Political prisoner 103592R

[Xeno.of.athens]

Have you seen a film called The Shoes of the Fisherman?

it was made in 1968.

It is about a new pope, a Russian, in a time when poverty and famine drives China to threaten war against USSR.

It is, fundamentally, about theology.

Would you think well of a Pope who pledged all the wealth of the Catholic Church at his disposal for the alleviation of world poverty?

 

[BobRyan]

Would you think well of a Pope who pledged all the wealth of the Catholic Church at his disposal for the alleviation of world poverty?

I certainly would. I would say that it is the right spirit.

But are you really saying everything of wealth held by the Catholic Church was sold and given to the poor? I am trying to understand your point.

15 richest churches in the world 2021: Ranked by their net worth

The RICHEST CHURCHES IN THE WORLD own fine pieces of art, special metals, lands, and properties. Check out this article to know the top 15 churches in 2021.

www.tuko.co.ke

"15 richest churches in the world 2021: Ranked by their net worth " where in Germany alone it is worth 26 Billion

What is the wealth of the Vatican how much is it - Bing
"The Vatican makes annually around $130 million dollars from visitors and $85 million dollars through donations 4"

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I certainly would. I would say that it is the right spirit.

If you have not seen the film then I recommend watching it.

 

[RandyPNW]

Have you seen a film called The Shoes of the Fisherman?

it was made in 1968.

It is about a new pope, a Russian, in a time when poverty and famine drives China to threaten war against USSR.

It is, fundamentally, about theology.

Would you think well of a Pope who pledged all the wealth of the Catholic Church at his disposal for the alleviation of world poverty?

I haven't seen the film. But I've seen too much of the "Social Gospel" in formal religion. The focus on "meeting the needs of the world" is not the Gospel. The world is actually under judgment. Why would God lead His people to try to undo what He is doing?

The way to help the world is by preaching the Gospel, to get people and governments to turn from false gospels, to turn from their worldly ways.

The current Pope of the RCC is going down the track of the worldly gospel, trying to fix the world. And he has ended up by joining in with liberal politics, with climate change activism, with anti-Semitism, with unity among the religions. This will not fix the world, but only play into its game, and end up under judgment.

 

[dzheremi]

I would hope that any leader, like any person, would focus on helping the needy because it's the right thing to do, not because it might make people like him better. (I know you didn't claim that this is his motivation, OP, but your question of "Would you think well of a Pope who..." invites this sort of distinction, just so that the proper focus on the people who need help is maintained.)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I would hope that any leader, like any person, would focus on helping the needy because it's the right thing to do, not because it might make people like him better. (I know you didn't claim that this is his motivation, OP, but your question of "Would you think well of a Pope who..." invites this sort of distinction, just so that the proper focus on the people who need help is maintained.)

Yeah, fair enough; my interest in asking the question is "does anything that a pope might do make Catholic teaching in any way acceptable?" given the amount of persistent opposition to Catholic teaching present in CF.

 

[hislegacy]

Yeah, fair enough; my interest in asking the question is "does anything that a pope might do make Catholic teaching in any way acceptable?" given the amount of persistent opposition to Catholic teaching present in CF.

Yes, absolutely yes!

1. When the man stands for the rights of the unborn to live! We agree.
2. When the man stands for marriage between a man and a woman - we agree!
3. When the man stands for the Divinity of Jesus Christ - we agree
4. When the man stands for Salvation by faith through Grace - we agree
5. When the man stands for helping the poor using church funds - we agree

There is common ground.

 

[The Liturgist]

Have you seen a film called The Shoes of the Fisherman?

it was made in 1968.

It is about a new pope, a Russian, in a time when poverty and famine drives China to threaten war against USSR.

It is, fundamentally, about theology.

Would you think well of a Pope who pledged all the wealth of the Catholic Church at his disposal for the alleviation of world poverty?

I recall mentioning the film a few weeks ago, in particular the interesting performance of Anthony Quinn as an Eastern Rite bishop who became pope, and also the very good performance of the ever-reliable Sir Lawrence Olivier as the Soviet premier.

But like Logan’s Run, a superior film by the same director, the film also had some silliness, for example the Pope’s rather peculiar relationship with a heretical priest, and the Politburo meeting room having a decidedly space age feel and having an average age of 35 it seems, when of course the actual politburo in the 1960s was dominated by ancient men most of whom were born before the USSR or even 1917, and met in rooms at the Kremlin that look as though they would not be out of place at the Ritz.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What a man does can influence many people, what pope Kiril does in the film's story is a good act given the context in which it is done. Just as Kiril faced many obstacles to his deed, so too does every pope who does something that is good. Many oppose out of tradition, many oppose out of personal fears, what makes the pope's deed good is that it is done out of faith in Christ without giving in to fear, and for the good of God's people, even if many oppose. This kind of goodness is what makes saints.

 

[hislegacy]

What a man does can influence many people, what pope Kiril does in the film's story is a good act given the context in which it is done. Just as Kiril faced many obstacles to his deed, so too does every pope who does something that is good. Many oppose out of tradition, many oppose out of personal fears, what makes the pope's deed good is that it is done out of faith in Christ without giving in to fear, and for the good of God's people, even if many among oppose. This kind of goodness is what makes saints.

Excellent point -

The same is true for every Believer, everyone of us, when we do something done out of faith without giving into fear and for the good of God's people is the kind of goodness that is the hallmark of why Scripture calls us Saints.

Regardless if the person is Roman Catholic of and other denomination. Look at Rev. Billy Graham, (Southern Baptist), and the billions of people he reached with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. His life was out of Faith in Christ without giving into fear, for the good of God's people.

The list is endless!

 

[The Liturgist]

What a man does can influence many people, what pope Kiril does in the film's story is a good act given the context in which it is done. Just as Kiril faced many obstacles to his deed, so too does every pope who does something that is good. Many oppose out of tradition, many oppose out of personal fears, what makes the pope's deed good is that it is done out of faith in Christ without giving in to fear, and for the good of God's people, even if many oppose. This kind of goodness is what makes saints.

Of course you are ignoring that Pope Kirill’s hand was effectively forced by the spectre of a three-way nuclear war between Communist China and the USSR and the West motivated by the famine in China. It was a contrived story designed to give Pope Kirill an opportunity for heroic virtue by basically mortgaging the priceless property of the Church to purchase grain for the PRC.

I would contend there are moral questions about his decision. For example, his act basically left the rest of the West open for blackmail the next time the PRC had a Communism-induced famine. The just solution would have been for the Soviets to bail out the PRC, which was clearly a monster of their own making.

Also, the implied homosexual relationship between Pope Kirill and the heretical German priest in this work of 1960s fiction was deeply unsettling.

I did enjoy the film, but I am unable to offer any ringing endorsement of Pope Kirill’s actions.

 

[The Liturgist]

I would hope that any leader, like any person, would focus on helping the needy because it's the right thing to do, not because it might make people like him better. (I know you didn't claim that this is his motivation, OP, but your question of "Would you think well of a Pope who..." invites this sort of distinction, just so that the proper focus on the people who need help is maintained.)

Given that it was basically a choice of that or a potential nuclear exchange, since the starving Chinese had nothing to lose (except perhaps for the communism that caused their starvation), someone had to blink, and it just happened to be the fictional Pope Kirill, which in my view was a mistake, considering that at next famine the Orthodox and other non-state actors would be likewise blackmailed.

A true victory for the fictional Pope Kirill would have been for him to have persuaded the Soviet Premier played by Sir Laurence Olivier, with whom he had developed a strange rapport, to mortgage the vastly greater assets of the Soviet regime in order to come to the aid of the former Maoist comrades, with whom they had of course fallen out rather spectacularly when this film was made.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way the film in question is linked to below, and is freely available to anyone with a YouTube Plus subscription.

I strongly suggest viewing it before offering unequivocal praise of the actions of its Pontifical protagonist.

Needless to say I do not agree with the immense praise heaped upon the fictitious Pope due to a variety of troubling scenes in the film which raise very serious questions of moral theology and political philosophy.

This all being said, the film is highly enjoyable, if at times morally suspect, with a stirring modernist score by Alex North (famed for scoring Spartacus, etc), and also superb supporting roles by the esteemed Sir John Gielgud, among others. But when watching the film, I urge readers to view the contrived moral dilemma with the dispassion appropriate for a melodramatic work of fiction.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Of course you are ignoring that Pope Kirill’s hand was effectively forced by the spectre of a three-way nuclear war between Communist China and the USSR and the West motivated by the famine in China.

I am not ignoring the context in fact I explicitly note that pope Kiril's act is good in the context in which it is done. And yes, it is a contrived story. No pope has faced that specific set of circumstances and given current world affairs it is a most unlikely set of circumstances.

Also, the implied homosexual relationship between Pope Kirill and the heretical German priest in this work of 1960s fiction was deeply unsettling.

I saw no implication of anything sexual in the relationship between the priest whose books were denied publication and pope Kiril. The priest's "cosmic Christ" sounded like a very confusing and very poorly defined notion in the movie, so the story rightly presents it as unsuitable for publication.

I did enjoy the film, but I am unable to offer any ringing endorsement of Pope Kirill’s actions.

It is a fictional work; I did see something heroic about the pope's faith and the action it brought him to. But it is a fictional story, and selling all Church property is in reality almost entirely impossible for a host of legal and other reasons.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

By the way the film in question is linked to below, and is freely available to anyone with a YouTube Plus subscription.

I strongly suggest viewing it before offering unequivocal praise of the actions of its Pontifical protagonist.

Needless to say I do not agree with the immense praise heaped upon the fictitious Pope due to a variety of troubling scenes in the film which raise very serious questions of moral theology and political philosophy.

This all being said, the film is highly enjoyable, if at times morally suspect, with a stirring modernist score by Alex North (famed for scoring Spartacus, etc), and also superb supporting roles by the esteemed Sir John Gielgud, among others. But when watching the film, I urge readers to view the contrived moral dilemma with the dispassion appropriate for a melodramatic work of fiction.

I watched the film while I was writing the original post and I had watched it a few months ago too.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually on rewatching the film, at 2:06 minutes in an exchange between the Pope, the Premiere, and Chairman Peng, one can see in Sir Laurence Olivier’s eyes, playing the chairman, a subtle flash of gleeful malice when Peng thrusts in the rhetorical dagger that forced the Pope into a place of necessary concession. The Premier had, as I see it and presume to suspect Sir Laurence saw it, successfully offloaded his problem with the PRC onto the Vatican. This moment in the film I find terrifying, particularly in light of how the film establishes the Premier’s historic personal contempt and persecution of Kirill. To make his worst problem that of a man he despises for ideological reasons would be the most satisfying victory for the depraved sort of man who tended to serve as the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

 

[The Liturgist]

I saw no implication of anything sexual in the relationship between the priest whose books were denied publication and pope Kirill.

I can only suggest you closely examine the dialogue between the Pope and the cardinal who refused the heretic Priest’s book publication, following the heretic’s prematuee demise. There is a strongly implied homoerotic attraction between both men and the Pope in that scene.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I can only suggest you closely examine the dialogue between the Pope and the cardinal who refused the heretic Priest’s book publication, following the heretic’s prematuee demise. There is a strongly implied homoerotic attraction between both men and the Pope in that scene.

It must be one of those things that is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[The Liturgist]

am not ignoring the context in fact I explicitly note that pope Kirill's act is good in the context in which it is done. And yes, it is a contrived story.

The alternative interpretation of the contrived story is that the Soviet Premier conveniently offloaded a problem of his own making onto a personal nemesis, by allowing that man to be released and arranging, perhaps even through poisoning the former Pope, for him to be elected, and thus forcing the Catholic Church for his communist mistakes.

But even assuming the convention plot is correct, the Pope should still have refused to get involved, due to the risk of being manipulated, and left the politics to the politicians. The role of the Pope is properly hieratic, with secular responsibilities only assumed by St. Gregory the Great because the entire Roman civil government had collapsed. The mistake of his successors was in failing to promptly release these secular powers assumed by Pope St. Gregory in the most dire of circumstances. This dualism between temporal and spiritual power caused grave difficulties for the Catholic Church for many centuries.

 

[The Liturgist]

It must be one of those things that is in the eye of the beholder.

If one sees enough British films from the 1960s, such as Lawrence of Arabia and The Shoes of the Fisherman, both of which starred Anthony Quinn, one knows when such dark things are being implied.

Just as it is made abundantly obvious in the Star Trek episode “Bread and Circuses”, which as a story related to Christianity is superior to this one, when Captain Kirk had an amorous offscreen encounter with slave girl Drusilla.