Why Do Conservatives Hate Pope Francis So Much ?

The above article has a strong traditionalist tone. The article below is just the opposite, from National catholic reporter. I hope the reader will make the difference that exists within the ranks of the Catholic church. Those all are catholics, devote ones, and defending church and faith! Yet they think different, to the opposite extremes! We have to acknowledge that fact and to stop thinking of the catholic church as one same thing.

The Shake-up In Rome
ncronline.org...

2012newstart
I will rather keep the trend of the initial thread.

I'd rather leave the Puritans out of this...

we protestants are living our version of the word and it's not an institution to be capitalized on, it's lifestyle and a constitution.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

good for you!
Here we have a reform that concerns 1/6 of the world, so I do care. Even if I don't care for those catholics who prefer to live in 19th century.

The conservatives had the Pope because they are archaic, bitter fools who don't seem to realise that if the theology doesn't evolve; and do it soon, that they will start losing their following in droves in our modern age.

I bet the "secret theology" already evolved what hasn't been done since year 1000. May be there is 1000 years ahead theology than what is publicly manifested. The problem is how to tell it to the masses. How to tell the Gospels are not written by Matthew, John, Luke and Mark, but composed 2 centuries later from existing pieces under someone's very smart guidance. That someone was not God. Not human either. Not Roman "god". You name it, to avoid the word that frightens so many people. Key phrases of Jesus' life and probably teaching are missing. The antichrist at the end of the age, although it exists in the prophets, is put and named as such in details that are missing in the prophets. By John. How could John's works preserve so coherent and not in pieces, while the others didn't? Did the John's antichrist put therefore to STOP any idea of a betterment of humankind in the course of history? By someone quite more knowledgeable than the first apostles (see above). Notice John's works on original papyrus or whatever also do not date back to 90 AD. The answer is simple. We have pseudo John, pseudo Paul with volumes as big as the entire Gospel, that made the religion the way we know it. Not the teaching of Jesus who didn't leave a line written by Him. He was not illiterate. All that rubber stamped by no other but the pagan chief priest Constantine on the Nicaea council Before that you have selective massacres of groupings of Christians in far away provinces as well as Rome. Perhaps those who preserved the real teaching.

How then to explain the faithful that MAY BE, just MAY BE , some facts of the life of Our Lord are hidden? Some very important facts? It needs a revolution in thinking that hasn't occurred on earth yet. Because for everyone it is pretty clear what we have as 1900 years "Christian" experience is not even close to the teachings of Lord Jesus that survived the censorship of the biggest empire on earth.

I will make another post not to break up the integrity of the previous one.
You cannot possibly have ancient scrolls dating back 3000, 4000, may be 5000 years.... From all parts of the world...even written in stone to be preserved well...speaking of ancient history and "gods" called it whatever on H-channel)...
And not to have preserved any early Christian texts from as short time as 1980 years ago or the years after the Ascensions of Jesus. That with the belief Jesus is the Son of God! The earliest preserved pieces date back at least a century later.

So the people could preserve those pagan ones but not these ones that deal with the life of Lord Jesus. Strange! It is not strange if your perspective takes the true position. Questioning in first place the so called "fathers" who screwed it up 180 degrees of what Jesus taught and made a state imperial religion. If we blame Rome we have to blame Byzantium no less. Byzantium has one advantage that it doesn't exist today as empire. But it did no less damage, mixing imperial power with religious command structure. Up until 1453.

Why was Alexandria library burnt by the "christian emperor" Theodosius? (Who ruled from Milan). Who slaughtered "christian" population in Thessaloniki as well and then "repented"? Pardon me? Why wasn't he burnt instead of the innocent people? Massacres in Christian empires are not unusual. Burning of people started since the time of Constantine. (I wonder why didn't they crucify them instead, may be not to make the martyrs after Jesus). With all marks of the first centuries persecutions. As if the Christian kings and emperors were the logical continuation of the pagan ones. Whom they persecuted as fiercely as the pagan emperors persecuted the Christians? The "heretics"? Or perhaps those pockets of Christians who preserved the truth of Jesus Christ?

What could a Christian emperor do: en.wikipedia.org...

The army units sent to Thessalonica acted as if they had captured a hostile city and massacred several thousands of its inhabitants. Church historian Theodoretus puts the figure at about 7,000, saying:

The anger of the Emperor rose to the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance by unsheathing the sword most unjustly and tyrannically against all, slaying the innocent and guilty alike. It is said seven thousand perished without any forms of law, and without even having judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of wheat in the time of harvest, they were alike cut down.[2]

Although the Emperor changed his mind rather quickly and sent another messenger to cancel his previous order and to prevent the troops from massacring the inhabitants of the city, this revocation came too late.

Although today we don't have any such Christian emperors, we'd better get rid of any idea of that. The world cannot be arena of new crusades and new bloodshed in the name of Christ. It sounds absurd in 21st century. But just remember what Hitler did with the Jews. It was as absurd to think back in 1920s that would happen only 10 -15 years later, in the civilized 20th century compared to the dark ages.

It was a difficult task preservation of books, be they original or re-written manuscripts. Today we cannot imagine that with billions of books printed that nobody reads anymore in the era of internet. It wasn't that way. It is highly possible a lot real gospels to be destroyed. Here is how Constantine proceeded with the Arius' books:
en.wikipedia.org...

Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has been proved to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived this purge were later destroyed by his Orthodox opponents. Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic. This leads some—but not all—scholars to question their reliability.[5]

The religious fundamentalism was so strong and a way of life of elite after the church was institutionalized by Constantine, that it seems impossible in our days to even imagine that level of control and repression. But in fact we have such examples all the way down the history until modern times. It is therefore very difficult to say what was before, at the time of Jesus. Because the documents survived only on the side of the ruling elite, not on the persecuted side. It is quite possible we face a completely different Gospel if ancient tablets are discovered as Dead sea scrolls. For that purpose, those who wrote pseudo-Paul, wrote also: let it be anathema if even you receive a letter as written from us. Let it be anathema even if angel talks to you a different Gospel. Hei, so Paul or pseudo-Pauls were contacted by angels with intention to be corrected? So there were gospels written by the real Paul that contradicted the pseudo-Paul who was preserved? It doesn't matter which century the "Paul" of the Gospel surfaces - was it 1st or 2nd. It matters that HIS writings and not those of the real Paul were preserved, and he puts anathema to any letter that may bear handwriting of the real Paul. What to say about the angelic intervention in the process of reshape of gospel? I discuss it in another thread.
We are in front the biggest conspiracy in humankind that shaped the history of Europe and later the world for the last 1800 years. The sooner the veil falls the better for everyone.

I will wrap up the last several posts saying the new leaders in Rome have a chance to open a new page. To reveal hidden books, including hidden Gospels. To reform but not only to restructure same functions and same people. To let fresh air enter the church more than Vatican 2. Not just to allow what is already a fact in secular society. But to make the difference by themselves. They know what I mean. The reasoning people in the society know what is meant by that.

In a sense, what we see now happening in the church (its biggest congregation about half of all) and in the world, is a test whether the world would survive its own red line of self-destruction. Is it meant to continue. Or only selected people will continue as in the Flood. From here to the End times of Daniel there might be quite a large gap of time. As actually there is between the 69th week and the 70th week. Daniel FAILED so far. Do we realize that? He was not wrong, he was right for the extend of 69 weeks x 7 years. He failed to materialize in the 70th week. (a big boost made by Martin Luter and Reformation about that). What stops the prophecy to be postponed for another 2000, 3000, 5-6000 years? More? NOTHING. God didn't set dates in stone. The difference is whether this world will make it thru in its multitudes and variety or only a selected number of survivors will see the new dawn after the nuclear/impact winter or whatever else is on our way). This is a planetary test, this is a church test. A test for the Christianity that failed to show the image of God's love in its practical life for centuries history. Because all religious wars cannot be a shadow of God's love, they are its opposite. Will it fail God's love again, or will it finally make a true reflection in its own life? It is not a test only for the new pope and a dozen, hundred of hi level clerics. It is a test for everyone Christian. And also the others. They might happen to be closer to God's love than many Christians are. As Gandhi showed it.