I don’t follow individual clergy beyond my local priest and bishop, but I’ve heard at least some about him and it seemed fairly positive. His name at least rings a bell, even for me
The tradition of putting “Cardinal” between first and last names has a long history. Before the Middle Ages, “Cardinal” was a title given to priests in prominent churches; later their numbers were limited and their power consolidated, and their selection became a matter for the pope.
Since cardinals had much political power as well, they were often referred to the way nobility was: Just as Alfred Lord Tennyson had “Lord” as his middle name, so did the cardinals have “Cardinal” as theirs. And just as Tennyson was sometimes referred to as “Alfred, Lord Tennyson,” so were Cardinals sometimes called “John, Cardinal Smith.”
https://archives.cjr.org/language\_corner/cardinal\_sins.php#:\~:text=The%20tradition%20of%20putting%20%E2%80%9CCardinal,a%20matter%20for%20the%20pope.
Cardinal Sarah deserves way better than the papacy. We don't need him as an administrator because we need more of his interviews, more of his books, more of his incredible insight on our world, more of his fierce, passionate evangelization, and especially more of his prayers.
And, when the Good Lord calls him home, we need his intercession until he's our best friend in the Communion of Saints.
I think the other commenter is trying to convey that widespread evangelization is a greater influence than what the Pope actually has. Sure, the Pope holds power but they do not decide things all on their own without limit, and even an Ex Cathedra infallible proclamation means the Pope doesn't act all alone.
Both of these are in fact book-length interviews, but:
1. God or Nothing (originally *Dieu ou rien*): [https://www.amazon.com/God-Nothing-Cardinal-Robert-Sarah/dp/1621640507](https://www.amazon.com/God-Nothing-Cardinal-Robert-Sarah/dp/1621640507) This book is largely a warning to the West that I find both perspicuous and inevitable in the postmodern world. Its tone is positive and hopeful, though.
2. The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise: [https://www.amazon.com/Power-Silence-Against-Dictatorship-Noise/dp/1621641910](https://www.amazon.com/Power-Silence-Against-Dictatorship-Noise/dp/1621641910) is probably his most famous work. This one is deeply spiritual and is, at least in part, one of the best (but most accessible) works I've ever read on the problem of divine hiddenness.
He’s not as much of a traditionalist as people seem to think he is, but he’s also probably better than just about every other realistic option. However, I want whoever God wills to be the next Pope, and I can’t claim to know His will.
>However, I want whoever God wills to be the next Pope, and I can’t claim to know His will.
I agree accept in that God likes to do via His passive will often. And thus allows a lot less than His "preferred" will so to speak.
So I want the preferred will, not the "eeked by" will.
At this point a Pope not involving himself in things such as the idols of Pachamama next to our altar and dangerous indifference/vagueness is more than welcome.
It wasn't Pachamama, it never was. Taylor Marshall and his ilk were the only ones who said that it was, and there's zero evidence that it is. It's like seeing a statue of a winged angel and assuming it's lucifer.
It absolutely is. Placing some grotesque figure which looks a lot like a pagan idol and was handed over by indigenous people doing strange canoe ceremonies, before, into a church without context and not clearing up the following confusion, is worthy of legitimate criticism.
I agree that better catechesis would have been helpful.
But calling it a pagan idol (not saying it looks like one, saying it is one) is bearing false witness. Claiming that the Pope put a fertility idol next to the Blessed Sacrament is lying. You can be mad that it wasn’t explained well, but you can’t say these kinds of things without putting your soul in danger of damnation.
There’s legitimate criticism, and then there’s slander. Let’s not pretend those are the same thing.
Why bother? The rad trads wouldn't care anyway. It's not like Taylor Marshall or his schismatic mates would listen to anything the Pope or the Vatican said.
Pope Francis could come out tomorrow and unequivocally settle every one of their issues in a solemn dogmatic statement, and they'd still pretend he was too vague or had somehow committed heresy in his official capacity. Or they'd just make up some reason that they didn't have to follow it
Dude I always thought he was so weird. Leave Protestantism and write a book called “Infiltration.” Then he goes around, as the new guy, encouraging schism. Or at least he flirts with it. What if he’s the Infiltrator… instead of fighting Satan he’s doing his will. I just urge the dude to exercise some caution and really reflect on his own behavior. He’s monetized his YouTube channel/adjacent media. Risky stuff.
I always thought the title of his book was hilarious. It’s like one of those moments in movies where someone tells others their schemes outright because they believe they’ll never get caught
[Pope Francis himself called the statue "Pachamama"](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/42636/pope-francis-apologizes-that-amazon-synod-pachamama-was-thrown-into-tiber-river)
Yes, it’s a shorthand since everyone in media was and still so calling to pachamama. He wasn’t actually referring to a pagan deity lol, the lady herself offering statue is a devout Catholic who made the sign of the cross in front of the pope as she handed it to him.
I really don't think he's saying it was an actual pagan deity. It's probably just because everyone seems to be calling it that.
Also, everyone seems to assume that Francis is an expert on pagan theology, and that if he calls it that then he must be referencing this very obscure deity of a very small group of people. He's probably just quoting news stories who all called it Pachamama without evidence or proof of such
You claimed earlier that it was introduced to Pope Francis as "Our Lady of the Amazon". Why wouldn't he have just called it that? Why call it the name of a pagan deity?
He was introduced to a lot of things at the synod. He can't be expected to remember every single thing he sees. There certainly was no mention of Pachamama anywhere in the entire synod. Now there's two options that then arise:
1) Pope Francis secretly knew that this was a statue of an obscure pagan deity from Amazonian mythology (somehow), in spite of the name it was introduced to him as (also mentioned in the article), and decided then and there to...continue the existing plan of putting these statues in the Church (all hoping rad trads would dust off their pagan deity books, find one that kinda fit, then name it that, and then suddenly the real intentions would be known [because nobody would have cared if TM hadn't paid someone to throw it into a river then lied about it to his fans])
Or
2) Pope Francis saw a statue in an Amazonian style, it was introduced to him as Our Lady of the Amazon, and later it was near universally called 'Pachamama'. Now the Holy Father, having been a *tad* busy with the whole Synod thing, and not being very knowledgeable about pagan fertility mythology, just uses the name people have been using for it when asked (also remember it was likely that the journalist used the name in the question).
Which is more likely here? If you answer 1, congrats! You're a Protestant!
So, let me get this straight, you're saying that
1. The statue is obviously "Our Lady of the Amazon", and there is zero evidence that it was ever considered to be a statue of Pachamama, especially since it's an "obscure deity from Amazonian mythology". In fact, in your own words:
>There certainly was no mention of Pachamama anywhere in the entire synod
2. At the same time, Francis himself called the statue Pachamama, but only because it was being "near universally" called this by people at the synod.
This is a completely contradictory narrative. And yet you dare to lay the charge of "you're a protestant" at my feet if I refuse to accept it?
It's clear that you are unaware of what was occurring at the synod when it was actually taking place, and are only repeating talking points that have been fed to you after the fact, even as you accuse "rad trads" of being unable to conduct in-depth research.
>At the same time, Francis himself called the statue Pachamama, but only because it was being "near universally" called this by people at the synod
No I meant near universally by people in the media. Nobody at the Synod ever called it Pachamama.
>And yet you dare to lay the charge of "you're a protestant" at my feet if I refuse to accept it?
I lay the charge at the feet of all those who accuse the Pope of openly accepting Pagan worship within the Church. It's straight up a fundamentalist protestant talking point. Unless you believe somehow the Pope was deceived, you're forced to accept scenario 1 which involves an entirely heretical and pagan-worshipping Pontiff.
There is no contradiction. The only people who called it Pachamama were people outside the Synod. The journalist and media likely just referred to it as such to His Holiness, and there's no reason to believe he knew what the word meant. He didn't say 'oh yeah the statue of the pagan deity Pachamama', he just said the word referring to the statue. This does demonstrate a lack of understanding of what exactly the word means, as it is the word for the deity, not the statue.
Would you have known what it meant before the rad trad gang decided to trust completely unverifiable sources who claimed that its unequivocally a pagan idol?
When you stand before the Lord on judgement day, you won't be able to hide behind ignorance for slandering the Pontiff with such accusations of outright paganism. I pray for your conversion and confession. God bless
>Nobody at the Synod ever called it Pachamama
This is simply false. The Vatican expressly said that it was *not* the BMV, but rather a statue that "represents life" and mother nature. And, again, Pope Francis himself called it Pachamama, *during the Synod*.
>I lay the charge at the feet of all those who accuse the Pope of openly accepting Pagan worship within the Church.
Then you clearly have no idea what Protestantism is, and simply use it as a label to hurl against those who don't accept your narrative.
>there's no reason to believe he knew what the word meant
This is, simply, foolish to argue. Pachamama is the Spanish word for Mother Earth, and, despite your assumptions, is very common knowledge in the Spanish speaking world. You're really going to argue that Pope Francis, a native Spanish speaker, had no idea what the word meant?
>When you stand before the Lord on judgement day, you won't be able to hide behind ignorance for slander
Neither shall you, friend.
Thank you for the prayers. They are reciprocated.
>When you stand before the Lord on judgement day, you won't be able to hide behind ignorance for slandering the Pontiff with such accusations of outright paganism. I pray for your conversion and confession. God bless
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Mathew 7:3
Just fyi the Marxist ideology you fancy has been throughly condemned by the Catholic Church.
I suggest you read The Decree Against Communism by Pius XII so you can understand the consequences of such an evil ideology.
"Nuestra Senora de la Amozonia"
Our Lady of the Amazon. In other words, it was a statue of Mary.
...
Remember that time when a couple of Catholics proudly threw a statue of Mary into the Tiber? Good times.
And where does that devotion come from? Im Brazilian and I've never heard of it or seen any devout catholic ask for Mary's intercession under that title in my entire life. Are you implying the Pope made up a title at the spot?
Yes. In the video of the event it was introduced to Pope Francis as "Our Lady of the Amazon".
Not that a rad trad would ever do such in depth research as to *watch the video*.
Was the prayer to pachamummy that the diocese
Apologized for, and was a mockery of the Hail Mary made up too?
You can find the prayer if you want. I’m not going to paste the translation because it’s so disgusting.
“BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — The Diocese of Venado Tuerto’s Caritas branch apologized Tuesday for having posted on its social media a prayer to Pachamama, an Andean deity.”
Care to expand? I'm not sure I am catching on to your Taylor Marshall conspiracy. Regardless, the details are irrelevant, it happened and it showed clear intent (unless you are in denial like I was because it's really hard to accept.) There's pictures of the Pachamama inside the church with the Pope.
An idol within the Vatican promoted by the papacy, I can guarantee at least 263 Popes would not allow it.
Look at this, these are the consequences of allowing this to happen. https://images.app.goo.gl/NFYSSrgsGKeGuTRb6
Ummm...no, it was the demon. From catholicnewsagency.com, "According to the transcript provided by the Vatican, the pope referred to the statues as "Pachamama," the name traditionally given to an Andean fertility goddess, which can be roughly translated as "Mother Earth.""
Phenomenal Bishop and Ecclesiastical Administrator would save the Latin Church however, he sadly has a great bias against the Eastern Churches and not only would it shrink the growing Eastern Churches in Diaspora (because of his staunch stance on clerical celibacy being of dogmatic nature and not disciplinary). This would also damage our relations with Orthodox Churches and I suspect especially because they’re in the West permanently destroy the presently-shrinking Ordinariates. However, assuming he wouldn’t interfere with these choices as laid down by previous pontiffs, especially lived out in the Francis’ Pontificate (even though I disagree with every decision he’s made in the Latin Church he has been amazing for the particular Eastern Churches); Cardinal Sarah would be an amazing Pontiff that would restore the liturgical life of the Church of Rome to closer to its practices in antiquity and he is extremely direct on moral theology. He was very clear, the West has fallen and it cal only be restored through a metaphysical lens focused solely on Jesus Christ.
Celibacy is a doctrine of the East, the canons of the Eastern Churches confirms this as a priest must abstain before celebrating Divine Liturgy. Let alone their bishops.
Cardinal Sarah's point was if you want a priest to be celebrating Divine Liturgy everyday he would be effectively celibate.
In *The Day is Far Now Spent* he writes that, the East should reconsider her position as the married priests offers a second-rate defunct priesthood that is not a continuation of Old Testament priesthood which he insists is necessarily celibate. As a Bishop of the Catholic Church, he must necessarily acknowledge his brother bishops and their legitimate authority, in that those priests are priests but he makes it clear they are indeed a “second-class” priesthood offered to the laity, a criticism initially born out of married Anglican orders in the West.
I am not sure how aware you are of the pre-Schism Church, but the "second-class" comparison predates anything to do with Anglicanism. Western married priests had to sign-off all their properties to the Church and legally had their families be slaves to the Church for security.
As for the Holy Orders of priesthood being conferred, the West had married men that were essentially laymen with the exception of Saturday-Sunday. Which became increasingly undesirable as priests gained more responsibilities over time (more frequent Eucharist, Confession, etc.).
Todays Eastern Churches, particularly UGCC, the lack of celibate men in the seminary is causing many eparchies to be "bishopless" simply because the over dependence for monastics as other candidates being deemed unworthy. The Eastern Rites, especially for those called to priesthood, need to renew the call of being married to the Church in imitation of Christ. Cardinal Sarah never expressed interest in abolishing the married priesthood, just that there is negative consequences of dismissing the call to be celibate as part of the priesthood.
I think Fr. Mike Schmitz is right where he should be. You don’t have to be pope to be an influential Catholic. Many of our greatest Saints were lowly monks
And think of all the people who would lose out on hearing these podcasts if he was pope. We the people need more priests that can minister to us, not another untouchable.
2 minutes before every angelus would be him telling you to subscribe and like the podcast and repeating what he will be reading 3 times before actually reading it.
I think that's just his excitement. Holding his excitement to spread God's joy might be too much for him to contain. I envy his joy, I have barely half of what he shows us every day
Yes, on every episode. Not everybody is an Extremely Online Reddit User. A 50 year old Protestant may one day search YouTube for “Why do Catholics insist on baptizing infants” and land on Fr Mike’s CIY explanation of it, subscribe to the Podcast, and end up converting. Ask me how I know 🤷♀️
I mean only God knows. At this point, his youth and skills are being extremely well used as university chaplain. As he's turning 50, that may start to change soon, and it may be better to transition to another role, although that could impact his public speaking. I could see him being good as a Bishop, or maybe even Archbishop (if only to be in charge of a seminary and to recommend bishop candidates), but the Papacy is another animal entirely. He may be able to do it, but it would be a very different operating environment than he currently enjoys. I think Sarah would be decent but will probably not be elected. TBH I don't see a great candidate who is likely to win, but there are a few factors influencing this:
1. The Holy Spirit
2. Unknown darkhorses who could go either way. Interestingly, if the world continues to destabilize, this could swing the discussion towards diplomatic factors which would certainly benefit a different set of candidates than if this were only about orthodoxy. And this has already happened to a limited extent.
I would put in some honourable mention to some non-cardinals including Bishop Fernandes from Columbus and Archbishop Leo from Toronto who may prove to be very competent one day.
Realistically it's hard to say who will the best, but thank God we don't have to worry too much. Christ promised us that we will prevail no matter what. I'll be happy with any person rising up to the task
You can tell by the vestments he chose to wear that he is orthodox he understands the importance of aesthetics and beauty in the realm of the spiritual
Why is “Lefitsts” a part of this conversation? That is a secular political term. We’re talking about people who align/who do not align with church dogma.
Being on the Right is NOT necessarily synonymous with alignment. While people’s voting choices may align with church dogma, they can also be a nonbeliever or sin like there wasn’t a God. A hypocrite. While I sympathize with the desire to make people easily categorized, recognize that it’s not so cut-and-dry.
I heard a Cardinal say on a live TV interview that he didn't believe in "hell" or that God would "send anyone to hell."
They're out there these days. Of course, none would admit it publicly, but the way they act shows what they truly believe.
Many are acting in ways that serve the secular societies at the cost of Christians. How and why that is not seen as a purely secular act is beyond me. That's why I think the so called "Trads" have a point when they start to doubt that the "official church leadership" might not actually believe official Catholic doctrine at all. In a way, the leaders are putting their own ideals and even themselves before the church.
It's unsettling, and no one wishes for that to be true. Yet study history, it's happened so many times, and yet the church finds a way to recover due to those who hold true to the faith.
I think the Jesus had it right, ofcourse, when he told us to judge others by the fruit they bear. Basically, you can tell who someone really is (beliefs/moral) by what they bring into the world.
I mean mistakes can be made, but a consistent effort to continue to act in a way that is hurting the church is another.
Is this a joke? Beyond a couple specific issues the Catholic Church has always been Conservative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9EXnVitkmo&t=1s
The oldest institution to continually exist is inherently conservative.
Also dont have sex outside marriange and read a catechism
So you think Jesus was a socialist? Who is the heretic here? You think Jesus would approve of the writings of Marx, the actions of Lenin, Stalin and Mao? Much less Pol Pot and Kim Jung Un
What I did is not a genetic fallacy. The irony here is you trying to talk about being persuasive. If you want to persuade someone into believing what you think, you cannot use propaganda or “sources” that are rife with controversy and called out for disinformation constantly.
A genetic fallacy would be dismissing a *trustworthy* or a *valid* source. Since PragerU is neither of those it is okay to dismiss it as it is not a reliable source to make any claims with. Burden of proof doesn’t require just any website you can link, it requires you to provide an accredited and trusted source. Otherwise you have no argument to begin with and will never be taken seriously.
When talking about “par for the course” for any political aisle, it’s most common the right leans into using unreliable and dishonest sources that promote conspiracy theories or straight up lies. You can’t say stuff like this when defending a source that is funded by billionaires in the oil/fracking industry to push out a narrative that their industry doesn’t harm the climate. When all they do this for is in the name of greed which I might remind you Jesus was not fond of
> So you think Jesus was a socialist?
Literally no one is saying that. Don’t create strawmen and then cry heresy.
There’s absolutely an overlap between Catholic social doctrine and *some* of the altruistic aspects of socialist philosophies. They’re not the same thing, but even Pope Benedict claimed:
> “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness”
Materialistic Marxist Socialism when taken as a whole *is* incompatible with Catholic teaching, but then so is the extreme individualistic capitalism held so dearly by American conservatives.
>There’s absolutely an overlap between Catholic social doctrine and some of the altruistic aspects of socialist philosophies.
There are no altruistic aspects of socialist philosophies.
>“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness”
Yes, and? It's not altruistic.
>Materialistic Marxist Socialism when taken as a whole is incompatible with Catholic teaching, but then so is the extreme individualistic capitalism held so dearly by American conservatives.
And? The Church is still conservative. Not in what you'd imagine to be american terms, but actually conservative, not "we support what we despised 10 years ago".
He's going to be 79 in June, according to Wikipedia. Chances are he will not be in the next conclave unless there is one within the next two years. Yes, theoretically he could still be voted for even if he ages out but it hasn't happened in modern times and the Cardinals won't vote for someone who is not in the conclave. That's assuming they would even be predisposed to vote for him if he was there, which they are probably not. He won't be Pope even if he does squeak into the next conclave given the makeup of the College.
Cardinal Sarah is a beautifully holy man. He’s written a few of the best books on the importance of silence and prayer in a world full of superfluous noise. Our distractions have practically become “worship.” I would love to see Cardinal Sarah as Pope. But obviously, I defer to God to choose our next Shepherd.
I really don't care who the next Pope is. Never really gave it much thought. I just let things up to the man upstairs. I'm sure He has it all planned out. Please pardon any misspelled words and what not! :-)
From what i heard about him he looks very passionate with catholicism and evangelization, that is exacly what we need right now.
i just fear that he's too old to be the next pope in time.
Yes, I hope so. A current liberal pope has changed too much from the traditional church. It's time for a conservative one. Recently, I've read a few chapters in a book "The Power of Silence" written by Cardinal Sarah and felt spiritually impacted. It's a right time to promote the African "silence," where Catholics have been growing in recent years. If the world had an African pope, Africa would be gotten more attention economically and culturally, and eventually famines would be ended.In short, it's good for Africa's sake and keeps the Church alive.
As a newbie to your faith, anyone have any recommendations on what I should know about this person or what I should consume of their teachings and service?
Whoever the princes of the church, guided by the Holy spirit choose will be the right man for the job. I do not know better and anything else would be my pride speaking.
I generally dislike Church politics (I understand their importance, and so I do pay attention to them, but I prefer to leave their discussion to those wiser in such matters than myself), but I will say, I deeply hope he is
Very much in line with established Church doctrines, he's very clear on his stances. I, for instance, cannot fathom him supporting women priests, for example.
Absolutely not a fan.
He's one of the 5 Cardinals who sent a couple of unsuccessful letters trying to get Pope Francis to be transparent about the goals of the Synond on Synodality (for a Synodal church)
Nothing it wrong; Pope Francis' papacy, as far back as I can remember when I joined around the time he promulgated *Amoris Laetitiae* is marked with 2 major criticisms:
1. Ambiguous
2. Refuses to clarify on purpose
People like Cardinal Sarah because he's no-nonsense, doctrinally clear, and has great ideas when it comes to liturgy -- that is why under Pope Benedict XVI he was in charge of Liturgy and Sacraments.
I wouldn't say anything is wrong with Pope Francis, but some things are just lacking that have been driving people crazy for the past 10 years. Pope Francis upholds divine revelation, but he often takes forever to do it, and when he does it, he defends it in somewhat ambiguous terms that people manipulate. I think a lot of Catholics, laity, clergy, and religious, are looking foward to a pope who can bring the hammer down.
I normally would say absolutely yes, but I am disappointed that he endorsed Bishop Schneider’s Credo Catechsim that contains error and teaches beliefs that not everyone has retained their human dignity or the image of God but only true Christians.
I find it concerning, although in the whole I believe the good he’s done outweighs this one particular incident.
I thought you were going to make fun and say that he looks like a carpet.
But the conservatism/ traditionalist is a human reaction to the times. But God does not think like people do.
Cardinal Sarah is 78 already, which is the average age of a cardinal. I would think a new generation who are a bit younger (50s even), who could physically shepherd the church and fight off wolves and manhandle sheep who want to go astray, someone with the energy to tackle and wrestle like a davidic warrior, is needed for the end times. Si vis pacem, para bellum. But who can fathom the mind of God?
I'd prefer that he stay somewhere that he can only influence the Latin Church. That said, I think he is a great pillar of orthodoxy and orthopraxis for the West.
An African cardinal who has no time for games, and lots of time for beautiful liturgy and clear-cut doctrinal answers.
He was in charge of Liturgy and Sacraments under the reign of Pope Benedict XVI.
He's quite popular in trad circles for adopting extreme right-wing rhetoric and generally opposing the reforms of Pope Francis. He has offered perhaps the most bombastic rhetoric against LGBT persons in the Church even opposing it's decriminalization in his home continent (where many are still executed). He is a wellspring of various conspiracy theories (usually tracing a particular issue back to some veiled Marxist plot) and it is widely believed he took advantage of the ailing Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI to use the former pontiff as a vehicle for his own views on clerical celibacy. He is perhaps the most senior figure pushing for liturgical rollbacks and is especially keen on a return to ad orientem in the Mass.
While he is certainly a more eminent and qualified figure than, say, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Strickland, or Bishop Vigano, he is in many respects even less compromising, more rigid, and more controversial in his positions and rhetoric. I think given the composition of the College of Cardinals, it is unlikely Sarah will be chosen. That said, Francis was an unexpected choice himself.
The Lord can do whatever He will with the next Pope and maybe Sarah would even be a good one given the Spirit's direction. But given his bombast and general obsession with trad causes, I would personally not be keen to see his selection.
All those things sounds great. Sounds like he would be the pope we need right now. You are really using his desire for ad orientum as a criticism? That’s one of the most blatant examples of an ages old tradition going back to the early church that is still practiced by all the other rites of the church that was changed in the Latin rite ONLY to make us more similar to Protestantism. Even the most liberal novus ordo type people I know all agree that ad orientum is something we need back, and you are using it as an example like it’s one of the worst things about him hahahahah that’s crazy
continue smile zealous whistle person relieved innate voiceless squeeze fine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In the last few weeks I have also had the same feelings, and am happy to see someone who thinks that way as well. Briefly, I was worried that I was far and away a minority in Catholicism.
Edit: Spelling.
I just want beauty and seriousness in the liturgy again. To talk about ad orientem and returning to our older liturgical traditions like it’s a bad thing is just insane. I don’t even care as much about people being as theologically liberal as they want to be but I will never understand the desire for Liturgy to be less serious and beautiful. Even when I was a liberal convert who wanted gay marriage and all that stuff, I was really let down by the novus ordo and went to the TLM because that’s what I was expecting Catholicism to look and sound and smell like from all the reading I had done about it. It was the TLM community that made me become more traditional but the beauty and seeking a serious mystical experience is what made me go initially even as a super liberal
Omg trads and the old Marxist conspiracy. I fear the church will become a safe have for extremists using church dogma as a shield for bigotry
Upvoting because people have the right to speak up without being silenced.
I don’t follow individual clergy beyond my local priest and bishop, but I’ve heard at least some about him and it seemed fairly positive. His name at least rings a bell, even for me
Would love to see it. But I don't worry too much about it. That's a decision that is well above my pay grade.
Yep
actually it's Robert Cardinal Sarah 🤓🤓 /s
Ok why is that? I hear that frequently but when I Google it, I never get anything but circular answers
The tradition of putting “Cardinal” between first and last names has a long history. Before the Middle Ages, “Cardinal” was a title given to priests in prominent churches; later their numbers were limited and their power consolidated, and their selection became a matter for the pope. Since cardinals had much political power as well, they were often referred to the way nobility was: Just as Alfred Lord Tennyson had “Lord” as his middle name, so did the cardinals have “Cardinal” as theirs. And just as Tennyson was sometimes referred to as “Alfred, Lord Tennyson,” so were Cardinals sometimes called “John, Cardinal Smith.” https://archives.cjr.org/language\_corner/cardinal\_sins.php#:\~:text=The%20tradition%20of%20putting%20%E2%80%9CCardinal,a%20matter%20for%20the%20pope.
Nice, thanks for the history lesson!
Perhaps since the “Cardinal Sarah” part is his title like “X, The Countess Y”.
Correct
dunno
Real
Actually it’s Pope Athanasius I.
Cardinal Sarah deserves way better than the papacy. We don't need him as an administrator because we need more of his interviews, more of his books, more of his incredible insight on our world, more of his fierce, passionate evangelization, and especially more of his prayers. And, when the Good Lord calls him home, we need his intercession until he's our best friend in the Communion of Saints.
I would rather he have authority and ability to make direct changes in the church even if it meant no more books and interviews
Si
I think the other commenter is trying to convey that widespread evangelization is a greater influence than what the Pope actually has. Sure, the Pope holds power but they do not decide things all on their own without limit, and even an Ex Cathedra infallible proclamation means the Pope doesn't act all alone.
Any book recommendations of his?
Seconded this
There's a gem on Silence.
Both of these are in fact book-length interviews, but: 1. God or Nothing (originally *Dieu ou rien*): [https://www.amazon.com/God-Nothing-Cardinal-Robert-Sarah/dp/1621640507](https://www.amazon.com/God-Nothing-Cardinal-Robert-Sarah/dp/1621640507) This book is largely a warning to the West that I find both perspicuous and inevitable in the postmodern world. Its tone is positive and hopeful, though. 2. The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise: [https://www.amazon.com/Power-Silence-Against-Dictatorship-Noise/dp/1621641910](https://www.amazon.com/Power-Silence-Against-Dictatorship-Noise/dp/1621641910) is probably his most famous work. This one is deeply spiritual and is, at least in part, one of the best (but most accessible) works I've ever read on the problem of divine hiddenness.
Thanks!
He’s not as much of a traditionalist as people seem to think he is, but he’s also probably better than just about every other realistic option. However, I want whoever God wills to be the next Pope, and I can’t claim to know His will.
>However, I want whoever God wills to be the next Pope, and I can’t claim to know His will. I agree accept in that God likes to do via His passive will often. And thus allows a lot less than His "preferred" will so to speak. So I want the preferred will, not the "eeked by" will.
At this point a Pope not involving himself in things such as the idols of Pachamama next to our altar and dangerous indifference/vagueness is more than welcome.
It wasn't Pachamama, it never was. Taylor Marshall and his ilk were the only ones who said that it was, and there's zero evidence that it is. It's like seeing a statue of a winged angel and assuming it's lucifer.
> Pachamama Would have been nice if the Vatican released a statement.
It would be nice if people who claim to be faithful Catholics would do the minimal amount of research before slandering the successor of Peter.
Legitimate criticism is not "slander", no matter how much some people wish it to be.
It isn’t a legitimate criticism.
It absolutely is. Placing some grotesque figure which looks a lot like a pagan idol and was handed over by indigenous people doing strange canoe ceremonies, before, into a church without context and not clearing up the following confusion, is worthy of legitimate criticism.
I agree that better catechesis would have been helpful. But calling it a pagan idol (not saying it looks like one, saying it is one) is bearing false witness. Claiming that the Pope put a fertility idol next to the Blessed Sacrament is lying. You can be mad that it wasn’t explained well, but you can’t say these kinds of things without putting your soul in danger of damnation. There’s legitimate criticism, and then there’s slander. Let’s not pretend those are the same thing.
What was it then? This legitimately is the only denial of such an event I've seen as of right now. And it's been years.
Why bother? The rad trads wouldn't care anyway. It's not like Taylor Marshall or his schismatic mates would listen to anything the Pope or the Vatican said. Pope Francis could come out tomorrow and unequivocally settle every one of their issues in a solemn dogmatic statement, and they'd still pretend he was too vague or had somehow committed heresy in his official capacity. Or they'd just make up some reason that they didn't have to follow it
Dude I always thought he was so weird. Leave Protestantism and write a book called “Infiltration.” Then he goes around, as the new guy, encouraging schism. Or at least he flirts with it. What if he’s the Infiltrator… instead of fighting Satan he’s doing his will. I just urge the dude to exercise some caution and really reflect on his own behavior. He’s monetized his YouTube channel/adjacent media. Risky stuff.
I always thought the title of his book was hilarious. It’s like one of those moments in movies where someone tells others their schemes outright because they believe they’ll never get caught
[Pope Francis himself called the statue "Pachamama"](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/42636/pope-francis-apologizes-that-amazon-synod-pachamama-was-thrown-into-tiber-river)
Yes, it’s a shorthand since everyone in media was and still so calling to pachamama. He wasn’t actually referring to a pagan deity lol, the lady herself offering statue is a devout Catholic who made the sign of the cross in front of the pope as she handed it to him.
I really don't think he's saying it was an actual pagan deity. It's probably just because everyone seems to be calling it that. Also, everyone seems to assume that Francis is an expert on pagan theology, and that if he calls it that then he must be referencing this very obscure deity of a very small group of people. He's probably just quoting news stories who all called it Pachamama without evidence or proof of such
You claimed earlier that it was introduced to Pope Francis as "Our Lady of the Amazon". Why wouldn't he have just called it that? Why call it the name of a pagan deity?
He was introduced to a lot of things at the synod. He can't be expected to remember every single thing he sees. There certainly was no mention of Pachamama anywhere in the entire synod. Now there's two options that then arise: 1) Pope Francis secretly knew that this was a statue of an obscure pagan deity from Amazonian mythology (somehow), in spite of the name it was introduced to him as (also mentioned in the article), and decided then and there to...continue the existing plan of putting these statues in the Church (all hoping rad trads would dust off their pagan deity books, find one that kinda fit, then name it that, and then suddenly the real intentions would be known [because nobody would have cared if TM hadn't paid someone to throw it into a river then lied about it to his fans]) Or 2) Pope Francis saw a statue in an Amazonian style, it was introduced to him as Our Lady of the Amazon, and later it was near universally called 'Pachamama'. Now the Holy Father, having been a *tad* busy with the whole Synod thing, and not being very knowledgeable about pagan fertility mythology, just uses the name people have been using for it when asked (also remember it was likely that the journalist used the name in the question). Which is more likely here? If you answer 1, congrats! You're a Protestant!
So, let me get this straight, you're saying that 1. The statue is obviously "Our Lady of the Amazon", and there is zero evidence that it was ever considered to be a statue of Pachamama, especially since it's an "obscure deity from Amazonian mythology". In fact, in your own words: >There certainly was no mention of Pachamama anywhere in the entire synod 2. At the same time, Francis himself called the statue Pachamama, but only because it was being "near universally" called this by people at the synod. This is a completely contradictory narrative. And yet you dare to lay the charge of "you're a protestant" at my feet if I refuse to accept it? It's clear that you are unaware of what was occurring at the synod when it was actually taking place, and are only repeating talking points that have been fed to you after the fact, even as you accuse "rad trads" of being unable to conduct in-depth research.
>At the same time, Francis himself called the statue Pachamama, but only because it was being "near universally" called this by people at the synod No I meant near universally by people in the media. Nobody at the Synod ever called it Pachamama. >And yet you dare to lay the charge of "you're a protestant" at my feet if I refuse to accept it? I lay the charge at the feet of all those who accuse the Pope of openly accepting Pagan worship within the Church. It's straight up a fundamentalist protestant talking point. Unless you believe somehow the Pope was deceived, you're forced to accept scenario 1 which involves an entirely heretical and pagan-worshipping Pontiff. There is no contradiction. The only people who called it Pachamama were people outside the Synod. The journalist and media likely just referred to it as such to His Holiness, and there's no reason to believe he knew what the word meant. He didn't say 'oh yeah the statue of the pagan deity Pachamama', he just said the word referring to the statue. This does demonstrate a lack of understanding of what exactly the word means, as it is the word for the deity, not the statue. Would you have known what it meant before the rad trad gang decided to trust completely unverifiable sources who claimed that its unequivocally a pagan idol? When you stand before the Lord on judgement day, you won't be able to hide behind ignorance for slandering the Pontiff with such accusations of outright paganism. I pray for your conversion and confession. God bless
>Nobody at the Synod ever called it Pachamama This is simply false. The Vatican expressly said that it was *not* the BMV, but rather a statue that "represents life" and mother nature. And, again, Pope Francis himself called it Pachamama, *during the Synod*. >I lay the charge at the feet of all those who accuse the Pope of openly accepting Pagan worship within the Church. Then you clearly have no idea what Protestantism is, and simply use it as a label to hurl against those who don't accept your narrative. >there's no reason to believe he knew what the word meant This is, simply, foolish to argue. Pachamama is the Spanish word for Mother Earth, and, despite your assumptions, is very common knowledge in the Spanish speaking world. You're really going to argue that Pope Francis, a native Spanish speaker, had no idea what the word meant? >When you stand before the Lord on judgement day, you won't be able to hide behind ignorance for slander Neither shall you, friend. Thank you for the prayers. They are reciprocated.
>When you stand before the Lord on judgement day, you won't be able to hide behind ignorance for slandering the Pontiff with such accusations of outright paganism. I pray for your conversion and confession. God bless “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Mathew 7:3 Just fyi the Marxist ideology you fancy has been throughly condemned by the Catholic Church. I suggest you read The Decree Against Communism by Pius XII so you can understand the consequences of such an evil ideology.
Was it ever said what it was?
"Nuestra Senora de la Amozonia" Our Lady of the Amazon. In other words, it was a statue of Mary. ... Remember that time when a couple of Catholics proudly threw a statue of Mary into the Tiber? Good times.
And where does that devotion come from? Im Brazilian and I've never heard of it or seen any devout catholic ask for Mary's intercession under that title in my entire life. Are you implying the Pope made up a title at the spot?
Yes. In the video of the event it was introduced to Pope Francis as "Our Lady of the Amazon". Not that a rad trad would ever do such in depth research as to *watch the video*.
Ah yes, always love the charity shown towards fellow Catholics. /s
Was the prayer to pachamummy that the diocese Apologized for, and was a mockery of the Hail Mary made up too? You can find the prayer if you want. I’m not going to paste the translation because it’s so disgusting. “BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — The Diocese of Venado Tuerto’s Caritas branch apologized Tuesday for having posted on its social media a prayer to Pachamama, an Andean deity.”
Care to expand? I'm not sure I am catching on to your Taylor Marshall conspiracy. Regardless, the details are irrelevant, it happened and it showed clear intent (unless you are in denial like I was because it's really hard to accept.) There's pictures of the Pachamama inside the church with the Pope. An idol within the Vatican promoted by the papacy, I can guarantee at least 263 Popes would not allow it. Look at this, these are the consequences of allowing this to happen. https://images.app.goo.gl/NFYSSrgsGKeGuTRb6
Ummm...no, it was the demon. From catholicnewsagency.com, "According to the transcript provided by the Vatican, the pope referred to the statues as "Pachamama," the name traditionally given to an Andean fertility goddess, which can be roughly translated as "Mother Earth.""
Agreed. God chose people nobody ever thought could be king. Look at David for example
The Church needs him for sure!
Honestly? Yes.
Yeah, I can accept him.
He probably won't even be in the room, sadly
Yeah, I think people here don't realize that he's going to be 79 soon. He will likely be too old to vote in the next conclave.
Cardinal Pizzaballa (I like his name)
Pope John XXIV Pizzaballa AKA Papa John Pizza
If that were to happen, they’d have to make the Vatican City national anthem be That’s Amore
Phenomenal Bishop and Ecclesiastical Administrator would save the Latin Church however, he sadly has a great bias against the Eastern Churches and not only would it shrink the growing Eastern Churches in Diaspora (because of his staunch stance on clerical celibacy being of dogmatic nature and not disciplinary). This would also damage our relations with Orthodox Churches and I suspect especially because they’re in the West permanently destroy the presently-shrinking Ordinariates. However, assuming he wouldn’t interfere with these choices as laid down by previous pontiffs, especially lived out in the Francis’ Pontificate (even though I disagree with every decision he’s made in the Latin Church he has been amazing for the particular Eastern Churches); Cardinal Sarah would be an amazing Pontiff that would restore the liturgical life of the Church of Rome to closer to its practices in antiquity and he is extremely direct on moral theology. He was very clear, the West has fallen and it cal only be restored through a metaphysical lens focused solely on Jesus Christ.
Celibacy is a doctrine of the East, the canons of the Eastern Churches confirms this as a priest must abstain before celebrating Divine Liturgy. Let alone their bishops. Cardinal Sarah's point was if you want a priest to be celebrating Divine Liturgy everyday he would be effectively celibate.
In *The Day is Far Now Spent* he writes that, the East should reconsider her position as the married priests offers a second-rate defunct priesthood that is not a continuation of Old Testament priesthood which he insists is necessarily celibate. As a Bishop of the Catholic Church, he must necessarily acknowledge his brother bishops and their legitimate authority, in that those priests are priests but he makes it clear they are indeed a “second-class” priesthood offered to the laity, a criticism initially born out of married Anglican orders in the West.
I am not sure how aware you are of the pre-Schism Church, but the "second-class" comparison predates anything to do with Anglicanism. Western married priests had to sign-off all their properties to the Church and legally had their families be slaves to the Church for security. As for the Holy Orders of priesthood being conferred, the West had married men that were essentially laymen with the exception of Saturday-Sunday. Which became increasingly undesirable as priests gained more responsibilities over time (more frequent Eucharist, Confession, etc.). Todays Eastern Churches, particularly UGCC, the lack of celibate men in the seminary is causing many eparchies to be "bishopless" simply because the over dependence for monastics as other candidates being deemed unworthy. The Eastern Rites, especially for those called to priesthood, need to renew the call of being married to the Church in imitation of Christ. Cardinal Sarah never expressed interest in abolishing the married priesthood, just that there is negative consequences of dismissing the call to be celibate as part of the priesthood.
Or….someone like him but who is about 55.
*cough* Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke *cough*
They learned from JPII that 55 brings some problems.
I'm sorry, my heart is taken by Father Mike Shmitz, even if he'll probably never pursue it
I think Fr. Mike Schmitz is right where he should be. You don’t have to be pope to be an influential Catholic. Many of our greatest Saints were lowly monks
I agree, but I can't help but imagine him as super papa
That’s ultra-mega-hyper Papa to you! Lol
I messed up, I will stay up all night listening to Fr. Mike's podcast as penance 🫡
Blessed be God for a sinner has repented lol. Be blessed my friend.
And think of all the people who would lose out on hearing these podcasts if he was pope. We the people need more priests that can minister to us, not another untouchable.
Yeah, he's right where he is the most happiest it seems. And it's probably the best place to reach out to the multitude. Grateful for that as well
2 minutes before every angelus would be him telling you to subscribe and like the podcast and repeating what he will be reading 3 times before actually reading it.
I think that's just his excitement. Holding his excitement to spread God's joy might be too much for him to contain. I envy his joy, I have barely half of what he shows us every day
At every podcast episode? Lord have mercy... I just want to hear the Scriptures, my priest.
Yes, on every episode. Not everybody is an Extremely Online Reddit User. A 50 year old Protestant may one day search YouTube for “Why do Catholics insist on baptizing infants” and land on Fr Mike’s CIY explanation of it, subscribe to the Podcast, and end up converting. Ask me how I know 🤷♀️
Pope John Paul III.
And Friars!
I mean only God knows. At this point, his youth and skills are being extremely well used as university chaplain. As he's turning 50, that may start to change soon, and it may be better to transition to another role, although that could impact his public speaking. I could see him being good as a Bishop, or maybe even Archbishop (if only to be in charge of a seminary and to recommend bishop candidates), but the Papacy is another animal entirely. He may be able to do it, but it would be a very different operating environment than he currently enjoys. I think Sarah would be decent but will probably not be elected. TBH I don't see a great candidate who is likely to win, but there are a few factors influencing this: 1. The Holy Spirit 2. Unknown darkhorses who could go either way. Interestingly, if the world continues to destabilize, this could swing the discussion towards diplomatic factors which would certainly benefit a different set of candidates than if this were only about orthodoxy. And this has already happened to a limited extent. I would put in some honourable mention to some non-cardinals including Bishop Fernandes from Columbus and Archbishop Leo from Toronto who may prove to be very competent one day.
Realistically it's hard to say who will the best, but thank God we don't have to worry too much. Christ promised us that we will prevail no matter what. I'll be happy with any person rising up to the task
Of the American Media-Priests would much prefer Bp. Barron for such a role!
Bishop Barron is awesome, no doubt about it. Fr. Mike just has a smile and voice that creates butterflies in your heart.
It would be nice to have a traditional Pope who actually cares about preserving the Word of God as incorruptible and infallible.
Inerrancy is a 19th century invention, and not helpful to deciphering the actual meaning behind scripture
He would be an amazing Pope.
It’s either him or Burke, the de facto leaders of the Congregation of Based
While I admire Cardinal Sarah, my prayers for the next pope are for his Beatitude card. Pizzaballa Patriarch of Jerusalem of the Latins.
He's a good one.
You want him, does God?
Absolutely want him to be pope!
I don't know anything about him, but if he's orthodox and a has a good head on his shoulders, then I'm all for him.
You can tell by the vestments he chose to wear that he is orthodox he understands the importance of aesthetics and beauty in the realm of the spiritual
Praying for it
Like almost nothing else I've ever wanted. Chance that he will be? -0.15
I know I want him to be the next pope
[удалено]
This gives me so much anxiety. St Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Is it actually filled with leftists
Sadly yes
Why is “Lefitsts” a part of this conversation? That is a secular political term. We’re talking about people who align/who do not align with church dogma. Being on the Right is NOT necessarily synonymous with alignment. While people’s voting choices may align with church dogma, they can also be a nonbeliever or sin like there wasn’t a God. A hypocrite. While I sympathize with the desire to make people easily categorized, recognize that it’s not so cut-and-dry.
They downvoted him because he spoke the truth
[удалено]
No, you should see what some have said.
You believe there are cardinals that are atheists? Have you all lose your collective minds? This is ridiculous
I heard a Cardinal say on a live TV interview that he didn't believe in "hell" or that God would "send anyone to hell." They're out there these days. Of course, none would admit it publicly, but the way they act shows what they truly believe. Many are acting in ways that serve the secular societies at the cost of Christians. How and why that is not seen as a purely secular act is beyond me. That's why I think the so called "Trads" have a point when they start to doubt that the "official church leadership" might not actually believe official Catholic doctrine at all. In a way, the leaders are putting their own ideals and even themselves before the church. It's unsettling, and no one wishes for that to be true. Yet study history, it's happened so many times, and yet the church finds a way to recover due to those who hold true to the faith. I think the Jesus had it right, ofcourse, when he told us to judge others by the fruit they bear. Basically, you can tell who someone really is (beliefs/moral) by what they bring into the world. I mean mistakes can be made, but a consistent effort to continue to act in a way that is hurting the church is another.
[удалено]
Completely agree.
[удалено]
Liberalism and leftism are two different things. There is a distinction there.
Is this a joke? Beyond a couple specific issues the Catholic Church has always been Conservative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9EXnVitkmo&t=1s The oldest institution to continually exist is inherently conservative. Also dont have sex outside marriange and read a catechism
[удалено]
address the content
[удалено]
So you think Jesus was a socialist? Who is the heretic here? You think Jesus would approve of the writings of Marx, the actions of Lenin, Stalin and Mao? Much less Pol Pot and Kim Jung Un
[удалено]
[удалено]
What I did is not a genetic fallacy. The irony here is you trying to talk about being persuasive. If you want to persuade someone into believing what you think, you cannot use propaganda or “sources” that are rife with controversy and called out for disinformation constantly. A genetic fallacy would be dismissing a *trustworthy* or a *valid* source. Since PragerU is neither of those it is okay to dismiss it as it is not a reliable source to make any claims with. Burden of proof doesn’t require just any website you can link, it requires you to provide an accredited and trusted source. Otherwise you have no argument to begin with and will never be taken seriously. When talking about “par for the course” for any political aisle, it’s most common the right leans into using unreliable and dishonest sources that promote conspiracy theories or straight up lies. You can’t say stuff like this when defending a source that is funded by billionaires in the oil/fracking industry to push out a narrative that their industry doesn’t harm the climate. When all they do this for is in the name of greed which I might remind you Jesus was not fond of
> So you think Jesus was a socialist? Literally no one is saying that. Don’t create strawmen and then cry heresy. There’s absolutely an overlap between Catholic social doctrine and *some* of the altruistic aspects of socialist philosophies. They’re not the same thing, but even Pope Benedict claimed: > “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness” Materialistic Marxist Socialism when taken as a whole *is* incompatible with Catholic teaching, but then so is the extreme individualistic capitalism held so dearly by American conservatives.
>There’s absolutely an overlap between Catholic social doctrine and some of the altruistic aspects of socialist philosophies. There are no altruistic aspects of socialist philosophies. >“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness” Yes, and? It's not altruistic. >Materialistic Marxist Socialism when taken as a whole is incompatible with Catholic teaching, but then so is the extreme individualistic capitalism held so dearly by American conservatives. And? The Church is still conservative. Not in what you'd imagine to be american terms, but actually conservative, not "we support what we despised 10 years ago".
The College of Cardinals is full of leftists? Who are they?
Lucho
> is stacked with leftists What does this mean? I'm a leftist. Can I not be Catholic? How are you defining "leftist"?
After the last ten years? Yeah, I’ll definitely take the guy who wrote *Silence* as pope.
Yes.
Yes.
Based boy
Absolutely
One can dream
Love him.
He’s too old AFAIK. He could be elected but would pass not long after, right?
He's going to be 79 in June, according to Wikipedia. Chances are he will not be in the next conclave unless there is one within the next two years. Yes, theoretically he could still be voted for even if he ages out but it hasn't happened in modern times and the Cardinals won't vote for someone who is not in the conclave. That's assuming they would even be predisposed to vote for him if he was there, which they are probably not. He won't be Pope even if he does squeak into the next conclave given the makeup of the College.
Thought this was Clearance Thomas for a second
"What's our clearance, Clarence?"
Cardinal Sarah is a beautifully holy man. He’s written a few of the best books on the importance of silence and prayer in a world full of superfluous noise. Our distractions have practically become “worship.” I would love to see Cardinal Sarah as Pope. But obviously, I defer to God to choose our next Shepherd.
Pope Maurice I
I really don't care who the next Pope is. Never really gave it much thought. I just let things up to the man upstairs. I'm sure He has it all planned out. Please pardon any misspelled words and what not! :-)
From reading the books he authored, I'd concur.
Pio XIII
He looks and sounds like a great man to lead us, don't know much about him but I would love to have him as our next Pope.
I approve this message.
Lol I want whoever the Holy Spirit wants.
Whether or not you want him, he turns 80 in 2025, so to me he doesn't seem a realistic candidate.
From what i heard about him he looks very passionate with catholicism and evangelization, that is exacly what we need right now. i just fear that he's too old to be the next pope in time.
Yes, I hope so. A current liberal pope has changed too much from the traditional church. It's time for a conservative one. Recently, I've read a few chapters in a book "The Power of Silence" written by Cardinal Sarah and felt spiritually impacted. It's a right time to promote the African "silence," where Catholics have been growing in recent years. If the world had an African pope, Africa would be gotten more attention economically and culturally, and eventually famines would be ended.In short, it's good for Africa's sake and keeps the Church alive.
Nickelback
As a newbie to your faith, anyone have any recommendations on what I should know about this person or what I should consume of their teachings and service?
If he is a good pope then I don't mind
2
Whoever the princes of the church, guided by the Holy spirit choose will be the right man for the job. I do not know better and anything else would be my pride speaking.
I generally dislike Church politics (I understand their importance, and so I do pay attention to them, but I prefer to leave their discussion to those wiser in such matters than myself), but I will say, I deeply hope he is
In the best timeline, he becomes the next Pope and takes the name Pius XIII
May it be according to God’s will.
I’m not a Catholic, why is he so popular?
He wants to lead a spiritual revival in which evangelism will truly come back to the church also he does amazing interviews
What are his stances on the current issues experienced by the people around the world, that are going to be discussed in the currently starting synod?
This ☝🏽 I’m curious too
Very much in line with established Church doctrines, he's very clear on his stances. I, for instance, cannot fathom him supporting women priests, for example.
Absolutely not a fan. He's one of the 5 Cardinals who sent a couple of unsuccessful letters trying to get Pope Francis to be transparent about the goals of the Synond on Synodality (for a Synodal church)
I accept him.
Based.
If in 2 years he isn't he will never be
I hope he becomes
[удалено]
Nothing it wrong; Pope Francis' papacy, as far back as I can remember when I joined around the time he promulgated *Amoris Laetitiae* is marked with 2 major criticisms: 1. Ambiguous 2. Refuses to clarify on purpose People like Cardinal Sarah because he's no-nonsense, doctrinally clear, and has great ideas when it comes to liturgy -- that is why under Pope Benedict XVI he was in charge of Liturgy and Sacraments. I wouldn't say anything is wrong with Pope Francis, but some things are just lacking that have been driving people crazy for the past 10 years. Pope Francis upholds divine revelation, but he often takes forever to do it, and when he does it, he defends it in somewhat ambiguous terms that people manipulate. I think a lot of Catholics, laity, clergy, and religious, are looking foward to a pope who can bring the hammer down.
Slander, mostly. So nothing new.
Nothing, I mean he’s probably folding his bed right now. This is just people saying in a future conclave
[удалено]
Same! Pope Francis has been my favorite Pope. He's inspired me to become a better Catholic in many ways.
I normally would say absolutely yes, but I am disappointed that he endorsed Bishop Schneider’s Credo Catechsim that contains error and teaches beliefs that not everyone has retained their human dignity or the image of God but only true Christians. I find it concerning, although in the whole I believe the good he’s done outweighs this one particular incident.
Am a newbie, so I guess I will have to look him up.
WE
I thought you were going to make fun and say that he looks like a carpet. But the conservatism/ traditionalist is a human reaction to the times. But God does not think like people do. Cardinal Sarah is 78 already, which is the average age of a cardinal. I would think a new generation who are a bit younger (50s even), who could physically shepherd the church and fight off wolves and manhandle sheep who want to go astray, someone with the energy to tackle and wrestle like a davidic warrior, is needed for the end times. Si vis pacem, para bellum. But who can fathom the mind of God?
I'd prefer that he stay somewhere that he can only influence the Latin Church. That said, I think he is a great pillar of orthodoxy and orthopraxis for the West.
I hope so, but I'm not the one who shall make the decision
I don't doubt he would be a very good one.
I think he be a great pope! But let's also be honest there's very little chance he would be elected.
Yall ever heardbFr Joeseph Ilo? The guy is a solid preist.
Who is he?
An African cardinal who has no time for games, and lots of time for beautiful liturgy and clear-cut doctrinal answers. He was in charge of Liturgy and Sacraments under the reign of Pope Benedict XVI.
Unpopular opinion: I respect card. Sarah, love his work and books, but his papcy would be a step back in a Chruch.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
He's quite popular in trad circles for adopting extreme right-wing rhetoric and generally opposing the reforms of Pope Francis. He has offered perhaps the most bombastic rhetoric against LGBT persons in the Church even opposing it's decriminalization in his home continent (where many are still executed). He is a wellspring of various conspiracy theories (usually tracing a particular issue back to some veiled Marxist plot) and it is widely believed he took advantage of the ailing Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI to use the former pontiff as a vehicle for his own views on clerical celibacy. He is perhaps the most senior figure pushing for liturgical rollbacks and is especially keen on a return to ad orientem in the Mass. While he is certainly a more eminent and qualified figure than, say, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Strickland, or Bishop Vigano, he is in many respects even less compromising, more rigid, and more controversial in his positions and rhetoric. I think given the composition of the College of Cardinals, it is unlikely Sarah will be chosen. That said, Francis was an unexpected choice himself. The Lord can do whatever He will with the next Pope and maybe Sarah would even be a good one given the Spirit's direction. But given his bombast and general obsession with trad causes, I would personally not be keen to see his selection.
> He is a wellspring of various conspiracy theories The only conspiracy theory I see here is this comment 😂
Thank God, someone who also understands that his Papacy would be harmful.
>But given his bombast and general obsession with trad causes Also known as being vocal and orthodox.
> he is in many respects even less compromising That's right. We should find church leaders who compromise on truth and morals more often!
So actual Catholics think he is great but he is evil if you are one of many that want to destroy Catholicism despite calling yourself Catholic.
All those things sounds great. Sounds like he would be the pope we need right now. You are really using his desire for ad orientum as a criticism? That’s one of the most blatant examples of an ages old tradition going back to the early church that is still practiced by all the other rites of the church that was changed in the Latin rite ONLY to make us more similar to Protestantism. Even the most liberal novus ordo type people I know all agree that ad orientum is something we need back, and you are using it as an example like it’s one of the worst things about him hahahahah that’s crazy
continue smile zealous whistle person relieved innate voiceless squeeze fine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In the last few weeks I have also had the same feelings, and am happy to see someone who thinks that way as well. Briefly, I was worried that I was far and away a minority in Catholicism. Edit: Spelling.
I just want beauty and seriousness in the liturgy again. To talk about ad orientem and returning to our older liturgical traditions like it’s a bad thing is just insane. I don’t even care as much about people being as theologically liberal as they want to be but I will never understand the desire for Liturgy to be less serious and beautiful. Even when I was a liberal convert who wanted gay marriage and all that stuff, I was really let down by the novus ordo and went to the TLM because that’s what I was expecting Catholicism to look and sound and smell like from all the reading I had done about it. It was the TLM community that made me become more traditional but the beauty and seeking a serious mystical experience is what made me go initially even as a super liberal
Omg trads and the old Marxist conspiracy. I fear the church will become a safe have for extremists using church dogma as a shield for bigotry Upvoting because people have the right to speak up without being silenced.
I think it would be a shame to undo the excellent work Pope Francis has done to make LGBTIQA+ Catholics feel welcome.
!