Pope Francis (Bergoglio) Criticised Pope Benedict XVI?

JPUSC · #1 Mar 15, '13, 2:36 pm

Quote:

In 2005, then Pope Benedict, while quoting from an obscure medieval text, declared that the Prophet Mohammed, founder of the Islamic faith, was "evil and inhuman", enraging the Muslim population and causing attacks on churches throughout the world before an apology was issued.

Reacting within days to the statements, speaking through a spokesman to Newsweek Argentina, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio declared his "unhappiness" with the statements, made at the University of Regensburg in Germany, and encouraged many of his subordinates with the Church to do the same.

"Pope Benedict's statement don't reflect my own opinions", the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires declared. "These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years".

The Vatican reacted quickly, removing one subordinate, Joaquín Piña the Archbishop of Puerto Iguazú from his post within four days of his making similar statements to the Argentine national media, sending a clear statement to Cardinal Bergoglio that he would be next should he choose to persist.

Reacting to the threats from Rome, Cardinal Bergoglio cancelled his plans to fly to Rome, choosing to boycott the second synod that Pope Benedict had called during his tenure as pontiff.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-Mohammed.html

Is this true? Any thoughts?

I know Pope Benedict XVI didn't mean to cause offense and his words were taken out of context. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted the Pontiff's "love of humanity," and said: "We all need to understand that offense can sometimes be taken when perhaps we don't see it."

Mrs Sally · #2 Mar 15, '13, 2:46 pm

My thought is to stop reading the Telegraph. Everything I've seen from them recently has been sensationalistic - claims that are not clearly attributed.

zab · #3 Mar 15, '13, 2:50 pm

It seems as if If all hell has broken loose because of the selection that has been made in Pope Francis. Just look at all of the threads popping up with this or that rumor causing some disturbance among the Faithful trying to get us to engage in spreading rumors that can kill a person's good character. Must be a good sign.

JPUSC · #4 Mar 15, '13, 2:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by zab

It seems as if If all hell has broken loose because of the selection that has been made in Pope Francis. Just look at all of the threads popping up with this or that rumor causing some disturbance among the Faithful trying to get us to engage in spreading rumors that can kill a person's good character. Must be a good sign.

Well I think it's only here since most of the mainstream media, social media and general public have displayed overwhelming support for the new Pope.

**ProVobis** · #5 Mar 15, '13, 2:58 pm

Which side is the Spanish Inquisition?

Tampa Rays · #6 Mar 15, '13, 2:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPUSC

Is this true? Any thoughts?

I know Pope Benedict XVI didn't mean to cause offense and his words were taken out of context. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted the Pontiff's "love of humanity," and said: "We all need to understand that offense can sometimes be taken when perhaps we don't see it."

Rice is ambassador to the Unite Nations, not Secretary of State (thank God!)

StudentMI · #7 Mar 15, '13, 3:08 pm

I have to admit all of the threads popping up have me concerned. It seems to me as if people are looking for a reason to worry about Pope Francis. Just my impression. The man is solidly orthodox, humble, and devout. We don't need to worry.

Luigi Daniele · #8 Mar 15, '13, 3:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by StudentMI

I have to admit all of the threads popping up have me concerned. It seems to me as if people are looking for a reason to worry about Pope Francis. Just my impression. The man is solidly orthodox, humble, and devout. We don't need to worry.

Quote

Another Mary · #9 Mar 15, '13, 3:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tampa Rays

Rice is ambassador to the Unite Nations, not Secretary of State (thank God!)

Wrong Rice. You may be thinking of Susan.

mark a · #10 Mar 15, '13, 3:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPUSC

Any thoughts?

Not on your question, but didn't violent reaction of fundy Islam prove the pope's point for him?

revert_jen · #11 Mar 15, '13, 3:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tampa Rays

Rice is ambassador to the Unite Nations, not Secretary of State (thank God!)

In 2005, Condoleezza Rice was the Secretary of State. I'd much rather have her than her successor, Ms. Clinton.

As another poster has pointed out, Susan Rice is the Ambassador to the UN.

--Jen

Megan7 · #12 Mar 15, '13, 3:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPUSC

Is this true? Any thoughts?

I know Pope Benedict XVI didn't mean to cause offense and his words were taken out of context. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted the Pontiff's "love of humanity," and said: "We all need to understand that offense can sometimes be taken when perhaps we don't see it."

QUOTE from OP:

Quote:
In 2005, then Pope Benedict, while quoting from an obscure medieval text, declared that the Prophet Mohammed, founder of the Islamic faith, was "evil and inhuman", enraging the Muslim population and causing attacks on churches throughout the world before an apology was issued.

Reacting within days to the statements, speaking through a spokesman to Newsweek Argentina, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio declared his "unhappiness" with the statements, made at the University of Regensburg in Germany, and encouraged many of his subordinates with the Church to do the same.

"Pope Benedict's statement don't reflect my own opinions", the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires declared. "These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years".

The Vatican reacted quickly, removing one subordinate, Joaquín Piña the Archbishop of Puerto Iguazú from his post within four days of his making similar statements to the Argentine national media, sending a clear statement to Cardinal Bergoglio that he would be next should he choose to persist.

Reacting to the threats from Rome, Cardinal Bergoglio cancelled his plans to fly to Rome, choosing to boycott the second synod that Pope Benedict had called during his tenure as pontiff.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-Mohammed.html

Is this true? Any thoughts?

Arrependida · #13 Mar 15, '13, 4:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPUSC

Is this true? Any thoughts?

."

I do not know if the above is true. But it does fits the picture of a typical south american bishop, I am afraid. I mean not really wanting to listen to the Pope and stuff, specially an orthodox pope like Benedict was. Social justice and populism is generally the main priority in south american church and most are highly influenced by Liberation Theology in various degrees. Liturgy is not so important to them but they are very strong in Ecumenism with other religions, not only with Jews, and Muslims, but also with Candomble, Umbanda (afro cults similar to santeria.) Maybe that is why Bergoglio was unhappy...

BigBlueCane · #14 Mar 15, '13, 4:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPUSC

Is this true? Any thoughts?

I know Pope Benedict XVI didn't mean to cause offense and his words were taken out of context. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted the Pontiff's "love of humanity," and said: "We all need to understand that offense can sometimes be taken when perhaps we don't see it."

If true then I'm loving him already.

Sirach2 · #15 Mar 15, '13, 4:23 pm

Canon Lawyer Dr. Edw. Peters had this to say in Newadvent today:

The mainstream media is in panic over Pope Francis.
The new pope is solidly opposed to everything big media wants (contraception, abortion, ‘same-sex marriage’, etc.), but it can’t simply write him off as an out-of-touch academic (Benedict) or as a provincial Slav suffering Nazi and Communist induced post-traumatic stress disorder (John Paul II). Worse, the first prelate of the Catholic world is a man of proven commitment to the poor (far more demonstrably than are his limousine liberal critics), and has lived his whole life in a simplicity that is utterly beyond the ken of Manhattan or the Beltway sophisticates.

So, confronted by a major Catholic prelate of such palpable integrity, what’s the media to do? Only one thing: Look up what country the prelate calls home, find out what trauma that country suffered (that’s not hard to do, all modern countries suffer from traumas, generally those organized by their governments), and accuse the prelate of—wait for it—Not Speaking Out.