Saturday, August 23, 2014

Francis v. Benedict: Huh?

Some very sharp observers noticed the language used when Pope Francis asked for strong intervention against ISIS.

...Jorge Mario Bergoglio, invited “stopping the unjust aggressors” without “any bombing” or “starting a war”.

It's what he specifically did NOT use:  the qualifier "Muslim."  (And, by the way, his suggestion seems rather....ahhh.....inadequate....., given what we know.)

There's some history there, as it turns out.

[Following Benedict XVI's Regensburg address, t]he pontiff was hit, however, chiefly by accusations launched from some exponents in the Church. Among these, the then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The future Pope did not speak in person. It was Father Guillermo Marc√≥, spokesman for Bergoglio. Speaking to the Argentine edition of the weekly “Newsweek”, he used extremely harsh tones: saying that Ratzinger’s declarations had been “unfortunate”. And more: “I do not identify with the Pope’s words. I would have never used that citation.” Concluding with: “If the Pope does not recognize the values of Islam and it is left like that, in twenty seconds we will have destroyed everything that has been built over the last twenty years.”

It was Marcó who spoke, but everyone knew that those sentences corresponded to the thought of his superior.

Lessons learned:  1)  A Cardinal Archbishop criticized the Pope, so 'criticizing the Pope' can't possibly be as awful as the Bergliolites would have us believe, and 2)  Clearly, infallibility does not extend to political judgments.


Saint Revolution said...

Hey, Francis.

Don't call abortion abortion either.
Don't call stem cell stem cell either.
Don't call divorce divorce either.
Don't call freemasons freemasons either.
Don't call hell hell either.
Co-exist, isn't it Franny?
Can't we just all get along Fracois?

Pope Francis...another Vatican sin.

If he's a valid successor to Saint Peter, then I'm Saint Peter himself.

bill bannon said...

He is not adequate to the task of what needs to be done with ISIS. His words on the plane about stopping them but not bombing them implies our infantry should get killed where a bomb could have done the same job as at the base of Sinjar Mt. I found his two predecessors just as conflicted between the new pacifist image and reality....which began with John Paul not wanting us to undo the take over of Kuwait and then in '95 arguing against the death penalty in EV while removing the execution mandate from Gen.9:5-6 while citing the remainder of that passage three times in EV. This why we're failing to convert probably a million well read people just in the US. We're imaging the reverse of the inquisition...with tricks.

Dad29 said...

Your'e still the anti-Catholic you were last time you trolled this site, Bill.

Read for meaning on JPII's objection to blowing up Saddam.

As to the DP: wrong post, not germane.


bill bannon said...

And yet I don't label you. Odd that you are the better Catholic in your eyes. I do no comparisons. But you do. We'll see what Christ thinks right after each of our deaths.
I think God is offended by 24/7 flattery of the non infallible aspects of the papacy by Catholics. We'll see right after death.

Dad29 said...

And yet I don't label you.

Pat yourself on the back.

Anonymous said...

"Clearly, infallibility does not extend to political judgments. "

From the Syllabus of Errors (Pius X):

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862. [Condemned proposistion]


The Holy Father's statements may have a moral dimension concerning actions.

From the Decrees of the First Vatican Council

"if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world..." [Condemnation follows]


Dad29 said...

Yah, well, BOTH of your cites are irrelevant to the case at hand.

1) No one ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDED the Pontiff from ..charge...over temporal affairs. I merely observed that HH's remarks demonstrate that he is not infallible in political judgment.

2) Learn how to read. Your entire second cite has to do with governance of the CHURCH, not the entire world.

Leave proof-texting to the Prots who--frankly--are better at it than you are.

Grace said...

Explanation of how Card Bergoglio did NOT ...

Dad29 said...

Thanks for the update, Grace.

Regardless, the Pope remains fallible about non-dogmatic/doctrinal matters.

And Bergoglio picked a lousy spox.