• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Pope Francis

N

Ninae

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,522
Just humour me a little, as this isn't just one of my crazy ideas, but has some social significance.

7edb99e3-0598-4ede-96e5-51350a612872.jpg


I'd just like to know what you all think of Pope Francis or what is your intuitive impression of him?

This interests me greatly, as he seems like something different to have come into the Catholic church. One of the first things he said was "This will be a poor church for poor people". Not very characteristic of the Vatican?

Also, many years ago, a great female spiritual teacher I knew predicted we would get a new pope who would bring something good into the world. She said at first he would speak just like all the others, so that he would be accepted, but once he came into power he would begin to show his true face. That was then, but at this time there are also many channelers/clairvoyants writing about it.

The one I trust the most channeled a message that he is an embodiment of the Master St. Germain, or that he took up residence in his body when he became the pope, although he can come and go as he wishes (like ascended masters can).

Looking at pictures of him I can kind of see it too. What immediately strikes me from looking at this picture for instance is that he's a good soul, a fox or very wise and intelligent, and very in touch with God and intent on carrying out his will in the world.

I get the feeling there's nothing but good that can come from this man and that it bodes good for humanity.

Also, there must be some reason why they keep putting him on the cover of popular magazines, like it's somehow understood there's some significance to him.
 
Last edited:
He's the more friendly replacement for the evil hag that came before him, who stepped down due to "health reasons", lol. The Church knows that they will hemorrhage followers if they keep electing hardliners, which is why Francis was selected.

He's a nicer face for an institution whose evil has remain largely unchanged.
 
Yea, he just seems so out of place for the institution he's in, I finally couldn't help notice it.

There's nothing bad that could be said about him. But it looks like he's got a little bit of power as well, or, like they had to bend a bit to his will to get him as their face.

He looks like he has done something or other to improve the world and feels optimistic because of it. I don't really think it's a coincidence that it says "The times they are a-changing on the cover". Small things like that often mean something.
 
Last edited:
A friendly face to an evil organisation? Never seen that before.

That's the pessimist in me.

The optimist hopes he is as he seems.

The realist in me doesn't think it matters either way.
 
I do get a much more positive impression from Pope Francis then from his predecessor and I value his claims to be returning the catholic church back to its correct form. But as Foreigner said, there is not a lot of evidence that this is occurring or that it even will...

I personally still can't separate him from the catholic church at large, nor should anyone. He is the Head of it, he has taken on the burden of responsibility for an insular, archaic, greedy and out-dated institution and is therefore tacitly responsible for the actions of this body. You can't rewrite history, but I wouldn't accept a new Nazi party if its new leader was mildly reproachful about its past.

Ninae said:
Also, there must be some reason why they keep putting him on the cover of popular magazines, like it's somehow understood there's some significance to him.
Click to expand...

They put him on magazines because he is the Pope.
 
The pope has about as much actual power as the president of the US does. I think I subscribe to Douglas Adams' theory that the president's real job is to distract the masses from the people who actually run things.
 
He is against legalizing cannabis even though the bible says on literally the second page that every seed-bearing plant is for man. That's really the only thing I know about him but based on it I can't support him. Which probably doesn't mean much to him because I'm not catholic.
 
Of course, he's not going to be able to transform the institution in a day, even if I believe he is someone who would like to.

But I do get the impression they didn't get him as a front figure for nothing and he demanded some changes that they had to give in to. So even if it's small, it's a start and at least something. The phrase "God's gentle arm-twisting" comes to mind (don't we all know it?)


time-person-year-pope-Francis-1-2013-624x351.jpg



"White" aura.
 
Last edited:
^He's just the head of the catholic church and should be seen as nominally accountable for its actions in the world. If he makes small changes, he still cannot deny that his entire life is a ringing endorsement of catholic ideals, which are ideals of self-destruction and self-loathing and incredible immorality. If you want to change the catholic church, I would say that excusing oneself from its machinations is a start. I feel like its time to abandon this belief system for something more human and better. Those who don't do this give tacit support to the broader catholic policies and restate and reaffirm the churches position in the world. Its a crumbling edifice that should be long gone IMO. The best way to change it would be to diminish its power, redistribute its wealth, sell its lands and free enslaved, uneducated and crushingly poor people, like it is meant to do. Until it does this, until it lives out its creed, its just a bunch of old men who are afraid of death but also hate life.
 
I love that the traditionalist or hard identity Catholic blogosphere goes into regular convulsions because of statements and actions from Francis. When a 'conservative' sits in Peter's throne conservatives are against any dissent and bring up infallibility. I think everybody should have the experience of being on the side with less power once in a while.

The long term import of Francis won't be known for decades. Pius IX started his pontificate as one of the most liberal Popes. The Papal States were seized. His Secretary of State was killed in front of him. He ended up being a reactionary against everything modern. Since I don't believe the Pope is receiving special guidance, I don't believe that Francis is necessarily going to stay sane or mentally sound. Catholicism is best understood as an absolute monarchy. Given that the church is important to many people and has much influence I'm glad someone interested in real people and issues like poverty has the reigns. I hate top to bottom organizational structures without accountability running the other direction. Anything he does that changes that could be of long lasting benefit.
 
Don't be fooled. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

He's just as bad as the other Popes, and Francis did completely support the genocide of the Argentinian people during the 70s.

This pope is just like the others, and he may claim to be for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans) people's rights, now claims to be for science, and against the whole ped0 sex abuse stuff that's sick; but their #1 goal besides making lots of money and staying powerful, is attracting new people or keeping old members so they can get even more money that they don't need.

In Italy the Vatican still has a lot of political power, and as someone who has visited there, not on a religious pilgrimage as I'm not Roman Catholic or was not raised that way, they have lots of ancient artifacts, gold, jewelry, priceless artwork, and old literature; but the Vatican claims "Oh, this stuff is just a technically a 'gift' and not really wealth at all, and hey just ignore the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, we're the largest charity!"

The vatican is the world's biggest closet, if the priests, bishops, and popes are not gay then they are into the sick ped0 stuff that's been going on for centuries, and that they still let happen and give offenders a slap on the wrist instead of putting them in prison.

I have friends and relatives who are Roman Catholic but they're what hardcore Roman Catholics call "cafeteria Catholics" in that they pick and choose what they agree with and don't like with the Roman Catholic church. The hardcore Roman Catholics I've encountered have told me how in their opinion these people are not really Roman Catholic. Or my friends and relatives just go to mass a few times a year during holidays like Christmas, Easter, Ash Wednesday, and don't go to confession, or give away money.

It's the Roman Catholic church, one of the most historically corrupt, evil, and greedy organizations there has been throughout history, and yet it continues to thrive, and amass wealth via greed.
 
Last edited:
The notion of "saint" among Catholics is a reinvention, of the old Roman notion of demigods (meaning, in this case, lesser gods).

The human individual who is regarded as having attained this distinction has been adjudged to have achieved such a high order of holiness that they merit worship, much as if they were gods themselves. Initially, discussion about sainthood was over how to diagnose the condition, and the conversation was open to reasoned debate (usually between scholars, both secular and religious). But it was not long before discussion of the issue was seized as the exclusive prerogative of the priesthood. The question ceased to be about diagnostics, and became about the range of the power and privilege of the priesthood - in other words, it became less a matter of recognizing merit, than of awarding merit.

In modern usage, the term has become a facile honorific. Anyone who leads a reasonably ethical life, and is thought so highly of that they are idolized, is sometimes, carelessly, described as saintly. The question of whether any of the individuals pictured are deserving of worship is ludicrous. Certainly none of them are any more deserving than anyone else.

Canonization of Popes in the Church of Rome strikes me as simply a reprise of the practice of deification of Caesars in ancient Imperial Rome.

After the collapse of the Republic, imperial Caesars became routinely added to the pantheon of Roman gods (usually after the politician in question was safely dead), making them available for worship by the populous. Certainly, it added to the authority of sitting Caesars, since by implication they were potential gods themselves. Small wonder, it became a custom of the "old boys club" of Caesars.

A similar custom seems to be emerging within the papacy--declare your predecessor a saint, and your successor will show you the same courtesy after you pass). God is too distracted with all His godly doings to be bothered with identifying saints to the living--so He leaves it to the Church, his personal secretary, to do so on his behalf (after the candidate has passed, and no longer potentially threatens the hierarchy, of course).

This latest papal canonization is exposing a long-concealed conceit of the Church--that it prefers to think that it can elevate someone into sainthood, more than merely diagnose that someone is a saint. This became clear when the criteria for recognizing someone as a saint were openly set aside in the present case (in the past, conformity to the criteria was simply fabricated, so the conceit could remain concealed).

So, it is that conceit itself, as well as the moldering Pope, that is being elevated.

If you have studied anything about the Ancient Romans you can look back at all of the festivals, holidays, and events they had and you will find much of the same ones that the Roman Catholic church adopted to get people to convert.
 
There is a lot of hatred towards the Church, which is against all we believe in. Its a means to find a more full life, not a greedy organization. Without money, no organization would survive. Take the church away and then see what happens (Soup kitchens and other great charities that were ran by hard working nuns, priests, and lay people will go down, and that is just one idea). Also, the church does not condone pedophiles or sex, priests are people just like us and subject to sin. They are not supposed to have sex, and just because there are some "bad eggs" by far does not mean they are all bad. There is the question of "adverse selection," where pedos may be more likely to become priests to abuse their power, but I believe the Church has ways of finding these people out before they do, as it is not an easy path to become a priest (it takes much schooling).

As for Francis, what a wonderful pope! Everyone have a good day and God Bless (if you believe in Him, because I do, and I realize it is just a personal choice, and I am not trying to "sell" Jesus to you like many Christians find their duty to do online)!
 
Its the office of tbe pope that I object to not necessarily the pope.
The previous poster is correct to point out the good the Catholicism does.
I certainly cant argue the good Nuns have done.
Very disciplined and respectable. As majority of priest and congregation.
My disagreement you could call dogmatic but only in terms it comes thru Jesus and no man.
No man can speak for me in matters of my faith.
They may speak to me not for me.
Im free to reject tbere ideas
They have not the authority.
The pope does not hold the place of god on earth.
No man can forgive one single sin nor has the authority to say so.
Likewise not worthy of my prayer or praise.
Good acts are side effect off faith, faith isn't a by
product of good acts. Even someonen lost knows how to do good.

Just my thoughts
Mean no disrespect
 
He's the Pope ffs...He thinks he's god's spouting pie-hole on Earth. He's deluded....

I AM, God's voice piece on Earth thank you.

You don't have to pay me either - I dish out Gold for free ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top