A word on Pope Francis for my fellow Traditionalist

[floresco]

Sigh… I agree, I’ve been called “modernist” on this forum simply because I like modern church architecture. It doesn’t help that I like to hear and sing Gregorian chant in a modern church building, because I like to do it for the Ordinary Form Mass, which only confirms I’m “modernist” to some.

Catholics need to quit the labels. It is divisive. We are all part of the Body of Christ by virtue of our baptism.

“Modernism” is a word with a meaning. The meaning is a very bad thing. Using it incorrectly. especially as a label, is confusing and can lead to bad feeling and conflict.

There are situations in which using labels can be helpful. There is a risk of “throwing the baby out with bath water” if we decide to never use labels. But I agree that we should use them with caution.

Your church is beautiful. And so is the chant there.

 

[JReducation]

The problem with the term “modernism” is that it’s a school of thinking that crossed many disciplines. The Church’s problem was never with the entire school, but with those elements that were contrary to the faith. For example, the Modernists, if there were actually such people, were also very instrumental in moving the Industrial Revolution. That’s certainly a good thing. The Modernist Movement introduced a form of art and architecture that is very simple, one would say that it’s almost bland. Morally and doctrinally, it’s a neutral thing. Modernism also gave rise to relativism, which is morally and theologically erroneous.

A person can certainly like Modernist architecture and be as far from a heretic as was St. Paul. The Modernist philosophy on human rights is often very consistent with the Church’s teaching on the sacredness of human dignity. Some people take it to the other extreme where human dignity is redefined to equate human absolutism, which is not the same.

We have to be careful not to use a term, unless we’re sure that we know what it means and that the person hearing us shares our understanding of the meaning. Otherwise, we’re not speaking on the same page.

 

[codefro]

When I explained these things to the person he then called me “iconoclastic”

This made me

 

[Eufrosnia]

The problem with the term “modernism” is that it’s a school of thinking that crossed many disciplines. The Church’s problem was never with the entire school, but with those elements that were contrary to the faith. For example, the Modernists, if there were actually such people, were also very instrumental in moving the Industrial Revolution. That’s certainly a good thing. The Modernist Movement introduced a form of art and architecture that is very simple, one would say that it’s almost bland. Morally and doctrinally, it’s a neutral thing. Modernism also gave rise to relativism, which is morally and theologically erroneous.

I think this is actually incorrect. The Modernist position is indeed in its foundations and teachings, considered to be in error.

What you speak of above as positives are not modernist foundations but the results of them. Good can come from the most evil of things. So it is incorrect to say that Modernism or Relativism is doctrinally neutral. It is not. It is an error. Can some good take place as a result of relativism. Sure. But that does not mean relativism is true.

A person can certainly like Modernist architecture and be as far from a heretic as was St. Paul. The Modernist philosophy on human rights is often very consistent with the Church’s teaching on the sacredness of human dignity. Some people take it to the other extreme where human dignity is redefined to equate human absolutism, which is not the same.

What exactly would you consider the modernist position on human rights? Those would again be results of modernist thinking. Not the core foundations of modernism itself.

We have to be careful not to use a term, unless we’re sure that we know what it means and that the person hearing us shares our understanding of the meaning. Otherwise, we’re not speaking on the same page.

Well I do think I know what the term means. I am not quiet sure that I agree with what you are saying about it.

The foundation principles of modernism are errors. Can they occasionally pop out advancements? Sure. But it as a whole is error and in the long term, leads the adherents away from the Church and even religion in general.

I am also not sure why we are even discussing the matter. Modernism has been condemned as heresy. The Church has spoken. The matter is close, is it not?

 

[JReducation]

I think this is actually incorrect. The Modernist position is indeed in its foundations and teachings, considered to be in error.

What you speak of above as positives are not modernist foundations but the results of them. Good can come from the most evil of things. So it is incorrect to say that Modernism or Relativism is doctrinally neutral. It is not. It is an error. Can some good take place as a result of relativism. Sure. But that does not mean relativism is true.

What exactly would you consider the modernist position on human rights? Those would again be results of modernist thinking. Not the core foundations of modernism itself.

Well I do think I know what the term means. I am not quiet sure that I agree with what you are saying about it.

The foundation principles of modernism are errors. Can they occasionally pop out advancements? Sure. But it as a whole is error and in the long term, leads the adherents away from the Church and even religion in general.

I am also not sure why we are even discussing the matter. Modernism has been condemned as heresy. The Church has spoken. The matter is close, is it not?

No it is not closed. It was Pope Paul VI who withdrew the oath against Modernism, precisely because he said that at the time that the oath was written, the problems with Modernism were of a moral and doctrinal nature. However, after the death of Pope Pius X, the Modernist movement produced other works and effects that had no bearing on morality or doctrine. The condemnation against modernism was no longer explicit enough.

In other words, modernism as Pope Pius X knew it and modernism after Pope Pius X are not the same. The latter includes the former, which is a heresy, but the former does not include the latter, which is often neutral. Rather than get into a long discussion on the subject and try to spell out what it was that Pope Pius X was condemning, Pope Paul VI simply got rid of the oath. Today, it its place, we have the Mandatum, which is the same as the oath, but without the word “modernism”.

 

[Eufrosnia]

No it is not closed. It was Pope Paul VI who withdrew the oath against Modernism, precisely because he said that at the time that the oath was written, the problems with Modernism were of a moral and doctrinal nature. However, after the death of Pope Pius X, the Modernist movement produced other works and effects that had no bearing on morality or doctrine. The condemnation against modernism was no longer explicit enough.

In other words, modernism as Pope Pius X knew it and modernism after Pope Pius X are not the same. The latter includes the former, which is a heresy, but the former does not include the latter, which is often neutral. Rather than get into a long discussion on the subject and try to spell out what it was that Pope Pius X was condemning, Pope Paul VI simply got rid of the oath. Today, it its place, we have the Mandatum, which is the same as the oath, but without the word “modernism”.

I think you are confusing things Brother. Modernism was not condemned by the oath. Modernism was condemned as far back as Vatican I, infallibly I might add. It was the modernist that argued that Vatican I was not infallible and that is when the Pope’s had to reissue condemnation and have an oath.

As far as the following list describing Modernism goes (so that we don’t have confusion regarding what you and me mean by Modernism and make this a discussion on semantics)

(1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason;
(2) external signs of revelation, such as miracles and prophecies, do not prove the divine origin of the Christian religion and are not suited to the intellect of modern man;
(3) Christ did not found a Church;
(4) and the essential structure of the Church can change;
(5) the Church’s dogmas continually evolve over time so that they can change from meaning one thing to meaning another;
(6) faith is a blind religious feeling that wells up from the subconscious under the impulse of a heart and a will trained to morality, not a real assent of the intellect to divine truth learned by hearing it from an external source.

All of the above propositions are errors. If you agree, then I am good. Especially number (6) above is the one I usually always hear today.

There is no debate since the Church has spoken on the above list. To say that you can reverse these things is similar to saying you can reverse the position on salvation by faith alone. Once condemned as an error, it is always an error. Arianism for an example doesn’t become OK with time. The condemnation is infallible and it always will be error. Same with modernism.

P.S. If you want the longer list, the following

newadvent.org/library/docs_df07ls.htm

Note that none of the errors in the first list or second can be considered non-errors at any point in the future now that the Church has spoken.

 

[mtngal25]

I think what bothers me is not the foot washing thing because it happened in a jail and I understood why the pope did that. There are some priests and some statements made where I get uneasy thinking that gay marriage may sneak into the church somehow and I cannot accept that at all. I have gay friends but we agree to disagree and they don’t expect me to agree with their lifestyle so we get along. I get tired of hearing people still thinking that Pope Francis will allow civil unions and then gay marriage and I hope that does not happen. I wish he would really state clearly that this cannot happen within the church. I want to love the pope but I want to feel at ease that he won’t go any further with wild changes that are so upsetting. Another thing that bothers me is that I really am happy in my fssp parish. We have a beautiful church, a good bishop, and the Masses are just wonderful. I feel the presence of Christ and I am able to be within the church like the others. However, I hear a lot of hatred toward the old rite from some leftist clergy and I have not heard anything from the pope about how he feels about the fssp. I hope he does not do away with our Mass and parish as we are very happy there. I am not happy with the abuses that occur in many of the other Masses and the crazy things that keep me from feeling spiritual at all. I hope he lets us alone and lets up keep our peace as we have enjoyed under Pope Benedict. I hear that he likes Benedict and I hope he will respect the fact that Benedict gave us the right to have our Mass and priests who are really holy priests and loyal to their vows. They are such a blessing to us.

 

[McCall1981]

I think what bothers me is not the foot washing thing because it happened in a jail and I understood why the pope did that. There are some priests and some statements made where I get uneasy thinking that gay marriage may sneak into the church somehow and I cannot accept that at all. I have gay friends but we agree to disagree and they don’t expect me to agree with their lifestyle so we get along. I get tired of hearing people still thinking that Pope Francis will allow civil unions and then gay marriage and I hope that does not happen. I wish he would really state clearly that this cannot happen within the church. I want to love the pope but I want to feel at ease that he won’t go any further with wild changes that are so upsetting. Another thing that bothers me is that I really am happy in my fssp parish. We have a beautiful church, a good bishop, and the Masses are just wonderful. I feel the presence of Christ and I am able to be within the church like the others. However, I hear a lot of hatred toward the old rite from some leftist clergy and I have not heard anything from the pope about how he feels about the fssp. I hope he does not do away with our Mass and parish as we are very happy there. I am not happy with the abuses that occur in many of the other Masses and the crazy things that keep me from feeling spiritual at all. I hope he lets us alone and lets up keep our peace as we have enjoyed under Pope Benedict. I hear that he likes Benedict and I hope he will respect the fact that Benedict gave us the right to have our Mass and priests who are really holy priests and loyal to their vows. They are such a blessing to us.

Wow, this is exactly how I feel…

 

[Fairwinds]

Meditating a bit about everything I have written, I feel that at times I have been very critical of our new Pope. Has he done things that are somewhat questionable (only in terms of actions and not teaching)? Yes. Does it upset me? Deeply.

But at the end of the day, I have come to ask myself, how am I a follower of Christ if I cannot forgive those shortcomings? …

so, did you forgive Pope Francis his shortcomings?

F/

 

[JReducation]

I think what bothers me is not the foot washing thing because it happened in a jail and I understood why the pope did that. There are some priests and some statements made where I get uneasy thinking that gay marriage may sneak into the church somehow and I cannot accept that at all. I have gay friends but we agree to disagree and they don’t expect me to agree with their lifestyle so we get along. I get tired of hearing people still thinking that Pope Francis will allow civil unions and then gay marriage and I hope that does not happen. I wish he would really state clearly that this cannot happen within the church. I want to love the pope but I want to feel at ease that he won’t go any further with wild changes that are so upsetting. Another thing that bothers me is that I really am happy in my fssp parish. We have a beautiful church, a good bishop, and the Masses are just wonderful. I feel the presence of Christ and I am able to be within the church like the others. However, I hear a lot of hatred toward the old rite from some leftist clergy and I have not heard anything from the pope about how he feels about the fssp. I hope he does not do away with our Mass and parish as we are very happy there. I am not happy with the abuses that occur in many of the other Masses and the crazy things that keep me from feeling spiritual at all. I hope he lets us alone and lets up keep our peace as we have enjoyed under Pope Benedict. I hear that he likes Benedict and I hope he will respect the fact that Benedict gave us the right to have our Mass and priests who are really holy priests and loyal to their vows. They are such a blessing to us.

Wow, this is exactly how I feel…

There are no such things as ghosts. Rest easy.

 

[felsguy]

I think what bothers me is not the foot washing thing because it happened in a jail and I understood why the pope did that.

I want to love the pope but I want to feel at ease that he won’t go any further with wild changes that are so upsetting.

Going from the “foot washing” to accepting gay marriage strikes me as quite a leap. Am I misunderstanding something here? Are you perhaps saying that the foot washing was such a “wild change” that accepting gay marriage could easily be next?

 

[JReducation]

Going from the “foot washing” to accepting gay marriage strikes me as quite a leap. Am I misunderstanding something here? Are you perhaps saying that the foot washing was such a “wild change” that accepting gay marriage could easily be next?

I had the same question as you do.

The foot washing is only major for those who want to make it so. For those who focus on maintaining interior silence, the foot washing is dismissed as the pope’s right to dispense any priest from a particular rubric, including himself. Once I remember that, I can put that issue aside and continue doing what is before me. What others choose to do with the foot washing is not my problem. I don’t have to answer to God or to the Church on their behalf. I only have to answer for me and for those whom I lead (my brothers).

The other issues are not a problem either. I don’t bring them into my consciousness. The pope cannot change what is divinely revealed. If on some rare moment, which has never happened in my life, the question crosses my mind, “Will the pope allow women priests?” I dismiss it with, “The pope cannot change the sacraments, only how we celebrate them.” Then I return to my interior silence and go about my business of the day.

It’s that simple. I wish everyone could be a Franciscan for just one day. People would learn so much from Francis’ simplicity. :yup:

 

[Lucky7]

I had the same question as you do.

The foot washing is only major for those who want to make it so. For those who focus on maintaining interior silence, the foot washing is dismissed as the pope’s right to dispense any priest from a particular rubric, including himself. Once I remember that, I can put that issue aside and continue doing what is before me. What others choose to do with the foot washing is not my problem. I don’t have to answer to God or to the Church on their behalf. I only have to answer for me and for those whom I lead (my brothers).

The other issues are not a problem either. I don’t bring them into my consciousness. The pope cannot change what is divinely revealed. If on some rare moment, which has never happened in my life, the question crosses my mind, “Will the pope allow women priests?” I dismiss it with, “The pope cannot change the sacraments, only how we celebrate them.” Then I return to my interior silence and go about my business of the day.

It’s that simple. I wish everyone could be a Franciscan for just one day. People would learn so much from Francis’ simplicity. :yup:

With respect to allowing gay marriage via the foot washing, I agree. I am not concerned that gay marriage will become okay in the Catholic Church.

HOWEVER, we continue to hear heretical comments made by other Church leaders/former Church leaders that civil unions should be allowed. There is also the ongoing question as to the pope’s stance on civil unions when he was Cardinal (there are two conflicting reports if I remember correctly). Because of these things, I think it is imperative for our Pope to speak **loud and clear **on the unchanging doctrine of the Church on this matter and put it to rest. After seeing some of his recent homilies, I feel more confident that he will indeed do this…it’s just a matter of time.

 

[Mike30]

He did absolutely nothing wrong. People misunderstood a few things, that’s all. **They don’t understand that the Pope (and Bishops as well) can grant dispensations for unusual circumstances.**They’re so bound up by their own take on Canon Law that they are choking, and we will have to pray to Our Lady, Untier of Knots for them.

Dispensations are granted when, for the spiritual good of those involved, a tweaking of law would be the best course of action. I’m the product of a dispensation - my parents received a dispensation to be married in the Catholic Church (before my father’s conversion).

The Holy Thursday Mass at the jail was not one that emphasized the Catholic priesthood, it was a gathering of wayward youth - therefore the general sense of the celebration (to serve one another) was brought out.

Interesting point from the bolded statement.

The late comedian George Carlin once said that this was the very thing that caused him to lapse from Catholicism. The simple fact that the Church could change its rules any time it wanted to. He said that to him that made no sense. If the Church says a law is a law then it should be a law that pertains to everyone all the time. It should not be a law one day, then not a law, then a law again.

Not saying that I agree with Carlin, just that it is an interesting point.

 

[clem456]

Interesting point from the bolded statement.

The late comedian George Carlin once said that this was the very thing that caused him to lapse from Catholicism. The simple fact that the Church could change its rules any time it wanted to. He said that to him that made no sense. If the Church says a law is a law then it should be a law that pertains to everyone all the time. It should not be a law one day, then not a law, then a law again.

Not saying that I agree with Carlin, just that it is an interesting point.

The part I bolded is also interesting. I did the same thing as a young man. It’s a juvenile and selective rejection of authority and truth. A person should not reject something he cannot understand.

 

[Heliotropium]

I personally have never found it beneficial to be critical of Bishops or any religious for that matter. I only pray for them and myself that we both do not fall into the sin of the Pharisees and Sadducees, or of Judas who complained about the expensive perfume being poured all over Christ’s feet. No Catholic should be scandalized over Pope Francis’s simple dress, or over our past Popes love of the old traditions regarding Papal dress, foot washing, or anything else.

 

[Mike30]

The part I bolded is also interesting. I did the same thing as a young man. It’s a juvenile and selective rejection of authority and truth. A person should not reject something he cannot understand.

I would think it depends totally on what one is rejecting and why it is being rejected in the first place.

 

[clem456]

I would think it depends totally on what one is rejecting and why it is being rejected in the first place.

To clarify, a person should not reject something solely because it does not make sense to him. We accept all kinds of law changes and other things that do not make sense. If Carlin rejects Catholicism, it doesn’t ring true that he rejects it cause it doesn’t make sense. There are probably other reasons. (Like it’s inconvenient perhaps?)

 

[McCall1981]

I had the same question as you do.

The foot washing is only major for those who want to make it so. For those who focus on maintaining interior silence, the foot washing is dismissed as the pope’s right to dispense any priest from a particular rubric, including himself. Once I remember that, I can put that issue aside and continue doing what is before me. What others choose to do with the foot washing is not my problem. I don’t have to answer to God or to the Church on their behalf. I only have to answer for me and for those whom I lead (my brothers).

The other issues are not a problem either. I don’t bring them into my consciousness. The pope cannot change what is divinely revealed. If on some rare moment, which has never happened in my life, the question crosses my mind, “Will the pope allow women priests?” I dismiss it with, “The pope cannot change the sacraments, only how we celebrate them.” Then I return to my interior silence and go about my business of the day.
It’s that simple. I wish everyone could be a Franciscan for just one day. People would learn so much from Francis’ simplicity. :yup:

The bolded sounds good, wish it was easier for me to do this

 

[McCall1981]

With respect to allowing gay marriage via the foot washing, I agree. I am not concerned that gay marriage will become okay in the Catholic Church.

HOWEVER, we continue to hear heretical comments made by other Church leaders/former Church leaders that civil unions should be allowed. There is also the ongoing question as to the pope’s stance on civil unions when he was Cardinal (there are two conflicting reports if I remember correctly). Because of these things, I think it is imperative for our Pope to speak **loud and clear **on the unchanging doctrine of the Church on this matter and put it to rest. After seeing some of his recent homilies, I feel more confident that he will indeed do this…it’s just a matter of time.

Agreed