S
StudentMI
Guest
Again, straw man and rhetorical question. When you want to answer my question let me know.
Ap. Viganò: Christ the King has been ‘dethroned’ not only ‘from society but also from the Church’
- Status
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Evidently He did.
S
stpurl
Guest
Not only is it not practical, it is yet another case of the either-or mentality cloaked in antiquarianism.
For all that our friend speaks out against materialism, the only gospel message he appears to want to spread is ‘give money and goods to the poor’, not “evangelize’, ‘bring CHRIST to the poor’ —the knowledge of Christ’s entire message which is so much more than a perception of the secular ‘ideal’.
For all that our friend speaks out against materialism, the only gospel message he appears to want to spread is ‘give money and goods to the poor’, not “evangelize’, ‘bring CHRIST to the poor’ —the knowledge of Christ’s entire message which is so much more than a perception of the secular ‘ideal’.
S
StudentMI
Guest
This obsession with going back towards the way Christianity was in 96 AD is more than a bit naive.
S
stpurl
Guest
Really? How. . .selective. . .to choose Jesus’ words to one man and ignore that Jesus did not have a one-size-fits-all message.
Did Zaccheus (you remember him from the Bible, right?) sell ‘all his goods and give to the poor?” Um wait, “Behold Lord I gave HALF my wealth to the poor and restitution to any I may have defrauded.
Was Joseph of Arimathea required to ‘sell everything he had and give to the poor?” Well no. He certainly owned a new tomb, right?
Did the early Christians ‘sell everything they had and give to the poor?” Well actually no they didn’t. They entered into a kind of communal living (much as monasteries and convents later) and combined their monies, from which appointed leaders like Stephen managed the money to pay for the communities’ needs as well as offer help to the poor. Both-and, not either-or.
You see, cherry picking, antiquarianism, and an ignorance of history lead to people thinking they’ve reinvented the wheel, or that everybody until “pick an event’ has gotten it wrong, but now THEY have it all right. I
Did Zaccheus (you remember him from the Bible, right?) sell ‘all his goods and give to the poor?” Um wait, “Behold Lord I gave HALF my wealth to the poor and restitution to any I may have defrauded.
Was Joseph of Arimathea required to ‘sell everything he had and give to the poor?” Well no. He certainly owned a new tomb, right?
Did the early Christians ‘sell everything they had and give to the poor?” Well actually no they didn’t. They entered into a kind of communal living (much as monasteries and convents later) and combined their monies, from which appointed leaders like Stephen managed the money to pay for the communities’ needs as well as offer help to the poor. Both-and, not either-or.
You see, cherry picking, antiquarianism, and an ignorance of history lead to people thinking they’ve reinvented the wheel, or that everybody until “pick an event’ has gotten it wrong, but now THEY have it all right. I
S
stpurl
Guest
Precisely. I notice that nobody wants to go back to living in the catacombs or facing the lions. Or even to ‘walking the walk’ by actually doing what they sneer at others that THEY should do. I highly doubt that Julius, unless he’s still young enough to be living at home, has sold all he has, given to the poor, and is out there telling everybody he meets about Jesus’ message of salvation.
S
StudentMI
Guest
It irks me also because people want to go back to the first century when it’s a matter of wealth or this or that, and yet they ignore Council after Council that clarified, codified, and ‘dogmafied’ teaching after teaching after teaching.
S
stpurl
Guest
Yes and it isn’t the wealth itself; most of us are pretty much living paycheck to paycheck (assuming we have paychecks right now), DO give regularly to charities, etc. Yet we’re supposed to believe that unless our Churches are cardboard shacks that Jesus is ‘ashamed’.
It’s the narrow-minded and ‘either-or’ again of making Jesus into ‘the suffering servant/poor’ and ignoring that He is also CHRIST THE KING—and that Kingship involves more than just an mouthing of the word ‘King’, that it really means that He is Lord of ALL.
It’s the narrow-minded and ‘either-or’ again of making Jesus into ‘the suffering servant/poor’ and ignoring that He is also CHRIST THE KING—and that Kingship involves more than just an mouthing of the word ‘King’, that it really means that He is Lord of ALL.
Keep in mind that these people want to distribute other people’s wealth, but never their own. They insist that the church, or the tax payers or the rich, or some other entities should pay. But have you ever heard one of those people say: I will set an example by giving away what I have, letting migrants camp out in my living room, etc.
They never share what they have. Only what you have.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I think that for all of us an examination of conscience is appropriate. For example, “do I hold something against Pope Francis, against people who believe in a different way than me?”. Before seeking justice, or even before praying, we are called to forgive. Also, “does my conscience tell me that what I am believing is guided by the Spirit?” If so, the Spirit sows harmony, mercy, forgiveness, understanding, gentleness, love. Is that what my words and actions, guided by my conscience, are doing? “If I am called to correct someone or some group, have I addressed the post in my own eye?”
Here is some things I would like him to respond to: “If the Father wanted Jesus to be seen as a worldly king, then why did he not?” and then, “Why would the Father want the leader of His Church to be a worldly king, especially since we are called to die to ourselves and let go of the trappings of our appetites?” Or simply, “Doesn’t Jesus call us to humility?”
Sometimes “repentance” comes in the form of opening one’s heart and mind to what God is doing in the world, to consider possibilities that may make us recoil, but in the long run truly build the Kingdom He has planned for us. Vigano seems to be wanting to take us back to the past, but that does not appear to be where the Spirit is guiding the Church. It takes some clear eyes to see that all is well, and all is getting better (even though we may take a couple steps back while we are at it
)
S
StudentMI
Guest
The problem with this view is what Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in The Spirit of the Liturgy: who is more old fashioned? The person who wants to go back 500 years or the one who wants to go back 2000?
Last edited:
The Church’s use of royal and elaborate trappings prior to Vatican II weren’t conveying the Kingship of Christ as much as the temporal power of the Church and so the extravagant elements were dropped in favor of returning to a more gospel presentation of Jesus as suffering Shepherd and servant.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I haven’t read the Cardinal’s book, but just because we return to elements of the past does not mean that we are not moving forward with the Kingdom. The Spirit was guiding the Church when it took on monarchical power and elements, and the Spirit is guiding the Church now as it returns to the Spirit of the Gospel, embracing the humility of Christ.
Was Cardinal Ratzinger criticizing the Pope when he wrote the book? Was he sowing discord? These are important questions.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Truth doesnt change from situation to situation.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Truth does not change, but circumstances call for measures that call for the most merciful or practical solution. For example, I think we can all agree that slavery is bad, but in ancient times where choices were made between killing the whole village or taking all the women and children as slaves, the latter was better.
Here is the truth: we are called to humility, and to be witnesses to a life free of the trappings of wealth, free from the desire to hoard wealth. Dispossession of wealth is one way we “put on Christ”.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Joseph of Arimathea wasn’t told to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. This goes back to what I wrote about above. Who helps the poor better?
O
OneSheep
Guest
All of us are called to free ourselves from our natural desire to acquire wealth, power, status, to forgive who we hold something against, to be merciful, and so on. Some are called to give away everything because that is what it takes to truly die to the desire, but most of us can have some possessions to care for ourselves and our families as long as those things do not take us from our relationship with the Father, occupying a place in our lives that displaces service of others, for example.
Joseph of Arimathea was not in a position in the Church of demonstrating freedom from the appetites when he did the service mentioned in the Gospel. His service involved using his own holdings or the holdings of others in order to serve.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Yep. So who serves the poor more effectively?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Jesus and His disciples served the poor without using possessions, and His service was quite effective. It really depends on what we call “service”.
There is no one answer to your question. Sometimes the poor need fish, sometimes they need to be taught how to fish, as you must know. So the word “effective” is going to depend on the circumstances.
Bringing it back to this thread, though, we are talking about the “kingship” of the Pope in its entirety, not a referendum on wealth. We are talking about what it means for our pontiff to truly live as Christ.
Have you ever been around people who have more fancy clothes and “bling”? Does it not somewhat compel you to want? And then, how does it feel to be wearing “bling” around people who do not have the means to such? Do you see why Jesus had to have nothing? Do you see that “power” and “popularity” can be substituted for “bling” in those questions? Indeed, Jesus had the wealth of popularity and had to let go of this when he was tried and sentenced. He was abandoned, becoming truly impoverished in all ways completely free from even the appearance of having something that people may want.
There is no one answer to your question. Sometimes the poor need fish, sometimes they need to be taught how to fish, as you must know. So the word “effective” is going to depend on the circumstances.
Bringing it back to this thread, though, we are talking about the “kingship” of the Pope in its entirety, not a referendum on wealth. We are talking about what it means for our pontiff to truly live as Christ.
Have you ever been around people who have more fancy clothes and “bling”? Does it not somewhat compel you to want? And then, how does it feel to be wearing “bling” around people who do not have the means to such? Do you see why Jesus had to have nothing? Do you see that “power” and “popularity” can be substituted for “bling” in those questions? Indeed, Jesus had the wealth of popularity and had to let go of this when he was tried and sentenced. He was abandoned, becoming truly impoverished in all ways completely free from even the appearance of having something that people may want.
S
stpurl
Guest
I believe you are incorrect. Do you honestly think that that beautiful churches, vestments, stained glass etc are meant to evoke ‘temporal power”? Was God playing to Jewish temporal power when He required gold, precious stones, and fine linen for His Ark, His Temple, and His priests?
- Status