So What Do I Actually Think of Francis?

Nobody asked me, but here ya go anyway. For what it’s worth, my opinion and $2.50 is almost enough for a small coffee at Starbucks.

Do I think Pope Francis is a bad man? No, I do not. Do I think he’s an idiot? No, I do not. Do I think he’s literally a heretic? No, I do not.

Do I think he’s a poor Pope? Yes, I do. Do I think he’s the WORST POPE EVAH? No, I do not.

What I think is that Pope Francis was a Cardinal who spent basically his entire life in Marxist territory. While he was not a Marxist himself – something I want to note is certainly the case – being “not actually a Marxist” in Marxist territory mean you’re substantially more liberal than the average Catholic \bear (then again, maybe not, going by the state of Catholics today), especially when you spend most of your life engaging with people on a personal level – as it seems Pope Francis did – rather than concerning yourself with getting all the specific points of doctrine exactly right.

Now this guy is the Pope, where all of a sudden you’re dealing with people on a personal level not much at all and dealing with doctrine quite a lot. And you’re a Pope who has liberal tendencies stuck as the head of a Church with a deep, potentially unhealable rift that one day might very well result in a schism, and has in some spots (see the SSPX).

The pattern I get from Francis, what with his vagueness on doctrinal statements and loose “It can mean whatever you want it to mean, baby” wording, is that he’s trying to compromise; he sees this huge split, and instead of taking a stand one way or the other he’s trying to play both sides, hence the concessions in certain terminology and minor disciplines, but the official public reaffirmations of actual doctrine.

Given his substantial time doing footwork, I think he finds all of this focus on doctrinal issues frustrating – “There’s actual HELPING the Church needs to do, people!” – which is why he makes himself free for all of these off-the-cuff airplane interviews – “Hey, man, the Church needs to ENGAGE with people, not be this stuffy institution, amirite? Sure, I may get some technical stuff wrong, but the important thing is that we’re in dialogue with each other!” – stuff like that.

This explains a LOT of things – why the two councils on the family changed virtually nothing in terms of things we’re actually supposed to do but softened a lot of terminology, why he was applauded by both the liberals and conservatives at the Synods after making a speech calling for unity, why Amoris Laetiae strongly reaffirmed Church teaching on gay marriage even as the Pope called for us to apologize to gay people, and why he takes in refugees and tells everybody else to take in refugees as an act of Christian charity without concerning himself with the safety and stability of the nations involved – “Sure, it’s a risk, but the Church is about HELPING people!”

Do I agree with the Pope’s game plan here? No, I do not. I think it’s doing far more harm than good, and sowing a lot of confusion. Do I think the Pope is a heretic? No, I don’t. My guess is that if you were to meet him you would come away with the impression that you just met a very holy, personable human being who only wished to help people (this is pretty much how anybody who has spoken to the Pope describes him – a guy who’s impossible to dislike).

I find it probable that when Pope Francis dies he will be canonized, going by his popularity alone. I don’t really have a problem with that, because I don’t think the Pope is a bad person. Just very wrong – and if I think he’s making a big mistake, I’ll say so. But I wish his Holiness well and even if I wasn’t Catholic I’d shake his hand if I met him. Some people just ain’t cut out for certain jobs, and I don’t think Francis was ever really cut out to be Pope. But here we are. Such is life.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to So What Do I Actually Think of Francis?

  1. Crude says:

    I admit, I’m skeptical of the idea that I’d regard Francis as a very humble, holy man. I think he has a lot more in common with more mercenary popes of the distant past, moreso than Benedict and PJP2. I don’t think he sees a huge split and is trying to paper over it all by having an anything-goes attitude. I think he’s doing largely what he thinks he can get away with, short of provoking outright rebellion by clergy and faithful alike – at least the ones who actually care about Catholic morality.

    But I actually don’t think about Francis’ character terribly much. I think purely in terms of the effects he has on not just the church, but the members of the church who have sacrificed quite a lot. The Pope has endless mercy and kind words for, with eerie overlap, everyone who the media loves – and no one else.

    Women who get abortions? Poor souls one and all.

    Women who want to be priests, who talk about the need for more power in the church? They need at the very least to be listened to, to be more included.

    LGBT people? We must not just apologize to them, but ask forgiveness from them – from everyone!

    Atheists? They are good people who follow their consciences, let us give an interview to an outspoken atheist over and over.

    Catholics who are hated by society for upholding and defending Catholic moral teachings that are unpopular? Screw ’em.

    Someone who says we should build a wall at the border? Not a Christian, until there’s a furious reaction, then Trump, who is Trump, never heard of him, the pope is not political.

    People who buy guns? Not Christians. (I assume he’s defended by an atheist Swiss Guard.)

    Hell, Catholics in general? They owe everyone apologies.

    Muslim ‘refugees’? They have a right to come over in basically unlimited number. Oppose them and you oppose Christ.

    And on and on it goes. It would actually be different if the Pope was simply nice to everyone, or if the Pope was fiercely critical across boundaries. But when the Pope just so happens to have tender-hearted, teary-eyed love and forgiveness and sorrow for every single group that pick-a-random-prominent-liberal has, and either silence towards or open disdain for pick-your-right-winger here… and yeah, I can see the pattern a little too well to ignore.

    The best way to frame it is that this is all a kind of game on Francis’ part. Why, he’s disregarding the faithful because, well, they’re the faithful. But he wants to reach new hearts, new minds, people who may wall themselves off from the Church now, but they’ll listen to his message. The more faithful will just have to silently take one for the team and offer it up to God and show everyone how mature and obedient they are.

    Maybe that really is the goal. To which my response is, it’s not going to work, I’ve tried it before, I’ve seen it tried before, so I have another idea: I’m going to voice my concerns, loudly, and encourage others to do the same. Others may disagree, and that’s fine. But I’m not going to passively look on while the most miserable people in the West feel stabbed in the back and humiliated by their own pope. As I’ve said, we could use a little bit of that love and forgiveness and attention too.

    • I think he’s doing largely what he thinks he can get away with, short of provoking outright rebellion by clergy and faithful alike – at least the ones who actually care about Catholic morality.

      I think he absolutely has more sympathies with the more liberal side here, but my reading is somewhat more positive. I think you’re right, but I think he believes the rift in the church was caused by conservatives more than liberals. So he’s correcting, while trying not to make anybody too mad.

      Of course, as you pointed out, this looks identical to “Doing what he can get away with” anyway.

      • Crude says:

        You could be right. As I’ve said, to me it doesn’t matter that much what the Pope’s intentions are, because the Pope’s effects are what animate me. The most I’ll say is that if the Pope thinks conservative Catholics – and conservative here means ‘people who are willing to speak out against abortion, against same-sex marriage, against women’s ordination, against sodomy, against divorce’ – deserve to be dispirited and humiliated, I think he’s not just wrong, but morally flawed on that topic. And I don’t really have to think twice about standing up and saying so. Especially since apologizing to and courting the openly defiant does seem to be his thing.

      • Crude says:

        By the way, I think it’s ridiculous to call ‘Catholics who actually believe in Catholic teaching’ as ‘Conservative’. They’re just Catholic.

        The people who want the Church to basically be a glorified font of nice words (at least for gays, divorced people, Protected Classes and more) and a spiritual rubber stamp for their political projects? Calling them liberal Catholics seems absurd. You may as well say the KGB infiltrators into the Orthodox church were ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive Christians’.

    • The thing is, I think a lot of papal defenders make good points too. In his speech during the Synod on the Family, he got a standing ovation from BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative divide (or, if you please, the Catholic/heretic divide). In AL, he made a point to strongly reaffirm Church teaching on gay marriage.

      And if you read any of the questions addressed to the Pope about the infamous, vaguely worded footnote in AL, he always seems quite frustrated with the focus on the footnote – to him, it seems, to focus on that misses the point of the document as a whole.

      So I don’t think he’s trying to undermine Catholic teaching. I think he’s trying to compromise – which I think is a mistake. In this case “compromise” means making concessions to people who want to destroy centuries old traditions. But I think the signs here generally indicate that his intention is to avoid taking a stance more than standing with the liberals.

      BUT – meanwhile, the centuries old traditions still go a-tumblin’ down. So you are correct to call out the Pope’s errors regardless. But it’s also correct to point out his successes as well – and to point out a media role in this.

      Francis is a disappointing and poor Pope, whatever the reason. But he could be much, much worse. He’s in a tough spot and I have a lot of sympathy.

      • Crude says:

        Well, I recall I was saying that AL didn’t seem that bad, and you seemed to take the opposite view. So it’s not like I refuse to give this Pope credit where it’s due.

        But I will say, I don’t have much sympathy. I agree with you to a point, or at the very least I think the case you make is strong enough. ‘He’s not trying to undermine things, he’s just trying to make everyone happy.’ The problem is that that is precisely the sort of attitude that liberals – people who DO want to undermine things – exploit. And the way it typically cashes out is ‘Well the traditionalists are loyal, so I can screw them or come down on them hard. It’s the liberals who may bolt or who are disloyal, them I have to take seriously!’

        Though I wonder if that’s not changing, and I think the SSPX statement is another sign of that. I suspect the suspicion was ‘The SSPX is getting offers to help out their status, generous ones. That’ll make them fall in line. I bet they’ll be reluctant to respond to this Pope’s acts with that on the table.’ If that was the strategy, it’s apparently a foolhardy one.

      • Oh, I have big problems with AL. But note that I didn’t mention anything about the document itself here (except to say it reaffirmed Church teaching on gay marriage, which is pretty much undeniable), but Francis’s reaction – which is partially my point. He doesn’t seem to “Get” that there’s a problem with the infamous footnote.

  2. Chad says:

    As an aside – the SSPX is not in schism, but in canonical irregular status. It is an important difference, as those in schism are outside the Church, and thus outside of their chance at salvation

  3. James Scott says:

    >Women who get abortions? Poor souls one and all.

    Historically we have always treated women who get abortions with compassion and punish Abortionists who exploit them.

    >Women who want to be priests, who talk about the need for more power in the church? They need at the very least to be listened to, to be more included.

    You just knee-jerk believe everything the liberal media tells you?

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-angry-over-media-slant-on-women-deacons-55348/

    >LGBT people? We must not just apologize to them, but ask forgiveness from them – from everyone!

    You are f****ing serious? Or is this some keen satire like this?
    https://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2016/06/pope-francis-is-crazy_16.html

    >Atheists? They are good people who follow their consciences, let us give an interview to an outspoken atheist over and over.

    Are you assuming all Atheist are Gnus like Paps or Skepo?

    >Catholics who are hated by society for upholding and defending Catholic moral teachings that are unpopular? Screw ’em.

    The Pope has never said such a thing except in your diseased imagination.

    >Someone who says we should build a wall at the border? Not a Christian, until there’s a furious reaction, then Trump, who is Trump, never heard of him, the pope is not political.

    I already dealt with your sick cowardly lies here. Maybe you can compare something the Pope says off the cuff to another fictional speech written by Shakespeare as a political allegory?

    >People who buy guns? Not Christians. (I assume he’s defended by an atheist Swiss Guard.)

    Condemning war profiteers in the middle east somehow extends to gun manufacturing or people who use guns to protect themselves? I think not.

    >Hell, Catholics in general? They owe everyone apologies.

    Protestant bullsh**.

    >Muslim ‘refugees’? They have a right to come over in basically unlimited number. Oppose them and you oppose Christ.

    No just being kind to aliens as the Bible says……

    Protestants who believe otherwise be on notice…………

    • Just spotted this comment in the spam filter.

      Historically we have always treated women who get abortions with compassion and punish Abortionists who exploit them.

      I reject this utterly. Yes, we have done that in America. And it’s a total joke. Women who kill their babies are murderers; most don’t talk to the abortionists until they’re in the clinic. THEY make the decision to kill their children.

      This is not something I’m willing to let go as an “alternate opinion” of the Popes. Lives are at stake here. Hell, all of the logic on which the anti-abortion position is supposedly based on is collapsing if we start claiming that the people who hire the hit men are somehow better than the hit men.

      Are you assuming all Atheist are Gnus like Paps or Skepo?

      He never said that.

      Once again – I honestly have no problem with you responding to Crude. Seriously. I don’t. I agree with Crude on this issue more than you, but you can absolutely make your points here.

      But cool it with the insults, comparisons to Protestants, and cursing. You and Crude have issues. I get it. But not here you don’t.

      Seriously, Ben – get the beam out of your eye. Don’t bring up Crude here. Don’t ask why I’m not talking to him. Just calm down and think for a second. Crude didn’t deny that Francis was Pope. He didn’t deny Catholic teaching. Yet here you are, predicting he’ll go sedevacantist and using “Protestant” as an insult (even though he’s said nothing that smacks of Protestantism). It’s bullshit, and you know it.

      And you’ve doubled down when you’re observably wrong – you say IN THIS THREAD that the Pope has given the SSPX faculties to hear confessions, and ALSO claim they’re in schism, even as I’ve shown you quotes from Vatican Officials proving you wrong. But, nope, they’re not fans of this Pope – their statement wasn’t even particularly harsh – so that means they’re basically Protestants!

      This fits your pattern perfectly – sure, they don’t deny any Catholic teachings, and sure, the Vatican doesn’t consider them schismatic, and sure, they now have faculties to perform sacraments, but darn it, they’re basically Protestants anyway! Because they don’t like the Pope.

      News flash, Ben: If you don’t like the Pope – even if you DO slander him, even if you shouldn’t be criticizing him but are – it doesn’t make you a Protestant, or a sedevacantist. If you’re wondering why we’re frustrated with you, that’s the answer. We’re not just wrong. We’re not just making mistakes. No, people who think differently than you aren’t even Catholic.

      The SSPX aren’t Protestants. It’s not a makeable argument. Their teachings aren’t Protestant. They can perform the sacraments. They AREN’T IN SCHISM. They’re not heretics. I don’t think the SSPX are right to take the specific stance they do, but just because they have pointed criticisms of the Pope that lead them to reject the offer of complete reunion with the Church doesn’t make them Protestants.

      But you’re not willing to admit you’re wrong because it might reflect badly on the Pope.

      • James Scott says:

        So there is a spam filter and you didn’t ban me? Good to know. I am sorry for thinking otherwise. Forgive me lad. I am glad we cleared that up.

        Since you wish to take up Crude’s defense. Let’s get too it.

        >I reject this utterly. Yes, we have done that in America. And it’s a total joke. Women who kill their babies are murderers; most don’t talk to the abortionists until they’re in the clinic. THEY make the decision to kill their children.

        That is an extremist position & even Radtrads and all mainstream Pro-lifers reject it.

        http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/31/why-donald-trump-saying-women-should-be-punished-for-abortions-hurts-the-pro-life-cause/

        http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/05/why-pro-lifers-dont-support-punishing-women-for-abortion/

        http://www.breitbart.com/abortion/2016/03/31/truth-punishing-women-abortion-never-happened-never-will/

        >This is not something I’m willing to let go as an “alternate opinion” of the Popes. Lives are at stake here. Hell, all of the logic on which the anti-abortion position is supposedly based on is collapsing if we start claiming that the people who hire the hit men are somehow better than the hit men.

        Rather your extremist position is a threat to human life and will serve the cause of baby killing. It is an extremist and imprudent view. Even the Francis bashers agree with me.

        >He never said that.

        The Pope never said anything offensive about Trump. But Crude rejects taking people’s words at face value. He compares the Pope’s comments to the sarcasm of Marc Anthony’s fictitious speech but gives me no reason to believe the Pope was being sarcastic and not just answering fairly and honestly off the cuff.

        >Once again – I honestly have no problem with you responding to Crude. Seriously. I don’t. I agree with Crude on this issue more than you, but you can absolutely make your points here.

        Thanks again for that.

        >But cool it with the insults, comparisons to Protestants, and cursing. You and Crude have issues. I get it. But not here you don’t.

        I will ditch the foul language. That is fair and I will try to ditch the insults (indeed I almost compared your view women should be punished for abortions folks who deny the moon landings but I removed the insult. But it is an extremist position regardless so I have chosen to drop the snark since you are a good lad Malcolm). But the comparisons are necessary analogies & metaphors.

        >Seriously, Ben – get the beam out of your eye. Don’t bring up Crude here. Don’t ask why I’m not talking to him. Just calm down and think for a second. Crude didn’t deny that Francis was Pope. He didn’t deny Catholic teaching. Yet here you are, predicting he’ll go sedevacantist and using “Protestant” as an insult (even though he’s said nothing that smacks of Protestantism). It’s bullshit, and you know it.

        At one point Luther didn’t deny the Pope was the successor to Peter and the recipient of the Holy Scripture etc…but Protestantism isn’t just an umbrella term for a set of false doctrines. It’s the mentality of rebellion and the formation of rebellion.

        >And you’ve doubled down when you’re observably wrong – you say IN THIS THREAD that the Pope has given the SSPX faculties to hear confessions, and ALSO claim they’re in schism, even as I’ve shown you quotes from Vatican Officials proving you wrong. But, nope, they’re not fans of this Pope – their statement wasn’t even particularly harsh – so that means they’re basically Protestants!

        Pope Francis was treating the SSPX is if they where not schismatic to bring them back. Because he assumed they wanted to come back. There is no question and I might say he was right to do it. But the SSPX has spurned him and thus proven they are schismatic. They did this to both JP2 and B16 and they have not changed. Since they refuse communion with Pope Francis (unless he bows to their will) via the teachings of Florence & Pope Boniface VIII….” Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” how can they be anything else but schismatic? You are citing officials whose words no longer apply.

        >This fits your pattern perfectly – sure, they don’t deny any Catholic teachings, and sure, the Vatican doesn’t consider them schismatic, and sure, they now have faculties to perform sacraments, but darn it, they’re basically Protestants anyway! Because they don’t like the Pope.

        I didn’t call the SSPX heretics (which is a sin against Truth) but Schismatic (which is a sin against familial unity and charity). I said they are no better than Protestants. If they will not submit to the Pope they are schismatic. They say they want to but they put a lot of conditions they have no right too. It would be as if I said to God “I will stop sinning if you do X for me”. Saying they are no better than Protestants is not the same as saying they enforce the Westminster confession and it’s errors or sola fide or some such reformation nonsense. Don’t confuse the issues Malcolm.

        I think Pete Vere can show you some truth about the SSPX.

        http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/my-journey-out-of-the-lefebvre-schism.html

        >News flash, Ben: If you don’t like the Pope – even if you DO slander him, even if you shouldn’t be criticizing him but are – it doesn’t make you a Protestant, or a sedevacantist.

        I was insulting Crude not making an evaluation of his Theology. I mean he dares call me a traitor. I am clearly not being literal here. I am not saying he believes in Sola Fide. But I have seen people with his attitude of Papal hostility directed at the time toward either JP2 or Benedict and they leave the Church. I have warned him. The spirit that moves this hostility to Francis does not come from God.

        >If you’re wondering why we’re frustrated with you, that’s the answer. We’re not just wrong. We’re not just making mistakes. No, people who think differently than you aren’t even Catholic.

        Make your argument from dogma and Tradition. Ideas can be “un-Catholic” even if you are still technically one. I am speaking hypothetically of course. I am not accusing you.

        >The SSPX aren’t Protestants. It’s not a makeable argument.

        I said they are no better than Protestants. It reminds me of something Scott Hahn said to a liberal dissident Catholic. “What is the difference between a Catholic dissident and a Protestant? The Protestant has integrity.”

        Anyway don’t confuse my criticisms of Crude with the SSPX or the Francis bashers in general. I make specific arguments & distinctions.

        > Their teachings aren’t Protestant. They can perform the sacraments. They AREN’T IN SCHISM.

        They pretty much are as long as they refuse to submit to the Pope. The Fraternity of St Peter made up of Ex-SSPX doesn’t have their problems. They are more effective.

        >They’re not heretics.

        Some of them are…..they leave Roman and they make up weird stuff. As an organization they claim to accept the whole faith but their views on V2 are quite dodgy.

        > I don’t think the SSPX are right to take the specific stance they do, but just because they have pointed criticisms of the Pope that lead them to reject the offer of complete reunion with the Church doesn’t make them Protestants.

        Rather it makes them no better than Protestants. Those are my words. It doesn’t mean they now confess Sola Fide or some such Lutheran nonsense. But they are clearly afoul of Pope Boniface VIII. They will either return, perish outside the Church or re-wound their original Schismatic act by consecrating successor bishops. Only one of those choices is an option.

        >But you’re not willing to admit you’re wrong because it might reflect badly on the Pope.

        The Pope is a good guy. I am a bastard most of the time. But I am a bastard on his side.

        Peace to you Malcolm. I am sorry for ever thinking you have banned me.

      • Rather your extremist position is a threat to human life and will serve the cause of baby killing. It is an extremist and imprudent view. Even the Francis bashers agree with me.

        Ben,

        I had a series of posts about this long ago. The gist is that the reaction of mainstream pro-lifers did and does horrify me. My position is not only not extremist, it is the only sane position to have. I really don’t care that you have lots of links disagreeing with me. That’s part of the problem. It’s an undeniable truth.

        …but Protestantism isn’t just an umbrella term for a set of false doctrines. It’s the mentality of rebellion and the formation of rebellion.

        Ben, if you’re Protestant, you’re not Catholic. Yes, at one point Luther rejected no Church teaching. At that point, he was Catholic.

        Protestant is not an attitude. It’s a state.

        As for the SSPX, okay, you take the BenYachov interpretation. I’ll take the Vatican one. Pope Francis doesn’t believe they’re schismatic; the Pope does not allow schismatic groups to hear Confessions. But he did.

        But they are clearly afoul of Pope Boniface VIII.

        Pope Francis disagrees.

      • Crude says:

        But you’re not willing to admit you’re wrong because it might reflect badly on the Pope.

        I love how his go-to line is ‘This is protestant talk! Fie! Fie I say! Extra ecclesia nulla salus!’, which is going to be -hilarious- when the Pope goes to the Reformation celebration.

        Yes, the whole ‘If you have any criticism of the Pope you are horrible and twisted and not Catholic’ schtick is a Ben problem. Here’s another, and this one isn’t exclusive to Ben: he plays the game of “the interpretation I think is best is not just the right interpretation, it’s the only possible one, and every single other interpretation is obviously wrong and propagated by horrible people”. Which, with him, hits the point of absolute stupidity. So when the Pope condemns weapons manufacturers, he only and exclusively means war profiteers. He absolutely didn’t even know Trump talked about building a wall, because this is a Pope who eats cheerios with his hands, what with his being a retard. His interpretation of the Shakespeare post is great, since I can’t tell if he’s just engaging in yet more intentionally desperate interpretation here, or if he really has trouble understanding it. I’m leaning towards the latter at this point.

        It reminds me of, long ago, someone defending Cardinal Law on the grounds that A) we are mere laity, we do NOT have standing to criticize these princes of the church, better to bite off our tongues than speak wrongly against those who GOD has placed above us, and B) Cardinal Law has been a cleric all his life, he is unaware of sexual things. He didn’t even understand what these priests were doing, he couldn’t have. It was sick and twisted, and that people could have impure sexual desires like that was alien to him.

        It’s the second one which stands out to me (five bucks says Ben completely misinterprets this line and just shits the bed over it), because it’s a similar sort of naivete-by-force move. Sure, it’s a ridiculous and reaching gambit to say the least, but at the time this guy insisted that not only was it true, it was -obviously- true, and doubting it made someone wicked and cruel and evil. I dissented then, and I dissent now.

        Anyway, I’ve been keeping quiet about this because I don’t want this spilling over into your blog, but there you go.

        If you delete this response to keep your blog pure of this fight, I understand, by I stand by my points.

      • James Scott says:

        @Crude.

        >Yes, the whole ‘If you have any criticism of the Pope you are horrible and twisted and not Catholic’ schtick is a Ben problem.

        Yes calling the Pope S*** is such a sober and mainstream criticism. It would make St. Paul, St Catherine and Cardinal Burke so proud to speak of Our Father in Faith in such a way.

        >He absolutely didn’t even know Trump talked about building a wall, because this is a Pope who eats cheerios with his hands, what with his being a retard.

        Typical American etho-centracism. Every politician and potentate in the world is closely following America’s elections down to the nearest detail. Not bloody likely. I have seen no evidence of the Pope doing this just a lot of bad Shakespeare analogies and emotive whining from you So Crude can you off the top of your head tell me who is running for public office in Australia(without googling it)? I rather doubt you can. But I bet Paps does. Not that his low brow Gnu brain manifests anything remotely exceptional in terms of intelligence. We both know it doesn’t, but he is an Australian so I assume he knows what is going on in his home country. I doubt the Pope can name any two people running during the Republican Primaries anymore then I know at this moment who is in the Running to take over for Cameron who name is not mentioned in the international Press.

        >Anyway, I’ve been keeping quiet about this because I don’t want this spilling over into your blog, but there you go.

        Back too your safe space snowflake where you can control the narrative and dodge the arguments and substitute rhetoric for intelligence. That is the fate of all Francis bashers in my experience. They become insular. They complain about being unjustly rejected by their fellow Catholics but they cut themselves off & it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

        I have been banned from Lifesite months ago for merely questioning one of their hit pieces on Francis. No insulting rhetoric. No name calling. Not the typical BenYachov fair. But they can’t abide disagreement. The same goes for Elliot or Skojec and the rest of that lot. You are now just like them Crude my former friend. Sad really….

      • Crude says:

        Ben,

        Yes calling the Pope S*** is such a sober and mainstream criticism. It would make St. Paul, St Catherine and Cardinal Burke so proud to speak of Our Father in Faith in such a way.

        I’ve got news for you, gent – you’re as vulgar as they come. You think whipping out an ‘Our Father in Faith’ sanctifies you? It no more does that than improve your arguments.

        Speaking of.

        Typical American etho-centracism. Every politician and potentate in the world is closely following America’s elections down to the nearest detail.

        And there we have it: the Pope had no idea that Trump made his comments about building a wall. None! Total ignorance. Why, it’s American ethno-centrism to think that comment was anything other than completely coincidental.

        I mean, the Pope visited the border to do a mass there, he yammers on about refugees. But goodness, he just didn’t know of the most noteworthy candidate’s highly publicized comment, the one that gained him international attention.

        Like I said, Ben – it’s the retard defense. Why, if you asked the Pope his opinion on Brexit, he’d ask what you’re talking about. Is it, perhaps, a cereal? Kellogg Brexits?

        That is the fate of all Francis bashers in my experience. They become insular.

        I have been banned from Lifesite months ago

        The same goes for Elliot or Skojec and the rest of that lot.

        That’s quite a list, Ben. Y’ever stop to think maybe you have the social graces of rabid squirrel with explosive diarrhea whenever you have a disagreement?

        Nah, can’t be. You’re not obsessive, foul and insulting. Everyone else is insular!

      • James Scott says:

        @Crude

        >I’ve got news for you, gent – you’re as vulgar as they come.

        Yes I am but calling the Pope what you called him crosses the line and invites a response of equal anger and rigor.

        >And there we have it: the Pope had no idea that Trump made his comments about building a wall. None! Total ignorance. Why, it’s American ethno-centrism to think that comment was anything other than completely coincidental.

        And there you have it. If you special plead enough Crude somehow your nutty blather will become more convincing? It won’t. 200 nation states on planet Earth give or take and the Pope is paying close attention to the minutia of our political system because you know Crude is. Yeh I buy that now perhaps you would like to sell me a bridge in the municipality next to the one in which I live?

        >I mean, the Pope visited the border to do a mass there, he yammers on about refugees. But goodness, he just didn’t know of the most noteworthy candidate’s highly publicized comment, the one that gained him international attention.

        But when I read his words and his emphasis on “Giving the benefit of the doubt” & professing ignorance as to what was really said and not telling anyone who to vote or that he does not want to be involved and his repeated use of “if”….. I am not to take his words at face value because of you know…Marc Anthony.

        So brillant Crude. Not as intelligence draining as something Skepo or Paps would write….maybe just a little.

        >Like I said, Ben – it’s the retard defense. Why, if you asked the Pope his opinion on Brexit, he’d ask what you’re talking about. Is it, perhaps, a cereal? Kellogg Brexits?

        I have heard real mentally handicapped people call others “retards” in my time due to my personal circumstances. Your insipid fever swamp “argument” that doesn’t have an ounce of intelligence reminds me of those poor souls and the force of their insult. It is to be pityed.

        >That’s quite a list, Ben. Y’ever stop to think maybe you have the social graces of rabid squirrel with explosive diarrhea whenever you have a disagreement?

        No doubt that is true but considering the fellow who is pointing this out to me is really no different or better……..it rings kinda hollow.

        >Nah, can’t be. You’re not obsessive, foul and insulting. Everyone else is insular!

        What no citation from Shakespeare? I am disappointed.

      • James Scott says:

        @Crude

        >Why, if you asked the Pope his opinion on Brexit, he’d ask what you’re talking about. Is it, perhaps, a cereal? Kellogg Brexits?

        Actually he said he supports the democratic choice of the people. But he is in Europe smack dab in the middle of the whole thing. Not in the press train of the Trump Campaign; But somehow the 50/50 election choice of the people is equivalent to sound bite statements he might have heard third or fourth hand and carefully answers? Weird….

      • Crude says:

        Yes I am but calling the Pope what you called him crosses the line and invites a response of equal anger and rigor.

        Special pleading, and pretending your behavior on this front is exceptional rather than the norm.

        It won’t. 200 nation states on planet Earth give or take and the Pope is paying close attention to the minutia of our political system because you know Crude is.

        That’s right, Ben. It’s just a 1 in 200+ shot. The Pope’s like, “America? You mean North America? OH! OH wait, yes, there’s a -country- called America, isn’t there. I always forget, because you know, so many countries, also I am far away.”

        Like I said – the retard defense.

        I am not to take his words at face value because of you know…Marc Anthony.

        And Ben continues to derp it up. Gotta say, Ben, between ‘The Pope doesn’t even follow American politics’ and this, you’re making a lot of things clear about yourself.

        I have heard real mentally handicapped people call others “retards” in my time due to my personal circumstances.

        Ruminating among your mental equals?

        No doubt that is true but considering the fellow who is pointing this out to me is really no different or better

        Ben, let’s make it clear what both of us know, as does every observer.

        We’re different. And really? I’m better.

        Enjoy your weekend. Remember to keep that helmet on super tight if you go outside. Falling down is painful stuff. 😉

      • James Scott says:

        @Crude
        >Special pleading, and pretending your behavior on this front is exceptional rather than the norm.

        Crude we are both jerks to people we fight with and we both admit it. But I would assume even you have standards. Obviously not.

        >That’s right, Ben. It’s just a 1 in 200+ shot. The Pope’s like, “America? You mean North America? OH! OH wait, yes, there’s a -country- called America, isn’t there. I always forget, because you know, so many countries, also I am far away.”

        >Like I said – the retard defense.

        So Crude who are the top ten conservative candidates in Mexico or New Zealand? If you can’t answer me off the top of your head without googling it by your own standard you are retarded.

        >And Ben continues to derp it up. Gotta say, Ben, between ‘The Pope doesn’t even follow American politics’ and this, you’re making a lot of things clear about yourself.

        So Crude who are the top conservative politicians in Australia? Who are the top liberal and what are their policies? Off the top of your head without consulting the Internet or Paps. Don’t know? Oh I get it your answer is “Derp”. A step above “Marc Anthony” to be sure.

        >Ruminating among your mental equals?

        No all my children are mentally handicapped & in school associate with others if that condition. Remember? I am sure I mentioned my kids to you before? Did you forget?
        Must be because you are retarded.

        >We’re different. And really? I’m better.

        Not so different except we are not on the same side here and can never be. Better at what? Being a jackarse? In that we are kinda of equal. More intelligent? Well your goto arguments are “Retarded”, “Marc Anthony” and “Derp” so I am not seeing that……

        >Enjoy your weekend. Remember to keep that helmet on super tight if you go outside. Falling down is painful stuff.

        Indeed. Enjoy yours.

      • Crude says:

        Ben,

        Crude we are both jerks to people we fight with and we both admit it.

        Actually, no. I’m a pretty nice guy to people I disagree with, so long as they’re nice to me in turn. I have a short trigger; get patronizing, get insulting, and I respond and escalate. But I do not patronize or insult without provocation. You do.

        So Crude who are the top ten conservative candidates in Mexico or New Zealand?

        Ben, America is not Lichtenstein. Donald Trump’s comment about the wall was international news – it made him well known in Mexico, in Europe, in the US, in Canada, and yes, at the Vatican. Your defense is to try and say that of -course- the Pope had no idea what Trump said, or to what the reporter was talking about, because goodness, who pays attention to America, there’s 200 other countries. It’s beyond stupid, and you know it. Sink with the argument if you want.

        Remember? I am sure I mentioned my kids to you before? Did you forget?

        I must have, because otherwise I was directly insulting you, and surely I never intended that, right? After all, you are just one human being among 6+ billion in the world. Why in the world would I remember one random factoid about one particular human?

        Not so different except we are not on the same side here and can never be. Better at what? Being a jackarse? In that we are kinda of equal

        No, I believe I’m even a better troll – and I definitely have better arguments. Normally I let this sort of thing slide, but you keep coming at me over and over, so being blunt is the order of the day.

        Let me show you a kindness, and tell you what your mistake was here: you haven’t learned how to question people you disagree with, or attempt to persuade them with reason. You treat disputes people have with you as decisive failings of either intellect or morality, instantly, and you count on people not being nearly as ferocious as you are. It works, but not on everyone. Being insulted, abused and overwhelmed with comments does not silence me. It pisses me off.

        Next time you deal with someone, don’t waste what good graces you’ve had by demanding their surrender on pain of you calling them names.

      • James Scott says:

        >Actually, no. I’m a pretty nice guy to people I disagree with, so long as they’re nice to me in turn. I have a short trigger; get patronizing, get insulting, and I respond and escalate. But I do not patronize or insult without provocation. You do.

        So your short trigger justifies you getting patronizing, insulting at me while complaining about me doing it too you? Gottcha…….(eye roll) .

        >America is not Lichtenstein.

        Nor is it Europe or South America where I think the Pope is more likely paying attention to the details of local politics. What is your response here? “Derp”? or “Marc Anthony”?

        > Donald Trump’s comment about the wall was international news – it made him well known in Mexico, in Europe, in the US, in Canada, and yes, at the Vatican.

        No doubt he heard the sound bites from the Media but his actual response which I will reproduce again (and you will ignore because of either “derp” or “Marc Anthony” or can we say “Lichtenstein”?) tells the story.

        Quote”….., 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

        Taken at face value the Pope is treating the statements attributed to Trump with some skepticism. Trump I don’t think is against building bridges. So he is good. But we must ignore what the Pope says here because of “derp”, “Marc Anthony”, “Lichtenstein” and a secret decoder ring found in the Commi Cross given as a gift to the Pope which we will hold over these words which will read “I Francis think Trump is Satan and all who vote for him are Capitalist pigs and scum bags who hate Christianity and Recycling!”

        > Your defense is to try and say that of -course- the Pope had no idea what Trump said, or to what the reporter was talking about, because goodness, who pays attention to America, there’s 200 other countries.

        No my defense was his words, your rebuttal was Marc Anthony’s fictional speech. I was saying he is not focused on internal US politics. He is not informed because his response is not one from a man who has studded Trump in depth and provides a counter reposne to his actual words. It is a diplomatic answer that gives everyone wiggle room. Even Trump himself when he finally read it said at “That was not so bad”. Because Trump unlike the Pope responded to what the media reported uncritically. He ran his mouth off without thinking in that situation not the Pope. I am only glad Trump has improved since then and will pimp slap Lady MacBeth/Hilarity.

        >It’s beyond stupid, and you know it. Sink with the argument if you want.

        No moving between South Park “derp” and Shakespeare is stupid. I at least tried to be relevant and compare Francis to Pius XII or XI.

        >I must have, because otherwise I was directly insulting you, and surely I never intended that, right? After all, you are just one human being among 6+ billion in the world. Why in the world would I remember one random factoid about one particular human?

        Which is why I don’t consider you have insulted or intended to mock my situation with my Kids in spite of your generous use of the word “retard”. Because in spite of your lack of Standards with the Pope I know you have decency in that regard. But if you only gave the Pope the same benefit of the doubt over Trump…

        >No, I believe I’m even a better troll – and I definitely have better arguments. Normally I let this sort of thing slide, but you keep coming at me over and over, so being blunt is the order of the day.

        Hey I tried to change the subject after you shut down the argument and of course didn’t print my responses. But you had to get your little swipe even thought you gave yourself the last word by force and I could do nothing.

        >Let me show you a kindness, and tell you what your mistake was here: you haven’t learned how to question people you disagree with, or attempt to persuade them with reason.

        I did my best but you started to melt down and refused to address my argument. You couldn’t even do me the curtsy of telling what the Pope “really meant” in regards to my quote”. You just shut down and spoke of some vague hidden meaning & later some Marc Anthony BS. How does one argue with that?

        > You treat disputes people have with you as decisive failings of either intellect or morality, instantly, and you count on people not being nearly as ferocious as you are. It works, but not on everyone. Being insulted, abused and overwhelmed with comments does not silence me. It pisses me off.

        By your own admission you have a “short trigger” which you invoke to justify disrespecting me in our exchange but i am suppose to give you a pass and walk on egg shells because your pissed? I tried to pull my punches and praised you but you disrespected me too. Don’t act the innocent here. You are not.

        >Next time you deal with someone, don’t waste what good graces you’ve had by demanding their surrender on pain of you calling them names.

        Physician heal thyself. Treat me with the same sensitivity you expect. I didn’t see that. You made this personal. I was trying to argue reasonably. All I got was emotive crap and I am still getting it. You are great at being passive aggressive Crude not much else.

      • For what it’s worth, I actually have more issues with his comments on contraception, which I believe are incorrect (I know the general arguments in favor, and had a fairly long discussion of it with Michael Flynn, the sci-fi writer, of all people).

      • Crude says:

        So your short trigger justifies you getting patronizing, insulting at me while complaining about me doing it too you?

        No, I said that the key difference between us is that I actually have to be provoked. Disagreement isn’t sufficient. For you, it is. Really Ben, you’re banned left and right from places – somehow, this doesn’t happen to me, despite my being churlish at times. It’s almost as if you’re doing something different. What is it?

        Nor is it Europe or South America where I think the Pope is more likely paying attention to the details of local politics.

        Sure, Ben. US presidential election where a candidate makes a worldwide-provocative comment is ‘local politics’. Whatever fills your apple juice glass.

        I don’t really need to say much more here, dude. You won’t be convinced by anything – but to anyone reasonable, you’re either a liar or stupid beyond belief. Congratulations.

        No doubt he heard the sound bites from the Media but his actual response which

        Oh goodness, really? Finally, Ben acknowledges that the Pope probably was in fact familiar with these comments. Now we’re back to ‘Okay the Pope knew about this but he wasn’t talking about Trump at all, if you completely ignore reason and common sense it was all a big misunderstanding because the Pope just misunderstood’.

        I have a different explanation: the Pope was passive aggressively targeting Trump, Trump called him on it – and the Pope pussed out.

        Smart move. Trump, nicely, let him slink away.

        But we must ignore what the Pope says here because of “derp”, “Marc Anthony”, “Lichtenstein” and a secret decoder ring found in the Commi Cross given as a gift to the Pope which we will hold over these words which will read

        Ben, do you yourself have a… uh. “Learning disability”? I mean, when you were in school – not sure if you graduated – were you held back year after year? Because honest to God, that would explain so, so much here.

        No my defense was his words, your rebuttal was Marc Anthony’s fictional speech. I was saying he is not focused on internal US politics.

        Yeah, the presidential election, worldwide news that other world leaders comment on, regarding a key issue central to the Pope’s US interactions, he doesn’t notice that.

        And the funny part is, you don’t even understand why I quoted the speech. I have a feeling you’ve gone back now and read it 4, 5 times, tried to get what the joke was, but you can’t be sure so you’re kind of spooked.

        Hey I tried to change the subject after you shut down the argument and of course didn’t print my responses.

        Ben, again – you get banned from blog after blog. I warned you, I’m in no mood to constantly deal with you tarding out over things. Few can, because you will seriously post 50 comments in a day, totally monopolize things, and get all pants-on-head and scream ‘you didn’t respond that means I win!!!!’ when someone doesn’t reply.

        Newsflash: most people don’t like dealing with idiots who talk at length.

        How does one argue with that?

        Ben, you were totally confused by the Marc Anthony bit, and that explains the problem: you literally can’t understand things. I’ve explained my position over and over, I’ve explained the problem with what you said. You just get angry, don’t understand, and then freak out. Of course, that gets pointed out, and all you know how to do is rant and clumsily try to throw back what you’re hit with. Those who are rockin’ a double-digit IQ can only do so much.

        By your own admission you have a “short trigger” which you invoke to justify disrespecting me

        No, Ben. I said I have a short trigger with patronizing and insults. Not disagreement. I explicitly said that I’m a pretty nice guy once those two things are out, no matter the disagreement.

        But I admit, that list is incomplete. There’s one thing that also sets me off in addition to those two things: really, really stupid people who think they’re smart because ‘AH FROM NEH YOKE’, ‘AH LUB MI PAPA’ or whatever other knuckle-drag talisman is relied on.

        Look Ben – I feel bad here, because this is Malcolm’s blog. I will not turn it into my arena to humiliate you in. Do everyone a favor, and bite your tongue rather than reply to me. (This is where you point out ‘I type with my fingers dummy not my tongue ha ha ha you stupid!’, to broadcast how, uh… ‘smart’ you are.)

        Have the last word. You desperately need it.

      • James Scott says:

        Thank God for something intelligent to respond too instead of the usual fever swamp.

        @Malcolm

        >For what it’s worth, I actually have more issues with his comments on contraception, which I believe are incorrect (I know the general arguments in favor, and had a fairly long discussion of it with Michael Flynn, the sci-fi writer, of all people).

        Technically it is not “contraception” if a Nun in an area where she might be raped takes the pill. This is true regardless if the tale of Paul VI giving nuns permission to do this is true or not(likely not true). The sin of “contraception” involves thwarting the natural end of sex in marriage. Nuns never intend to have sex ergo they don’t owe any man the natural end product of children.

        I remember the reporter in the “contraception” incident literally asked the Pope about the “sin of preventing pregnancy”.
        Well technically preventing pregnancy is a sin. If you marry a woman without the intention to accept children from God even if you use NFP to prevent pregnancy you sin. Also the validity of your marriage can be legitimately challenged if it fails and is brought to tribunal for an annulment. Pete Vere my French Canadian Trad friend and canon lawyer once told me about 30% of his annulment cases involve one or both parties openly not intending to have children when they marry(that has some bearing on the validity of Catholic marriages statement made by the Pope). A Priest by all rights should refuse to perform such a ceremony if one or both couples openly reject having children,
        (It might be allowed for a grave reason. Not sure).
        As too the Pope he answered the reporters’ question about the “sin of preventing pregnancy” and gave what are legitimate exceptions to that rule. People who don’t intend to have sex can “prevent” pregnancy. He answered the reporter with a lot of equivocal language but not technically correct language which was the problem. But reporters are an order of magnitude stupid when it comes to understanding theology. The problem with his answer is he gave the impression “contraception” is ok much like Benedict did when he spoke of Male Prostitutes using condoms to prevent aids as “the beginning of a good will and concern for the good of others”(I paraphrase poorlly from memory.

        Any other thought Malcolm.

      • James Scott says:

        Thank God for something intelligent to respond too instead of the usual fever swamp.

        @Malcolm

        >For what it’s worth, I actually have more issues with his comments on contraception, which I believe are incorrect (I know the general arguments in favor, and had a fairly long discussion of it with Michael Flynn, the sci-fi writer, of all people).

        Technically it is not “contraception” if a Nun in an area where she might be raped takes the pill. This is true regardless if the tale of Paul VI giving nuns permission to do this is true or not(likely not true). The sin of “contraception” involves thwarting the natural end of sex in marriage. Nuns never intend to have sex ergo they don’t owe any man the natural end product of children.

        I remember the reporter in the “contraception” incident literally asked the Pope about the “sin of preventing pregnancy”.
        Well technically preventing pregnancy is a sin. If you marry a woman without the intention to accept children from God even if you use NFP to prevent pregnancy you sin. Also the validity of your marriage can be legitimately challenged if it fails and is brought to tribunal for an annulment. Pete Vere my French Canadian Trad friend and canon lawyer once told me about 30% of his annulment cases involve one or both parties openly not intending to have children when they marry(that has some bearing on the validity of Catholic marriages statement made by the Pope). A Priest by all rights should refuse to perform such a ceremony if one or both couples openly reject having children,
        (It might be allowed for a grave reason. Not sure).
        As too the Pope he answered the reporters’ question about the “sin of preventing pregnancy” and gave what are legitimate exceptions to that rule. People who don’t intend to have sex can “prevent” pregnancy. He answered the reporter with a lot of equivocal language but not technically correct language which was the problem. But reporters are an order of magnitude stupid when it comes to understanding theology. The problem with his answer is he gave the impression “contraception” is ok much like Benedict did when he spoke of Male Prostitutes using condoms to prevent aids as “the beginning of a good will and concern for the good of others”(I paraphrase poorlly from memory.

        Any other thought Malcolm?

      • James Scott says:

        @Crude

        >Oh goodness, really? Finally, Ben acknowledges that the Pope probably was in fact familiar with these comments.

        Where did I deny that? My contention was he wasn’t paying any close attention to the race. I said that repeatedly. You ignored me. You sir are the weirdo who is implying the Pope is following our election as closely as you are..

        >Now we’re back to ‘Okay the Pope knew about this but he wasn’t talking about Trump at all, if you completely ignore reason and common sense it was all a big misunderstanding because the Pope just misunderstood’.

        No he didn’t “know”. At best he might have heard something in passing. But he responded specifically to the information the reporter gave him. That is clear from the record which you can’t or wont’ deal with because of you know “Marc Anthony” or “Derp”.

        >I have a different explanation: the Pope was passive aggressively targeting Trump, Trump called him on it – and the Pope pussed out.

        A conspiracy theory worthy of Skepo. So the Pope planted this question with the intention of “passive aggressively targeting” Trump? He gives a measured charitable response giving the benefit of the doubt as to what Trump actually said or meant, designed to “passively aggressively target” Trump. Trump is greatly hurt or “targeted” (is that like being triggered?) by the Pope saying well if he said what you said & didn’t also do X then that is un-Christian but I don’t know what he said. We have to see what he said and I am not getting involved in telling people who to vote for so that is that. Wow! That is an attack worthy of Clinton or Cruz’s dirt diggers let me tell ya! How could Trump recover from such an artful slam as the Pope has delivered against him?

        >Smart move. Trump, nicely, let him slink away.

        Ah so Trump was “lying” when he remarked the next day “Well when I read the original words of the Pope it wasn’t so bad”? He knew those exact words the moment the Pope uttered them all along and only pretended to have read them the next day(maybe the Pope got him in on the conspiracy?). Trump correctly identified the Pope’s literal words as “passive aggressive targeting” and hit back at full force because we all know Trump is not the sort of person to shoot off his mouth willy nilly. All his responses are measured calculated attacks designed to defend himself from both explicit denunciations and subtle “passive aggressive targeting”? He is just too experienced a politician and insider.

        There you have it!!!!

        Crude at this point my last tiny shred of respect I once had for you is deader than Disco in the 80’s. See ya later. I’ll remember to send you a tin hat for Christmas.

  4. James Scott says:

    So Malcolm I’m banned?

  5. James Scott says:

    BTW Malcolm citing the SSPX as an authority over wither or not they are in schism is like an irregularly married couple judging their the validity of their own marriage in an “internal forum” and giving themselves the right to take communion before a legal ruling is handed down by the Church.

    The SSPX was in schism. At best with their talks with Rome they might have been moving into a gray area but that has clearly changed,

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/my-journey-out-of-the-lefebvre-schism.html

    • No, they’re not. Did you read the link? It’s all quotes from the Vatican. There aren’t even SSPX arguments, just comments from Vatican officals themselves. So what it’s put out by the SSPX? The quotes say what they say, period.

      Come on, Ben. You’re just wrong. Totally wrong. As was I. Just admit it.

      Their recent comments have nothing to do with whether or not they’re in schism. At worst they’re disrespectful.

      • James Scott says:

        First Malcolm I asked you a question. For some reason I can’t post under my old moniker so I am wondering if I am banned or if it’s a tech problem at my end? I would like to know and if you would be so kind as too tell I would appreciate it.

        Secondly

        St. Pius X society abandons unification, claims Francis spreading errors

        https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/traditionalist-st-pius-x-society-abandons-unification-claims-francis-spreading-errors

        They are abandoning unification. That is schismatic. Tradition tells us via St. Augustine that there is no excuse for schism even upon the admission the Church is being ruled by wicked and sinful men. So even if their charges where true (which they are not but that is a separate argument) via the Tradition they claim to uphold they have no right to abandon unification.

        None ergo they are schismatic. At least materially so. Williamson has already been re-excomunicated for consecrating bishops. The SSPX will go one of two ways. They will choose to die out (if they don’t come back) or they will consecrate successors which will be a further schismatic act and will return them to square one.

        What was said before by Vatican officials is being negated now by abandoning unity.

      • Ben,

        I answered you like five times. I’m not going to again; read my many other responses to that question.

        That is schismatic.

        The Vatican disagrees. I agree with them.

      • James Scott says:

        >My position is not only not extremist, it is the only sane position to have.

        Well good luck getting a Job as a spokesmen for any Pro-Life organization while publicly holding that view. If it where mainstream some organization would hold it. But there are none.

        >Protestant is not an attitude. It’s a state.

        It’s an equivocal term. An attitude, a state, a Christian religious system, a Catholic spin off group etc……Like “religion” or “Atheism” it’s not one thing.

        >As for the SSPX, okay, you take the BenYachov interpretation. I’ll take the Vatican one..

        More like their pastoral approach.

        >Pope Francis doesn’t believe they’re schismatic; the Pope does not allow schismatic groups to hear Confessions. But he did.

        That is not true. The Eastern Orthodox and the lesser Oriental Orthodox are schismatic but in emergency situations you may confess to one of their Priests. This is in canon law. You may also take communion and confess to Priests of the Polish National Catholic Church under certain circumstances. None of these actions negate the objective schism between these groups and the One True Church. The Church has always allowed reviving sacraments from Schismatics under certain circumstances. It these groups where fine in there objective status then why does the Church have committees and commissions dedicated to “re-union” if said union already is a fact?

        >Pope Francis disagrees.

        You are equivocating between Francis’s pastoral policy and Boniface’s dogmatic infallible definition. Thus I find your argument un-convincing based on my own extensive theological knowledge and experience.

      • Well good luck getting a Job as a spokesmen for any Pro-Life organization while publicly holding that view. If it where mainstream some organization would hold it. But there are none.

        I’m well aware. It’s a massive problem.

        The Eastern Orthodox and the lesser Oriental Orthodox are schismatic but in emergency situations you may confess to one of their Priests.

        We’re not talking about emergency situations.

        You are equivocating between Francis’s pastoral policy and Boniface’s dogmatic infallible definition.

        Pope Boniface did not make a ruling. Several Vatican trials, official proclamations, and actions by the Pope ruled they were not in schism.

        Ben, this is so unarguable I’m amazed you’re arguing it. But I’ll go with the Vatican’s opinion over yours.

      • James Scott says:

        >We’re not talking about emergency situations.

        With the Polish National Catholic Church it can be the “emergency” of not being able to get to a Catholic Church for Mass.

        >Pope Boniface did not make a ruling.

        No he gave an infallible Dogma. EENS and “submission to the Pope is necessary for Salvation”. Catholics especially Traditionalists might have a hard time pleading invincible ignorance on this.

        >Several Vatican trials, official proclamations, and actions by the Pope ruled they were not in schism.

        Without naming them and the times they took place that is a meaningless if ambiguous attempt at defense. What is happening now is they are backtracking ,rejecting and refusing communion with Pope Francis. They have no right to do so.

        >Ben, this is so unarguable I’m amazed you’re arguing it. But I’ll go with the Vatican’s opinion over yours.

        Except the Vatican is trying to implement a pastoral policy not give an opinion. By definition we want everyone to be Catholic and in full communion with the Pope because it is Our Lord’s will that it be so.

        But you are right. I can’t argue with you. This is a side topic BTW. I prefer to talk about Francis.

      • Without naming them and the times they took place that is a meaningless if ambiguous attempt at defense.

        Great. I posted a link.

      • Except the Vatican is trying to implement a pastoral policy not give an opinion.

        Good thing they’ve ruled on it many times in the past and concluded it wasn’t schism.

  6. James Scott says:

    Your span filter keeps catching my posts.

  7. James Scott says:

    >Good thing they’ve ruled on it many times in the past and concluded it wasn’t schism.

    That was the past Malcolm when they where making the effort to come home. This is today.

    • Today, nobody ever ruled they were in schism; the previous rulings hold. Not only that, they never said they weren’t making an effort to come home.

      Schism is a huge thing. It’s not something Malcolm, Ben, or Crude get to announce. It’s not our call.

      • James Scott says:

        >Today, nobody ever ruled they were in schism; the previous rulings hold. Not only that, they never said they weren’t making an effort to come home.

        So we can judge the Pope’s conduct but not the SSPX?

        >Schism is a huge thing. It’s not something Malcolm, Ben, or Crude get to announce. It’s not our call.

        Rather it happens when you refuse communion with the Pope or some part of the Church. They don’t want to come back and are dragging their feet. In the end either by some grace they will come back or stay out and die out or more likely consecrate successors. I would rather they return.

        Also Malcolm back before Benedict commuted their ex-communications they where claiming they are not schismatic. They are hardly a reliable authority either. Just so you realize that. Rome is the interpreter of her own laws.

        Still I will always trust the final word of the Pope if he says tomorrow they are not schismatic.

      • So we can judge the Pope’s conduct but not the SSPX?

        When did I say anything about the SSPX’s conduct?

        Also Malcolm back before Benedict commuted their ex-communications they where claiming they are not schismatic.

        Those quotes weren’t from them.

        Rather it happens when you refuse communion with the Pope or some part of the Church.

        But they don’t. My understanding is that it is about the canonical status of the order; but not having the status they desire granted to them about the Vatican does not mean they reject union with the Church proper.

        Look, Ben, I know you think they’re in schism, but I trust the Vatican on this. You don’t get to judge whether or not a group is in schism. And that’s your problem; you literally believe you’re holier-than-thou.

      • James Scott says:

        >And that’s your problem; you literally believe you’re holier-than-thou.

        Take the last word on the issue of SSPX schism or not Malcolm. I have said what I have too.

        But as too this jab at my character. Aw who cares? Start a thread on Hilarity and Bill and Lynch. That would be fun.

        PS Yeh I should get my own blog but why should I when you already put in the effort?:-)

        cheers Malcolm.

      • But as too this jab at my character. Aw who cares?

        It’s a jab at your argumentative style; whether it reflects your character I’m not gonna judge. To you, the SSPX CAN’T just be mistaken. They need to be schismatic. This despite the fact that they don’t reject the sovereignty of the Pope, were not declared Schismatic by several different Vatican officials, and have not been declared schismatic now.

        Schism is not something we judge. It’s the job of the magisterium to declare the SSPX schismatic.

  8. James Scott says:

    Oy Vey! Sorry for the double post. I switched computers and am still getting my sea legs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s