Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB

1) New blog on the kid : Bergoglio Shows He Doesn't Get Christianity ... or Gnosticism, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB, 3) Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English, 4) Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

Ruari McCallion, henceforth R McC (status in group)

Did anyone notice what the Pope said about Pelagianism? I thought it was rather good.

But what about the definition of Gnosticism? What do we think of that?

(ML, you're not allowed to play unless you get Dominie to read all the way to the end!!)

Catholicism can and must change, Francis forcefully tells Italian church gathering
joshua j. mcelwee from florence
on www.vaticaninsider.com 11/10/2015
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/44584/

Remark omitted

on request of the one making it, as name in Ruari's response.

R McC

IT wasn't the Pope's definition, ...; it was the writer's.

Roger [of Cor Jesu Sacratissimum Blog]

Makes me wonder if he would accuse Aquinas of gnosticism? And especially the neo-Thomism of Leo XIII … I appreciate you posting these things R McC - a lot. But it is difficult to hit the "like" button.

R McC

The intent is to encourage people to read the entire report, rather than just the headline,Roger.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh ...

"The reform of the church then, and the church is semper reformanda ... does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures," he continued. "It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit -- so that all will be possible with genius and creativity."

Ecclesia semper reformanda sounds like Luther to me. Someone know an Orthodox writer who said so too, please notify me.

Here is the passage about Gnosticism:

Speaking to Gnosticism, which widely held that people should shun the material world in favor of the spiritual realm, Francis identified such thinking today with that which "brings us to trust in logical and clear reasoning ... which however loses the tenderness of the flesh of the brother."

Now, that is completely forgetting what Gnosticism was as Intellectual heresy and just focussing on the fact that it was one.

Maybe he does not completely shun the tenets of it, as long as not taking the mere attitude of intellectualism and lack of charity or supposed such.

Here is sth that for my matter I thought he was Gnostic or Neognostic about:

New blog on the kid : Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/05/bergoglio-and-quarracino-neognostics.html

I suppose Father Cekada did not misquote him.

After that, it is up to you if my conclusions here given are correct to your reason or not.

R McC

I agree that the definition of Gnosticism was wrong, Hans-Georg, but I disagree that the Pope was in error.

It was the author of the report who got it wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where do you get it from that "the Pope's" words were other than what the reporter got?

R McC

If you read the article carefully, you will see that it is the reporter who provides the definition; it is not a quote, nor described as one.

I have posted other reports of the same speech in order to illustrate the way that reports are coloured or influenced by the person doing the reporting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I read carefully enough.

There is a direct quote of his words, namely:

"brings us to trust in logical and clear reasoning ... which however loses the tenderness of the flesh of the brother."

And there is also a relation by the reporter, introducing it as his words about precisely - Gnosticism.

So, you think the reporter was in error, but where exactly do you get it from that Bergoglio was NOT talking about what Gnosticism either is or means today or whatever when he uttered this definition?

R McC

Hans-Georg, this is the bit I was referring to:

Speaking to Gnosticism, which widely held that people should shun the material world in favor of the spiritual realm...

It was the reporter who wrote that, not the Pope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, and this definition of Gnosticism BY THE REPORTER was correct.

THEN the reporter went on to say :

"Francis identified such thinking today with that which"

AFTER which he gives a direct quote by "Francis" and this makes "Francis' " identification the one given. Bergoglio was very clearly wrong on that one.

If you can't see that, you are not educated in history.

Gnosticism DID say one should shun the material world in favour of only the spiritual one. And this is NOT the same thing as by laziness shunning application of the word, it is rather another and contradicting word. Which means Bergoglio was totally wrong.

If you would argue Bergoglio never identified them, you would have to argue the reporter was a bungler.

Why was a bungler used as a reporter, if so?

And why is the "bungler" trusted by NCR?

[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent]

And what is your positive proof Bergoglio did NOT make this erroneous identification?

R McC

i think you are confusing Gnosticism with Manicheanism.

The Pope is Pope Francis. It's disrespectful to refer to him as "Bergoglio'.*

Your questions as to why the news site appointed someone you describe as 'a bungler' to this task should be addressed to the news site; I am nothing to do with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"i think you are confusing Gnosticism with Manicheanism."

Actually not.

Both are very akin, but there are subtle differences.

The reporter was right and probably even summed up some correct words by Bergoglio in that definition of Gnosticism.

Of course, you may if you wish use the syllables Gno Sti Cism to denote sth having to do with Gnoein, with knowing, without reference to the historical sect. BUT the historical sect was very correctly defined, in the passage before the direct quote.

BOTH gnostics and manichaeans are for instance Docetists, they deny Christ came in the Flesh.

"Your questions as to why the news site appointed someone you describe as 'a bungler' to this task should be addressed to the news site; I am nothing to do with it."

Actually, I did NOT describe him as a bungler, I said he WOULD have been such if you were right.

My point is that since you can only be right if he was a bungler, you should explain why he bungled. Not just assume it, still less say sth which can only be reasonable if he did so and not even notice that.

LC

I get annoyed with the many, many words--the high-falutin vocabulary and the endless verbal gymnastics and sophistries and subtleties. Someday I hope to see a pope who is direct, matter of fact, and out and out BLUNT--whose yes means yes and whose no means no!

She got two answers

First by R McC, then by me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have my problems with Pope Michael or David Bawden, but he is more direct than Bergoglio.

R McC

But people complain when he does that, LC.

This was a specific audience - Italian bishops and senior clergy at their 10-year congress - for whom the language was appropriate. It was not a weekly public audience or regular public Mass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For such an audience, learned language may well be appropriate, but his actual twisting of words into meaning sth not too subtly different from what they actually mean is not appropriate with such an audience either.

J A-A

The Pope should be a conduit for reiterating the Doctrine of the Church based on tradition and Divine Revelation which protects souls. Perhaps it's preferable for a Pope to be boring as he is there to convey the Truth rather than to project his personality, mood and opinion.
Amen

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Should be, that is the point.

But that only applies if he is really Pope.

LC

I have wondered quite often, if the Faithful are being led by an antipope, what are their duties with regard to him--and, how would they know? There have been antipopes in the past, for certain. What happens to the continuity of the Faith under an antipope?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

An antipope does NOT represent the faith and therefore NOT the prima sedes either.

Calling him out is NOT judging the first see, if it is clear he is no Catholic.

Suppose

someone argued that were in fact judging the first see?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not at all, if he is NOT a Catholic, he is NOT the first see. That was made VERY clear earlier.

Prima sedes a nemine judicatur, nisi deprehenditur a fide devia. The first see is judged by noone, unless it be caught redhanded in deviating from the faith. Pope Innocent III, my own translation (and memory of the Latin).

Ruari McCallion

Ah. The sedevacantists emerge.

Skipping

the discussion or discussions giving next post and going down to bottom:

MJB

I don't like the sound of the title either. Catholicism is the one true Faith. and the only it can healthily undergo is change that does not obscure that truth. The Faith can develop, as an acorn into an oak - but it cannot change from an acorn into an elephant. Catholics OTOH definitely need to change - to become more unmistakeably and fully Catholic [émoticône smile]

MW

I know where you are going MJB, but feel it should be an emphasis on being more Christ like rather than just Catholic.

MJB

The more completely Catholic Catholics are, the more Christian they will be - and conversely. Being Catholic is not one of "57 varieties" of being Christian, though I see what you mean.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is one that Bergoglio is also missing out on.

He was probably advising "bishop" David Palmer, since then dead in a motor cycle accident, to not convert.

He also gave same David Palmer a burial service such as is given to Catholic bishops, though he was neither Catholic nor any real bishop with apostolic succession with any probability. He was not the kind of Anglican that Antiochene Church would probably give real consecrations.

Note:

* I missed the part of it being disrespectful to refer to Bergoglio as Bergoglio, but I do not intend to refer to him as Pope Francis ever again even tentatively since the day when he "canonised" the not canonisable Roncalli and Wojtyla.