This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I don’t deem the article worthy of being addressed but I’ll give a few highlights:
If you read the papal Saint Martha homilies -then you’re not an average catholic and you should have the ability to understand the pope is inviting you to self-criticize yourself.
No I don’t think the pope sides with any particular party or is in line with a party.
The authors use of ‘C Cedilla’ in ‘aperçus’ fails to impress me given my ethnic background.
In Gaudete et exsultate the pope praised the simple, modest, daily sainthood of those going about their lives. He quoted another author who called this:“the middle class of sanctity”.
The author doesn’t SEEM the author FOR SURE DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE!!!
Indeed, the author fails at his every attempt and still gets published…
Did you read the full article @KevinK ?? The article starts bashing the Pope then goes on to become a ramble unconnected about faits-divers. If that writer’s a “featured author” and “editor” I’m left questioning the quality of the entire venture…
THE TITTLE OF THAT ARTICLE SHOULD BE: FRUIT SALAD!!
That was a self contradictory ramble. I guess the end was just the author’s random thoghts. It did not seem to have anything to do with the topic. I kept waiting for a concluding paragraph.
What I got out of it was that what the Pope is doing is bad. When others do the same thing it is good except when it is bad. It was exhausting.
Article doesn’t really deserve comment, but these kinds of overly-sensitive weak-kneed cafeteria Catholic opinions are sad. They show such a lack of faith and confidence.
I may be mistaken but isn’t ultramontanism usually ascribed to those who consider it wrong to level any criticism at the Pope?
Just spitballing, but some have speculated that opposition to Pope Francis is rooted in the ultramontanist tendencies of the traditionalists some of which advocate a strong centralized authoritarian papacy. They see Pope Francis’ more collaborative/synodal style as a threat.
(I’m not saying I agree with this position.)
Edit: Here’s a National Catholic Reporter article that explains the thinking. (Again, I’m not saying I agree. I’m just providing context for the discussion.)
I don’t quite get the NCR author’s goal here. He says the new ultramontanists are typically critical of Pope Francis. But ultramontanists typically don’t criticize the Pope, claim he can do no wrong?
I think the NCR author would do better to find more fitting name for the Pope’s critics than ‘ultramontanist.’
Ah yes, it’s the start of another week and here’s yet another “Failing Papacy” article to kick it off.
Kind of hard to take it seriously.