Pope Francis!

[Lil Red]

Taylor Marshall's my sometimes weight-lifting buddy at the gym (for real).

 

He seems a decent enough guy.

 

perhaps i should have said that i don't particularly care for his writing style, on his blog.

[Catholictothecore]

I don't know if this has been shared yet. 

 

[homeschoolmom]

I don't know if this has been shared yet. 

 

Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer!!!

 

Everybody sing!!!

[Catholictothecore]

Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer!!!

 

Everybody sing!!!

 

Cardinals: Your...your Holiness? You're not singing, sir. 

 

Papa: ...is not Argentinian beer....

 

Cardinals:....we are ashamed....

 

PS. We, as a group, should chip in and somehow send the Pope a case of the best Argentinan beer we can find so that he can feel at home in Rome...and so he can know what Phatmass is. 

Edited March 14, 2013 by Catholictothecore

[BigJon16]

Catholic Memes had been exploding with some pretty funny stuff. Here's a few of the ones that got a chuckle out of me:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigJon16]

Also, this little back and forth...

 

 

Catholic Memes pre-conclave:

 

The Jesuit Post:

 

 

 

 

aand Catholic Memes after the election of Francis..

"Told you so"

 

 

Edited March 15, 2013 by BigJon16

[mortify]

Card. Bergoglio, in 2007 after Summorum Pontificum, Traditional Latin Mass within 48 hours

 

Not quite my brother:

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/127707-pope-permitted-traditional-latin-mass-48hrs-after-summorum-pontificum-not-quite/

[Aloysius]

dude, that doesn't need its own thread.  I think when one looks into it closely it appears he was highly resistant towards Summorum Pontificum and his liturgical sense is far different than Benedict's; however, it also appears that he was actually in the same camp as Ratzinger in the 2005 conclave and when the camps had the clear sense that the camp Ratzinger was in was going to win, they threw their weight behind Bergoglio hoping to sway that whole camp.

 

I'm actually getting the sense that he's going to strongly focus on Rome itself, and be very hands off throughout most of the world.  A few things I'm reading about him seem to indicate that's the kind of ecclesiological position he'd prefer, so for better or worse you'll probably get it, it'll be a good thing if he actually does intensely focus on Rome and the curia and tries to clean it out, but we will likely see a more loose dealing with the rest of the world... which means Summorum Pontificum isn't going to be dismantled, but it's unlikely to be enforced by a heavy hand... not that that was happening anyway.

 

Anyway, I don't see a real reason to run around trying to sound some kind of alarm on what he did with SP in Buenos Aires.  Making a note of it, and discussing it in light of what do we think the future of the SP liturgical direction will be is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, and in such an endeavor we ought to be realistic about Bergoglio's history, I'm certainly all for being realistic and getting to know him as well as we can realistically so we can get a sense of what direction he's likely to be leading us (always allowing for the fact that the papacy can change a man), but there are many mixed signs from him that have generated far too many overly simplistic alarms being sounded.

 

on a sad note, I think Marini's days as Papal liturgist are numbered.

[Nihil Obstat]

I have grown quite fond of Monsignor Marini over the years. I hope his career is very fruitful.

[mortify]

dude, that doesn't need its own thread.  I think when one looks into it closely it appears he was highly resistant towards Summorum Pontificum and his liturgical sense is far different than Benedict's; however, it also appears that he was actually in the same camp as Ratzinger in the 2005 conclave and when the camps had the clear sense that the camp Ratzinger was in was going to win, they threw their weight behind Bergoglio hoping to sway that whole camp.

 

Actually there is a lot of discussion on the Catholic-blogosphere over the status of the TLM in Buenos Aires. Many recent threads sought to ease concerns by mentioning that then Cardinal Bergoglio had permitted the TLM 48 hours after Summorum Pontificum, however when you look into the details you realize it wasn't a TLM but a hybrid Latin mass. Like I said, big disucssion on most parts of the Catholic net but in others it may be a sensitive topic.

 

Anyway, I don't see a real reason to run around trying to sound some kind of alarm on what he did with SP in Buenos Aires. Making a note of it, and discussing it in light of what do we think the future of the SP liturgical direction will be is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, and in such an endeavor we ought to be realistic about Bergoglio's history, I'm certainly all for being realistic and getting to know him as well as we can realistically so we can get a sense of what direction he's likely to be leading us (always allowing for the fact that the papacy can change a man), but there are many mixed signs from him that have generated far too many overly simplistic alarms being sounded.

 

Well brother, we study history so we can predict the future. There are clear enough patterns to know where we are headed. That's all I'm saying, don't mean to offend anyone because of it.

 

on a sad note, I think Marini's days as Papal liturgist are numbered.

 

Oh c'mon now Aloysius! The signals are mixed, right? We don't know the future! So cheer up old chap!

[Basilisa Marie]

My Eastern Orthodox biblical studies professor thinks that Pope Francis' humility and the fact that he referred to himself as the bishop of Rome and didn't mention the word "pope" once in his Urbi et Orbi blessing is a good sign for possible Eastern/Western relations.  :)  I hope so!  

[Apotheoun]

My Eastern Orthodox biblical studies professor thinks that Pope Francis' humility and the fact that he referred to himself as the bishop of Rome and didn't mention the word "pope" once in his Urbi et Orbi blessing is a good sign for possible Eastern/Western relations.   :)  I hope so!  

Yes, it could be helpful. Al's post where he talks about how Pope Francis looks as if he is going to focus on Rome and leave other local Churches alone would be very popular with Eastern Orthodox Christians. I think the statements issued by both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian Patriarch show that cooperation between Catholics and Orthodox on moral and other issues (e.g., helping the poor) is possible.

[KnightofChrist]

Not quite my brother:
 
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/127707-pope-permitted-traditional-latin-mass-48hrs-after-summorum-pontificum-not-quite/

 

Hybrid? Perhaps, perhaps not!
 
An excerpt from The Moynihan Letters Blog, by Robert Moynihan, PhD.
 

However, I have since received a large number of other emails containing very different information. Here is one from a respected Catholic philosopher and writer whom I trust a great deal:
 
Dear Robert,

I read with passionate interest all the reports you sent us since Benedict XVI (to my deep regret) stepped down. I thank you for them; they were remarkably well done, informative and expressing your love for the Church.
But I was deeply grieved today in reading that you write that Francis I is hostile to the Tridentine Mass. This must be a terrible misinformation likely to do a lot of harm to many of your readers.
 
Archbishop Bergoglio, upon receiving the information that Benedictine XVI (at my repeated requests) had granted a universal indult, designated the Church Michel Angelo as the one place where the traditional Mass would be said. Its pastor, Padre Ricardo Dotro (I might get the name wrong) a well-trained liturgist, was going to say it to those who wished it. It was well-attended; hundred of people with their old missals, even some younger people, ladies wearing Mantillas, and modestly dressed, six candles on the altar, Mass ad orientem, kneeling for communion on the tongue.
 
I fear you were misinformed. Because the Mass had not been said for 40 years, all the younger priests could not say it. This was well-calculated; if no one can say that mass, that it certain to bury it. But it survived.
 
I wish you would correct this. Many of your devoted readers will be, like me, deeply grieved, unless you do. In the joy of Habemus papam and thanking you for your great work, I am, dear Robert, yours in caritate Christi.
 
(end of letter)
 
So, at this point, I will step back from the entire question to give a judgment regardless of anything that happened in the past, and it is this: in my view, we should have no concerns whatsoever about the continued celebration of the traditional Latin Mass under our new Pope, Francis.
 
I do not believe Francis will do anything to undermine the freedom Pope Benedict granted to the traditional Latin Mass in 2007.
 
And, even more, I agree with what one reader writes: “Unlike Pope Benedict, I would not be at all surprised to see Pope Francis publicly offer a traditional Latin Mass some day. He has a deep devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, is said to practice the Five First Saturday Devotions, and prays 15 decades of the Rosary each day. I believe that, after he meets with Pope Emeritus Benedict, reads the 300-page dossier on the Vatileaks scandal, and reads the rest of the Third Secret of Fatima, he will be a different man than he was as archbishop, then cardinal, in Argentina.”
 
Pope Francis strikes me as a man who, once he learns something is the Lord’s will, will simply make it his own.

[KnightofChrist]

Yes, it could be helpful. Al's post where he talks about how Pope Francis looks as if he is going to focus on Rome and leave other local Churches alone would be very popular with Eastern Orthodox Christians. I think the statements issued by both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian Patriarch show that cooperation between Catholics and Orthodox on moral and other issues (e.g., helping the poor) is possible.

On Wednesday, 20 March, he will hold an audience with fraternal delegates representing the heads of the various Eastern rite Churches so there will not be a General Audience.

 

Source: http://themoynihanletters.com/from-the-desk-of/letter-47-to-mary

 

[inperpetuity]

I don't think that we have anything to fear from a Pope who is obviously committed to the Truth. Also from "The Moynihan Letters":

First Homily

Here is the complete text of that first homily this afternoon, March 14, in the Sistine Chapel where yesterday he was elected Pope, spoken without a prepared text:

“When we walk without the cross…”

by Pope Francis

In these three readings, I see that there is something in common: it is movement.

In the first reading, movement in walking; in the second reading, movement in the building up of the Church; in the third, in the Gospel, movement in confession.

To walk, to build up, to confess.

To walk. “House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord.”

This is the first thing that God said to Abraham: Walk in my presence and be without reproach. To walk: our life is a journey and when we stop it is no good. To walk always, in the presence of the Lord, in the light of the Lord, seeking to live with that irreproachability which God asked of Abraham, in his promise.

To build up. To build up the Church. Stones are spoken of: the stones have substance; but living stones, stones anointed by the Holy Spirit. To build up the Church, the bride of Christ, on that cornerstone which is the Lord himself. This is another movement of our lives: to build up.

Third, to confess. We can walk as much as we wish, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, it is no good. We will become a humanitarian NGO, but not the Church, bride of the Lord.

When one does not walk, one halts. When one does not build on stone what happens? That happens which happens to children on the beach when they make sand castles, it all comes down, it is without substance. When one does not confess Jesus Christ, I am reminded of the expression of Léon Bloy: “He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil.” When one does not confess Jesus Christ, one confesses the worldliness of the devil, the worldliness of the demon.

To walk, to build/construct, to confess. But the matter is not so easy, because in walking, in building, in confessing, at times there are shocks, there are movements that are not properly movements of the journey: they are movements that set us back.

This Gospel continues with a special situation. The same Peter who has confessed Jesus Christ says to him: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. I will follow you, but let us not speak of the cross. This has nothing to do with it. I will follow you with other possibilities, without the cross.”

When we walk without the cross, when we build without the cross, and when we confess Christ without the cross, we are not disciples of the Lord: we are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, but not disciples of the Lord.

I would like that everyone, after these days of grace, should have the courage, truly the courage, to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the cross of the Lord; to build up the Church upon the blood of the Lord that was shed upon the cross; and to confess the only glory: Christ crucified. And in this way the Church will move forward.

I hope for all of us that the Holy Spirit, through the prayer of the Virgin Mary, our Mother, may grant us this grace: to walk, to build up, to confess Jesus Christ crucified. So may it be.

====================================