionately. Carry on. But if it bothers you that much I can switch to Lad but i won't call you a wee bern ever. That I promise.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Sorry for the multiple posts. the word limit is killing me and I feel myself too Verbose.

Perhaps I should now suck it up and give you the last word Crude and fight the temptation to respond?

Yeh I will do that.

malcolmthecynic said...

Son if you can’t take it you ought not to dish it out.

I'm not your "son". That, right there, is the problem.

The Vatican under Pius XII was officially neutral during the war with Nazi Germany.

Pius XII is also recognized in Israel as a hero, released the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, and is credited with saving THOUSANDS of lives. So far Pope Francis's encyclicals have been fluff about global warming and more fluff that complicates an already complicated issue at the center of his papacy.

He helped people who where Muslims not some abstract heresy named Islam.
So you don't disagree with me.

You are 21 & I am almost 50 by Biblical Standards I became old at 40 & per Biblical standards you cannot rebuke me an elder but must exhort me as a father.

I have never intended to disrespect you, but I am not your son. I am an adult. That by biblical standards you can call yourself my elder doesn't make me your son.

I was, if not angry, annoyed (I'm always curmudgeonly; my "angry" is a level above that) because you were claiming I said things that I didn't. I think that's worth some ire.

malcolmthecynic said...

(If you mean son affectionately, you can imagine me grinning amusedly, though looked at in connection with your other language the disconnect is rather odd.)

Crude said...

Ben, you can dump as many comments as you want on me, but I'm afraid you'll have to zero in on things. Tell me what you object to, what you want, and what you claim in a single comment's space, and I'll answer. But very extended dialogues feel a bit overkill-ish.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Ben, you can dump as many comments as you want on me, but I'm afraid you'll have to zero in on things. Tell me what you object to, what you want, and what you claim in a single comment's space, and I'll answer. But very extended dialogues feel a bit overkill-ish.

Well to be fair I did zero in on your kvetchings over the Pope meeting with this Muslim leader and saying complementary things about Islam and I provided counter examples of St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI saying similar things about Islam.

But it was you who then, I believe, as a defensive move,(I don't blame you I might do the same thing my self. Tactics and all) expanded the discussion to what you didn't like about Francis' papacy in general. All this nonsense about washing the feet of Muslim women prisoners and peasants during Easter and the Pope's "horrible" crime of leaving a Syrian Christian brother and Sister in Greece while taking Muslim families with Children to Italy in compliance with European immigration law.

But I think we exhausted this topic for now and as you see I got in my digs and you took it like a man and gave as good as you got.

So for now I think we should leave it as your "Jewish" topic at the top of your blog has peaked my interest.

Unless you have something to add?

Peace & cheers.

Crude said...

I expanded the discussion because it is precisely Francis' pattern which upsets me. Trump makes missteps as well - it takes more than a single misstep, or even a few, to bug me.

I don't care about B16 or PJP2's mistakes on that front, because they were balanced out by so much. Mistakes happen, and generally their being mistakes is obvious because they are exceptions, not rules. With Francis, positive things are exceptions.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

My criticisms in brief.

>I expanded the discussion because it is precisely Francis' pattern which upsets me.

I think one of your mistakes is seeing the Pope purely in right wing political terms like that idiot article cited by Codj.

>Trump makes missteps as well - it takes more than a single misstep, or even a few, to bug me.

You also don't seem to read primary sources as to the Pope's actual words. Did Trump react to the Pope's actual words which where benign? No, he reacted to a filtered & distorted paraphraising by the media. As did you & you obviously didn't see Trump's press conference held the day after. That is how it appears to me.

Also it is apparent you get some of your papal news from Radtrad trash and other extremist websites. That is like learning about Catholicism in general from reading James White.

>I don't care about B16 or PJP2's mistakes on that front, because they were balanced out by so much.

That is not a valid comparison & it is fraught with problems. JP2 reigned a long time, his two successors not that long & B16 well, fault or not his mistake cost at least two Priests their lives. That is qualitatively worse than excepting a weird cross from a Leftist.

OTOH I am familiar with the Radtrad complaints about JP2 intimately. They would dismiss your defenses and downplaying of his faults the way my defenses of Francis might be dismissed.


>Mistakes happen, and generally their being mistakes is obvious because they are exceptions, not rules. With Francis, positive things are exceptions.

Which is an unfair assessment given the brute facts of recent Papal history. Both Assisi gatherings, appointing liberal bishops like Weakland, kissing the Koran, & not reigning in liberal Bishops. All these charges are placed at the feet of the last Pope who has been made a Saint by the current model. This is the Pope who is and was a Saint.

I am sorry but I find it tedious & inconsistent for people to bash Francis and make excuses for JP2 & B16. It's just a partisan fantasy nothing more.

What is at issue is undermining the Pope vs supporting him. In this case I believe Michael Voris has it right.

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/a-disgrace-to-the-chair-of-peter

I am by no means his partisan. What he says about Bishop Barron is shite like all other Radtrads but on the Pope he gets it right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyH2hMdg73w

Reinforces my view of blind hogs.


Peace.

Crude said...

I think one of your mistakes is seeing the Pope purely in right wing political terms like that idiot article cited by Codj.

I'm not. I'm seeing things in traditionalist Catholic terms, largely.

You also don't seem to read primary sources as to the Pope's actual words. Did Trump react to the Pope's actual words which where benign? No, he reacted to a filtered & distorted paraphraising by the media.

No, I read the actual exchange. In order to believe your version of events, I have to accept the Vatican's version at face value: 'Goodness gracious the Pope had no idea that a major presidential candidate in the US has been talking about building a wall. Heavens to betsy. So when the Pope said that people who talk about building walls aren't Christian, he had no idea that they meant Trump. Heavens.'

Here's what I'd further have to believe in order to accept that: The Pope is literally retarded. Literally. Extra chromosome and everything.

JP2 reigned a long time, his two successors not that long & B16 well, fault or not his mistake cost at least two Priests their lives.

JP2's reign had positives going for it immediately, and frankly, if you accept that B16 was the cause for priests getting killed, then please go all in and mention that a leading cause of rape is women dressing slutty. The bitches bring it on themselves.

Which is an unfair assessment given the brute facts of recent Papal history. Both Assisi gatherings, appointing liberal bishops like Weakland, kissing the Koran, & not reigning in liberal Bishops.

He did reign in the liberal bishops. PJP2 and Benedict both upheld the faith and the teachings, whatever other mistakes they made. Francis meanwhile is directly responsible for shit like this going down.

I am sorry but I find it tedious & inconsistent for people to bash Francis and make excuses for JP2 & B16.

I call out JP2 and B16 when they made mistakes. I praise Francis for his positive contributions. It's not my fault the list for both is shockingly short.

The only one here being inconsistent is you. The Pope says something true and muslim apes riot, and you blame the Pope. The Pope says something inane, and priests celebrate ass-fucking by invoking his words, and you blame everyone else in the world. I'm not interested in jumping through those hoops.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Ben, you can dump as many comments as you want on me,

Well as long as you are indulging me.

>I'm not. I'm seeing things in traditionalist Catholic terms, largely.

I see, worst then I thought (since I have been critical of trads for
decades). I would prefer it was right wing politics. But thank you
for your candor.

>No, I read the actual exchange.

Did you read the Pope’s actual statement Quote "And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.

Because the above, according to the transcripts, is what the Pope literally said and Trump after reading it the next day said “that wasn’t as bad as what they reported”.

>In order to believe your version of events, I have to accept the Vatican's version at face value: 'Goodness gracious the Pope had no idea that a major presidential candidate in the US has been talking about building a wall. Heavens to betsy. So when the Pope said that people who talk about building walls aren't Christian, he had no idea that they meant Trump. Heavens.’

What does the Vatican have to do with anything? I just gave you the Pope’s actual words from the press transcript. The Vatican need not be consulted. As for the Pope not knowing he said “I am not going to get involved” so obviously he is honestly professing not to be paying attention to American internal politics.

>Here's what I'd further have to believe in order to accept that: The Pope is literally retarded. Literally. Extra chromosome and everything.

Occam’s razor. The simplist explanation is usual the correct one. The simple explanation is out of 200 nation states(give or take)on Earth the Pope is not paying any attention to internal American politics and gave a nuanced careful answer which the press immediately distorted to throw gas on the fire. BTW if you disagree with me here that is going to bite you in the backside before the end of this post. Be forewarned.

>JP2's reign had positives going for it immediately,

The first Assisi even was early on and the first one was a cock up and Ratzinger didn’t show up for it and many believe that was deliberate. Buddhist Statues on Catholic Altars. The endless Kvetching in the Remnant…. Crude you must accept I have heard the Trad bitching for decades. I am no noob. Francis has some positives too. That is unremarkable.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

part ii

>and frankly, if you accept that B16 was the cause for priests getting killed, then please go all in and mention that a leading cause of rape is women dressing slutty. The bitches bring it on themselves.

You are equivocating between moral culpability vs prudence. A Rapist deserves to be punished and he cannot plead for mercy based on his victim being foolish enough to go to a frat party & deliberately getting high or drunk and trusting herself to the mercy of pornography addicted drunken neanderthals. But that doesn’t mean it she shouldn't know better than to go to a frat party and get high or drunk and trust her safety to the mercy of the bunch of pornography addicted drunken neanderthals. If Pope Francis “not being retarded” means he has a direct and meaningful insight into who is who in American politics then should not Pope Benedict have known about the situation in the Middle east and how his remarks might set off the intolerant neanderthals who dwell there in? You can’t absolve Benedict and convict Francis. I opt to absolve them both but I am consistent. Though you obviously believe differently.

>He did reign in the liberal bishops. PJP2 and Benedict both upheld the faith and the teachings, whatever other mistakes they made.

Your Traditionalist buddies from that era beg to differ. Especially with JP2. Archbishop Weakland anybody? Who made Kasper a
Cardinal? It wasn’t Francis. It was JP2. I could go on….

>Francis meanwhile is directly responsible for shit like this going down.

Then by that non-logical argument Pope Benedict is responsible for this.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/terri-schiavos-husband-re-married-in-catholic-church

http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/01/canonical-issues-in-schiavo-centonze.html

It happened under his(Benedict's) watch. Canon Law says you cannot marry in the Church if you unlawfully bring about the death of your spouse. Did Benedict do anything? Did he remove the Bishop or Priest from Office and declare the marriage unlawful? Well?

I am not saying I blame Benedict(I don’t BTW) but if I threat him like Francis I could.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

part iii
>I call out JP2 and B16 when they made mistakes. I praise Francis for his positive contributions. It's not my fault the list for both is shockingly short.

Of course to hear the Radtrads and the usual suspect during their reigns the apocalypse was just around the corner. Things haven’t changed with Francis. Other then people remember his predecessors more fondly and ideally. I will have none of it.

>The only one here being inconsistent is you. The Pope says something true and muslim apes riot, and you blame the Pope.

No I am not inconsistent. If Pope Francis is suppose to be omni-knowlegable in American Politics that he intimately knows who Trump is and took a precise calculated pot shot at him then I can assume Benedict was incompetent or reckless in not knowing the political situation in the Muslim world to know how his remarks would have been taken by the mobs. Frat boy rapists need to be jailed but I will make my nieces aware of the imprudence in attending frat parties run by drunken sexually obsessed sociopaths.

I have it easy. I absolve both Benedict and Francis. You are in trouble if you try to blame one and absolve the other.

> The Pope says something inane,

What? He was asked about a hypothetical gay priest and he responded by condemning the gay lobby and saying as long as the
Priest is faithful and trying to live the gospel who is he to judge? That is Gospel 101.

> and priests celebrate ass-fucking by invoking his words, and you blame everyone else in the world.

So we should blame the Muslim animals and not the Pope but not blame the lying Media servants of Satan but blame the Pope for idiots
misrepresenting his words? This too you is consistency?

Also that doesn’t explain Benedict’s inaction in response to a Priest giving a sacrament to a man who brought about the murder of his own wife? Which is worst then a mock ceremony because an actual sacrament might have been profaned.

>I'm not interested in jumping through those hoops

Every era has these hoops. There is no escape. None at all. In the era of mass media,realtime news, realtime distortion of said news and the internet even Pius XII or St Pius X or St Pius V would be subject to your criticism if they had to put up with what Francis must put up with.

Peace. Let me know when you are tired of me. I’m easy.

Crude said...

Because the above, according to the transcripts, is what the Pope literally said

I stand by what I said. Trump was giving the Pope a way out to scurry through, and he took it.

Your Traditionalist buddies from that era beg to differ. Especially with JP2. Archbishop Weakland anybody? Who made Kasper a
Cardinal? It wasn’t Francis. It was JP2.


I argue with traditionalists too. And JP2 also made Burke a cardinal. You want to talk shitty cardinals? I've got some bad news for you about what Francis has been up to.

You are equivocating between moral culpability vs prudence.

No, I'm pointing out where consistency will lead you. If muslims will chimp out whenever they're insulted, then the most prudent course of action is for Christians to arm themselves to the teeth the world over, and speak the truth.

Then by that non-logical argument Pope Benedict is responsible for this.

You are throwing blame for dead priests on B16, but trying to absolve Francis of blame for what people do in reaction to HIS words. One or the other, Ben. You can't have both.

Trying to insist that Francis must be omni-knowledgeable when his 'who am I to judge' words get taken out of context, again and again and again, but that B16 should damn well know that some benign comments will certainly lead to death, is absurd.

Shall I blame Francis if he refuses to get involved in the Quebec case?

Tell me, Ben. Under what situations can a Pope do anything condemnation worthy? Am I supposed to pretend they're all equally good or all equally bad? You are not giving me good arguments. You are giving me tremendously circuitous logic whereby you condemn B16 but you like Francis. Riots pop up from a bunch of chimps, he should have known. Francis' words, which every Catholic in the world could foresee the results of, only resulted in abuses mysteriously.

It's not convincing.

malcolmthecynic said...

"Traditionalist buddies" makes me laugh. Unless you count Zippy (who, if he is a traditionalist, is doing a pretty poor job of the Pope-bashing supposedly typical of the group) and every now and then Codg (who doesn't post that often, I don't read that often, and don't always agree with when I do), I don't read ANY traditionalists. Does Fr. Z count? I don't think so. He talks poorly of rad-trads too if I remember right.

Please, point out all of these traditionalist buddies of mine.

But besides all of that, "You sound a lot like these people who I disagreed with in the past under entirely different circumstances" is not a good criticism, but Ben, you're making it, like, every post. It's not a good point.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>I stand by what I said. Trump was giving the Pope a way out to scurry through, and he took it.

No Trump didn’t read the Pope’s actual words till after he went off on his tirade. Hothead that he is he just went off on what the media said the Pope said. It is right there in black and white.

>I argue with traditionalists too. And JP2 also made Burke a cardinal. You want to talk shitty cardinals? I've got some bad news for you about what Francis has been up to.

So he appointed Burke(whom the Radtrads turned on when he contradicted their talking points that Amoris allowed communion for the invalidly married who refuse to live chastely)? What Francis has been up too? He appointed Cardinal Sarah Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments who defends saying Mass ad orientem(a favorite pet issue for Trads). He appointed Müller prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who is Ratzinger clone.

>No, I'm pointing out where consistency will lead you. If muslims will chimp out whenever they're insulted, then the most prudent course of action is for Christians to arm themselves to the teeth the world over, and speak the truth.

Except they did this chimping out in nations where they (Muslims)held power. The Priests who lost their lives spoke Arabic as their native language. I mentioned the Archbishop of Utrech speaking out against Hitler & how that cost more lives. As Stalin said how many divisions does the Pope have?

Still my point was if Benedict knew that would happen he would have kept his mouth shut. Also if you are going to blame Francis for the Media stoking the fire by misquoting or misrepresenting him then YOU ARE INCONSISTENT in not blaming Benedict. I say neither in this case should be blamed.

>You are throwing blame for dead priests on B16, but trying to absolve Francis of blame for what people do in reaction to HIS words. One or the other, Ben. You can't have both.

Nice try but I am saying both should be acquitted. The only contrast I make is Benedict’s innocent mistake cost two lives. None of Francis’ have thus far risen to that level. Make of that what you will.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Trying to insist that Francis must be omni-knowledgeable when his 'who am I to judge' words get taken out of context, again and again and again, but that B16 should damn well know that some benign comments will certainly lead to death, is absurd.

Obviously! Neither are to blame.

>Shall I blame Francis if he refuses to get involved in the Quebec case?

Did Benedict get involved with Michael Schiavo’ contracting an invalid or illicit marriage(the later profanes a real sacrament) after helping the authority immorally dispose of his wife? He certainly had plenty of time before he retired. The Vatican spoke out repeatedly against the killing of Terri Schiavo. So they where paying attention. Unlike Francis to Trump.

Besides I read the lifesite article you linked too. Did you? The Bishop of that diocese claimed he never sanctioned it(he could be BS’ing but he is against it).

Quote”But Jacques Bouchard, diocesan communications director, denied this in an email to LifeSiteNews.“The diocese is not in agreement with this feast,” Bouchard wrote.When asked if Gravel knows he cannot hold such events in the future, Gravel replied that: “He has met with the bishop.”When asked if Bishop Rivest would support a future Feast of Love or similar event celebrating same-sex and co-habitating couples in a Catholic parish, if it were held separately from the traditional Feast of Fidelity, Bouchard replied: “Non.”END QUOTE

That very article you cited (from a source always hostile & unfair generally to the Pope) quoted Francis extensively condemning homosexual conduct and even explaining his “Who am I to judge remark”. Really Crude did you read your own link? Cause it doesn’t look like you have. I could be wrong but then again if you did read it I don’t think you read it closely enough.

>Tell me, Ben. Under what situations can a Pope do anything condemnation worthy?

Well having sex. Hitting on nuns or God forbid, other Priests and Monks. Like John XII whom Voris cited. Really bad shit not just the usual butt hurt nonsense I’ve seen since the Start of Francis’ papacy most of which is boring rehashing of crap they used to say about St John Paul II. Nothing new under the son.

> Am I supposed to pretend they're all equally good or all equally bad? You are not giving me good arguments. You are giving me tremendously circuitous logic whereby you condemn B16 but you like Francis. Riots pop up from a bunch of chimps, he should have known.

Nope I say either acquit both or condemn both. You are the one who wishes to acquit Benedict and condemn Francis.

>Francis' words, which every Catholic in the world could foresee the results of, only resulted in abuses mysteriously.

The only thing we can foresee is whomever is the Pope and however clear he is or even if he clarifies later on the media will lie like their Master Below.

>It's not convincing.

That's my line.

Crude said...

No Trump didn’t read the Pope’s actual words till after he went off on his tirade.

So, the defense is 'The Pope is a complete fucking retard.'

Alright.

whom the Radtrads

Stop fighting the people you want to fight. You're arguing with me. You dislike the radtrads? Hunt them down. They're not here.

Also if you are going to blame Francis for the Media stoking the fire by misquoting or misrepresenting

See, here's the problem. Your defense is that the pope is retarded. A complete idiot. He made his comments about people building border walls but he doesn't follow international news about a presidential candidate talking about building a wall. Everyone in the world was able to put it together, but not the Pope. He was too busy trying to eat his graham crackers.

And fine. You want to do that to avoid calling the Pope out for his stupid, shameful move? Go for it. But I won't pretend that -I- am retarded to save him. I will not pretend that the Pope's explanation was innocent, naive, and gosh darnit he just never understood this 'wall' comment. Illegal immigrants? What the fuck are those? He doesn't know, he's retarded.

You could exonerate Hillary Clinton with your logic. She's simply been misquoted her entire life by a vast right wing conspiracy. She's been misinterpreted, constantly, and her actions misunderstood.

Did Benedict get involved with Michael Schiavo’ contracting an invalid or illicit marriage(the later profanes a real sacrament)

Yeah pal you may want to have a long hard look at what Francis considers fair game with marriages.

That very article you cited (from a source always hostile & unfair generally to the Pope) quoted Francis extensively condemning homosexual conduct and even explaining his “Who am I to judge remark”.

No, they quoted him vaguely saying he was kinda-sorta quoting the catechism by memory.

Well having sex. Hitting on nuns or God forbid, other Priests and Monks. Like John XII whom Voris cited.

Cool. Apparently they can't teach poorly, they can't make bad decisions. They, literally, have to fuck someone.

I mean, the Pope himself said he makes mistakes and he welcomes correction, but he meant 'Tell me if I fuck someone'. That was the line in the sand. He doesn't know, because again - he's a retard.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Malcolm

>"Traditionalist buddies" makes me laugh. Unless you count Zippy (who, if he is a traditionalist, is doing a pretty poor job of the Pope-bashing supposedly typical of the group) .
>Please, point out all of these traditionalist buddies of mine.

Ah Zippy there is a name I haven't heard in a long time. He and I used to go at it back in the day over at Shea's blog. Good times and even he had some Traddie tendencies back then (his criticism of V2 on Religious Liberty comes to mind).

I was talking to Crude and I meant "Traditionalist buddies" rhetorically. To point out the Trads did not see JP2 as a good thing. This was less under b16 because he loosened up the Latin Mass & took it from the Bishops' control and gave it too the Priests.

>But besides all of that, "You sound a lot like these people who I disagreed with in the past under entirely different circumstances" is not a good criticism, but Ben, you're making it, like, every post. It's not a good point.

I am pointing out what has been said about Francis has been said before. The complaining never ends. I fear it will go on till judgement day with the rise of mass communication.


Son of Ya'Kov said...

>To, the defense is 'The Pope is a complete fucking retard.'
Alright.

Crude, calm down. I quoted the exact words the Pope said about Trump. You claim to have read the transcript? So deal with his exact words. Trump clearly didn’t initially and neither are you doing it at all now.


>Stop fighting the people you want to fight. You're arguing with me. You dislike the radtrads? Hunt them down. They're not here.

I am arguing with you & you are not dealing with what I wrote or what the Pope literally said.


>See, here's the problem. Your defense is that the pope is retarded. A complete idiot. He made his comments about people building border walls but he doesn't follow international news about a presidential candidate talking about building a wall. Everyone in the world was able to put it together, but not the Pope. He was too busy trying to eat his graham crackers.

What does this little rant have to do with what the Pope literally said? Nothing……….What does this have to do with his literal exact words?

Nothing…

>And fine. You want to do that to avoid calling the Pope out for his stupid, shameful move? Go for it. But I won't pretend that -I- am retarded to save him. I will not pretend that the Pope's explanation was innocent, naive, and gosh darnit he just never understood this 'wall' comment. Illegal immigrants? What the fuck are those? He doesn't know, he's retarded.

I didn’t cite an after the fact explanation given by the Pope. I cited what he literally said to the reporter at the start.. I cited his initial exact words.
You have convinced yourself right now I was citing some after the fact explanation given by the Pope. I am not. If you claim different then you cite the EXACT WORDS of the Pope and give me a source. Put up or shut up. If what he initially said was shameful & different from what I cited I want to see it.

>You could exonerate Hillary Clinton with your logic. She's simply been misquoted her entire life by a vast right wing conspiracy. She's been misinterpreted, constantly, and her actions misunderstood.

What did the Pope literally and exactly say about Trump verbatim? Not your paraphrase. Cite me his exact words and explain to me their diabolical meaning? Come on while we are both young.

>Yeah pal you may want to have a long hard look at what Francis considers fair game with marriages.

I can do that with ease citing Amoris. I’ve been doing that for weeks & I can get Burke and Muller on my side.


>No, they quoted him vaguely saying he was kinda-sorta quoting the catechism by memory.

He was pretty clear. You have to try hard not to see it.

>Cool. Apparently they can't teach poorly, they can't make bad decisions. They, literally, have to fuck someone.

They will all make bad decisions but unless you show mortal sin or malice chill the fuck out.

>I mean, the Pope himself said he makes mistakes and he welcomes correction, but he meant 'Tell me if I fuck someone'. That was the line in the sand. He doesn't know, because again - he's a retard.

You need to take a breath. Chill.

malcolmthecynic said...

Ben,

Sure, it's been said before, in the past. Who said it's wrong?

This reminds me of the old canard where people pooh-pooh "end of civilization" predictions on the grounds that Cicero predicted the fall of Rome while forgetting that - Surprise! - Cicero was correct.

Just because it's been said before does not make it wrong.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Follow up.

>See, here's the problem. Your defense is that the pope is retarded.

I have mentally handicapped kids Crude. I think I understand retarded much more clearly then most.

(Mind you I am not being PC and objecting to that term. I sometimes use it myself...when the wife is not around)

> A complete idiot. He made his comments about people building border walls but he doesn't follow international news about a presidential candidate talking about building a wall.

I go by what he literally said to the reporter. I quoted him. I can't tell you now who is running for office in other countries. I pay attention to my own. American isn't the center of his world.

> Everyone in the world was able to put it together, but not the Pope. He was too busy trying to eat his graham crackers.

No rather some reporters interested in creating a "Let's you and him fight" brought it up and a citing a few sound bites Trump the hothead (we know what he is like. He does sometimes does a Ready Shoot Aim). He answered the question honestly and gave Trump the benefit of the doubt & said he was not involved with who we should vote for. I cited his exact words.

Not an after the fact explanation. His exact initial words. Deal with those words.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Malcolm,

Except most of it is in fact wrong. The rest at best is right but trivial.

Cicero? Remind me with your young and strong brain...my i getting old...Was he the clown obsessed with attacking Carthage?

Son of Ya'Kov said...

BTW for the record.

Crude you are not like a Trad because they live in their safe spaces and fire at the Pope. You have taken my fire and fired back.

Let us be clear on that even if this discussion seems to me to be getting heated.

Crude said...

Crude, calm down. I quoted the exact words the Pope said about Trump. You claim to have

No, Ben. Your defense of the Pope here is 'the Pope is a humongous retard. He's THAT stupid Crude, he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.' You went for that defense, so own it.

What does this little rant have to do with what the Pope literally said?

It has to do with the fact that your defense of the Pope is that he's a retard. Your reasoning: look at what he literally said, not at all what he's insinuating. Go ahead, give that gloss. If that's what you need to mount a defense, you're welcome to it.

Cite me his exact words and explain to me their diabolical meaning?

Sure man. The Pope was not talking about Trump. Because, again and again: he is a retard. When he talks about walls and people not being Christian there is no way he means Trump. That relies, crucially, on him having an IQ over 40.

I’ve been doing that for weeks & I can get Burke and Muller on my side.

Because as everyone knows, Burke loves this Pope's acts. Loves him to death. And the Pope loves Burke. He promoted him you know.

He was pretty clear. You have to try hard not to see it.

Amazing how the Pope's literal words are crucially important, but in this context, oh come on don't read him literally, you have to fill in the blanks.

They will all make bad decisions but unless you show mortal sin or malice chill the fuck out.

Cool, let's see an example of a bad decision. Go hypothetical. Let's see if I can't call this Pope on the carpet on those grounds.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>No, Ben. Your defense of the Pope here is 'the Pope is a humongous retard. He's THAT stupid Crude, he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.' You went for that defense, so own it.

No my defense is the Pope’s exact words & you don’t want to deal. Not my problem.


>It has to do with the fact that your defense of the Pope is that he's a retard. Your reasoning: look at what he literally said, not at all what he's insinuating. Go ahead, give that gloss. If that's what you need to mount a defense, you're welcome to it.

So I am to ignore what he literally said and look for some hidden insinuation? Yeh I don’t buy that. It’s as bad as people claiming Trump thinks all Mexicans are rapists just because he complains Mexico dumps their undesirables on us threw the boarder. Which is a valid complaint but somehow the left claims he is insinuating some hidden racism about Mexicans?

The Pope said what he said and as Trump himself said the next day “It wasn’t so bad vs what they reported”. Trump said what he said about the Mexican government. I have no reason to suspect either has a hidden insinuation.


>Sure man. The Pope was not talking about Trump. Because, again and again: he is a retard. When he talks about walls and people not being Christian there is no way he means Trump. That relies, crucially, on him having an IQ over 40.

Fail! I asked for the Pope’s exact words. You give me you paraphrase in which you read hidden insinuations. Not convinced.


>Because as everyone knows, Burke loves this Pope's acts. Loves him to death. And the Pope loves Burke. He promoted him you know.

Well the Pope “punished” him by giving him his own non-military Army of an order older and more prestigious then the Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Malta. What a bastard!!! What is next? Will he give Burke the Dominicans to further “punish” him? That evil....evil...shit!

Seriously Burke backs up Amoris and shows it does not allow person living unchastely in invalid marriage to take holy communion.


>Amazing how the Pope's literal words are crucially important, but in this context, oh come on don't read him literally, you have to fill in the blanks.

But I am taking him literally?

>Cool, let's see an example of a bad decision. Go hypothetical. Let's see if I can't call this Pope on the carpet on those grounds.

Don’t care too. That is either a Bishop or Cardinal’s Job or Pope Benedict. In the military it was the officer’s job to express problems about the command to the Captain. I just followed orders as a Squid. At best unless I was given a clearly immoral or illegal order(which never happened) I was expected to follow.
I don’t see it at a laymen’s job nor do I like the little cottage industry being built up by those who do.

malcolmthecynic said...

Ben,

You keep saying they're wrong. I'm not convinced.

Cicero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

To equate him to "The clown obsessed with attacking Carthage" is completely ridiculous. I know you said you don't remember...but that's not the measure of the man.

I also made a typo; he predicted the end of the REPUBLIC, not the empire.

Mr. Green said...

Pope Francis says things sometimes that make me roll my eyes, but I can't work up any animosity towards him when the criticisms against him are so dismal. Some deviant tries to defend his dissidence by saying "Because Francis!" in obvious contradiction to what the Pope has actually said, and that's Francis's fault? Good grief. With enemies like this, who needs friends?

Crude said...

Some deviant tries to defend his dissidence by saying "Because Francis!" in obvious contradiction to what the Pope has actually said, and that's Francis's fault? Good grief. With enemies like this, who needs friends?

It's not just some random deviant. These are often prominent clergy, Catholic leaders and more.

I notice no one ever talks about how Francis handled the end of the investigation into the American nuns. You know why? Because the result of that was an absolute embarrassment.

malcolmthecynic said...

Ben,

If the Pope himself says to a layman that he is okay with criticism, that it in fact helps him, I'm not too concerned about calling out the problems of his papacy. He himself said that criticism is helpful. So let's criticize.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Malcolm,

There is a moral difference between bashing vs Criticism. It is not "criticism" to bang on the Pope for doing what past Popes have often done with a pass from the usual suspects nor is it criticism to smear him by claiming he favors Muslims over Christians.

Also it is the height of comic silliness to treat Pope Francis as if he is paying as close attention to internal American politics as a typically politically conscience American would.

The Pope is charitable descent and forgiving. He is better then you lot, but I however AM NOT! I am fucking BenYachov for Pete's sake.

So unjust Papal Critics be on notice. As my ancestors would say "a Bellendaine by moonlight!THE SCOTTS ARE OUT!"

malcolmthecynic said...

Ben,

Also it is the height of comic silliness to treat Pope Francis as if he is paying as close attention to internal American politics as a typically politically conscience American would.

Be careful what you're saying. Are you really going to play the "The Pope knows little to nothing about the very public positions of Donald Trump" card? Because you're getting dangerously close to retard territory again.

It is not "criticism" to bang on the Pope for doing what past Popes have often done with a pass from the usual suspects

You're assuming two things:

1) We give previous popes a pass

2) We're giving the "usual suspects" a pass. Do you think we're at all afraid of criticizing Kasper?

...nor is it criticism to smear him by claiming he favors Muslims over Christians.

Good thing I never said that.

The Pope is charitable descent and forgiving. He is better then you lot, but I however AM NOT!

That's the thing, Ben. What I'm getting here is that the reason you think the Pope is better than us is because he's the Pope, not because of anything you know about either us or him.

I don't think the Pope is a bad man, but I think he is a deeply, gravely mistaken one who's making a lot of harmful missteps.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Malcolm

Now you are insulting my intelligence.

>Be careful what you're saying. Are you really going to play the "The Pope knows little to nothing about the very public positions of Donald Trump" card? Because you're getting dangerously close to retard territory again.

Rather anyone who thinks he is following our election & candidates (specifically Trump) very closely is himself or herself beyond ridiculous.

Quote" "And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.END QUOTE

Does that look like the words of a person getting Trump's tweets everyday? Why the liberal use of the word "If"? Not to mention the reporter asking him his opinion gave his own spin as to Trump's views and here is the Pope assuming the truth of the question but giving the benefit of the doubt to Trump that his view was accurately characterized by the reporter.

I am citing the exact statement the Pope gave at the time. His exact words. At best his critics are assuming he not be taken at face value. I am suppose to believe the Pope, like Lady MacBeth/Hilarity's war-room, is getting daily updates on the candidates and monitoring their views?

That is silly. He has 200 other countries in the world to worry about.

>You're assuming two things:

>1) We give previous popes a pass

Kind of easy for me to do that when you say Pope Francis somehow knows more that a little of Trump's public views but Benedict clearly didn't know the political landscape of the Middle East before he did his infamous lecture.

Why not then bash Benedict for his imprudent words that lead to actual deaths? No, better to assume both where caught flat footed and it is simply unrealistic to expect them to foresee all contingencies. Specifically a media that will lie and spin and constantly play a game of "Let's you and him fight".

>2) We're giving the "usual suspects" a pass. Do you think we're at all afraid of criticizing Kasper?

How did you get I meant the liberals and not the Radtrad/Radcon attack posse when I said usual suspects?

>Good thing I never said that.

Rather you missed my point.

>That's the thing, Ben. What I'm getting here is that the reason you think the Pope is better than us is because he's the Pope, not because of anything you know about either us or him.

No I really think he is a better person as a person. He is better then you lot. I however am NOT better then you lot. I am worst. I am fucking BenYachov.

>I don't think the Pope is a bad man, but I think he is a deeply, gravely mistaken one who's making a lot of harmful missteps.

He is not mistaken to emphasize mercy in our merciless world. He is at the right time and right place for it. As for his "missteps" the last two where no better which doesn't reflect poorly on them BTW so why should that be the case for Francis?

malcolmthecynic said...

Okay, Ben. We've reached an impasse. I appreciate you discussing it, though.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

No problem lad.

Peace be with you and also with Crude.:-)