Benedict XVI: After the Council, I was 'too timid' in challenging liberals [Allen]

[bones_IV]

If you look at the accounts in the Gospels, you find people saying things about Christ like the things some people say about Pope Benedict. Christ was divisive as he challenged the way the Pharisees and scribes interpreted the law, who said for example that there should be no healing on the sabbath, and was in fact he was very divisive when he said he was the bread of life in John 6. When it came to this last teaching, many of his disciples walked away from him for good. Contradicting people in such ways, Christ stirred up people’s anger and even fury against him. For the same reasons dissentors feel great anger against Pope Benedict for defending the faith. But what Christ said to his apostles at the Last Supper is true too–if they persecute me they will persecute you too.

The left would probably want to interfere in the next conclave.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If you look at the accounts in the Gospels, you find people saying things about Christ like the things some people say about Pope Benedict. Christ was divisive as he challenged the way the Pharisees and scribes interpreted the law, who said for example that there should be no healing on the sabbath, and was in fact he was very divisive when he said he was the bread of life in John 6. When it came to this last teaching, many of his disciples walked away from him for good. Contradicting people in such ways, Christ stirred up people’s anger and even fury against him. For the same reasons dissentors feel great anger against Pope Benedict for defending the faith. But what Christ said to his apostles at the Last Supper is true too–if they persecute me they will persecute you too.

If I recall, Jesus was critical of the teachings by the leaders of his own religion. He didn’t make statements toward other religions which would insult or inflame them.

The comparison of Jesus to Pope Benedict’s insensitivity toward Muslims in when he used the offensive quote, is silly.

The Pope himself was clearly upset by the misinterpretation of his words, but as Pope, he has to be aware that this misinterpretation was an easy one to make, especially where rhetoric in the Muslim world is that Islam is under attack. President Bush invades Iraq and along the way, carelessly uses the word, “crusade,”… Muslims took it seriously. Then the Pope uses a quote from the 14th century, which was a slam against Islam, and is surprised that it offended Muslims.

It was a mistake on the part of the Pope and I think he knows it.

Jim

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I love every Pope but their job is to bring together or gather not divide and scatter.

That is not strictly true. When a shepherd herds his flock, part of his job is to keep the wolves out of the fold. If you want to call separating the wolves from the sheep scattering, then it is definitely the Pope’s job to divide and scatter.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Contrary to what fundamentalist Catholics think, this Pope has not been healthy for the Catholic Church, nor Christianity, in my opinion. He will never be the great Pope that John Paul II was.

He’s only been Pope a short while, and he’s had to retract or have some handler in the Vatican, re-explain what he meant. His gaff about Islam cost people their lives. I’ve never seen this before in the Popes of my lifetime, from John XXIII on.

Jim

John Paul was a moderate pope, his immediate predecessors were more liberal. Benedict XVI is a conservative pope, thank God. Also, he appears to have been John Paul’s first choice for a successor.

Yes, as a result of Benedict XVI being pope, there will probably be a great schism in the Church in the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe, thank God. This schism has been a long time coming, and the resulting Church will be smaller, but it will once again be thoroughly Catholic.

 

[TMC]

… The best thing Benedict can do is purify the Church of these evils, and that’s exactly what he’s doing. …

I hear this kind of thing all the time, but I don’t see any evidence of it. Are you referring to VII? If not what current Church practices are evils, and has the Pope said they were evil? Benedict was a principle theological architecht of VII. He has said he wished he spoke up more after the Council to counter theologians he believed were in serious error. But has he said that VII was a mistake or should be undone? This is what he said about the Council in his Christmas 2005 message:

The hermeneutic of dis-continuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council’s deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim…

(bolding my own)

So innovation was the true spirit of the Council. There were unfortunate compromises that left the texts ambigous so we have to go beyond the texts to the spirit of the Council. Sound suspiciously liberal-ish.

In the same speech he quoted John XXIII saying that the true faith must “be presented in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.” Research, modern thought? These things have a place? Read the whole thing, although I’m guessing most of you already have. It has points in there for both the traditionalist and the progressive. http://www.cjd.org/paper/vatcoun2.html

I don’t deny that Benedict seems more traditionalist than, say, John XXIII, but he is not taking sides in this little squabble, he’s trying to lead a unified Church into the future. Which brings us to:

I think their job is to separate apart and if that means divide we divide. Unity at all costs is a discusting habit that the Church needs to do away with. Let’s see some excommunications for their own good.

I don’t agree, and I don’t think that is the spirit in which the Pope is proceeding. For example he has gone round and round with his old school chum and fellow theologian Hans Kung. Kung has disagreed with the Church very publicly on a lot of issues, including papal infallibility. As a result he is not allowed to teach Catholic theology anymore (makes sense, he obviously can’t teach well what he doesn’t believe). When Benedict became Pope what did he do to his old nemesis - excommunicate him? No, he had dinner with him. Talked over old times. Discussed their differences. Kung remains a priest in good standing.

If you are waiting for this Pope to start flinging parishoners into the street, don’t hold your breath. He may be a bit of a traditionalist on some things, he is an old fogey that can’t stand modern music, he occasionally says things that the Vatican’s diplomats probably wish he hadn’t. But he’s not going to encourage people to leave Christ’s Church, even if some think their faith is not perfect.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I hear this kind of thing all the time, but I don’t see any evidence of it. Are you referring to VII? If not what current Church practices are evils, and has the Pope said they were evil? Benedict was a principle theological architecht of VII. He has said he wished he spoke up more after the Council to counter theologians he believed were in serious error. But has he said that VII was a mistake or should be undone? This is what he said about the Council in his Christmas 2005 message:

(bolding my own)

So innovation was the true spirit of the Council. There were unfortunate compromises that left the texts ambigous so we have to go beyond the texts to the spirit of the Council. Sound suspiciously liberal-ish.

In the same speech he quoted John XXIII saying that the true faith must “be presented in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.” Research, modern thought? These things have a place? Read the whole thing, although I’m guessing most of you already have. It has points in there for both the traditionalist and the progressive. http://www.cjd.org/paper/vatcoun2.html

I don’t deny that Benedict seems more traditionalist than, say, John XXIII, but he is not taking sides in this little squabble, he’s trying to lead a unified Church into the future. Which brings us to:

I don’t agree, and I don’t think that is the spirit in which the Pope is proceeding. For example he has gone round and round with his old school chum and fellow theologian Hans Kung. Kung has disagreed with the Church very publicly on a lot of issues, including papal infallibility. As a result he is not allowed to teach Catholic theology anymore (makes sense, he obviously can’t teach well what he doesn’t believe). When Benedict became Pope what did he do to his old nemesis - excommunicate him? No, he had dinner with him. Talked over old times. Discussed their differences. Kung remains a priest in good standing.

If you are waiting for this Pope to start flinging parishoners into the street, don’t hold your breath. He may be a bit of a traditionalist on some things, he is an old fogey that can’t stand modern music, he occasionally says things that the Vatican’s diplomats probably wish he hadn’t. But he’s not going to encourage people to leave Christ’s Church, even if some think their faith is not perfect.

Well said !

Jim

 

[MelanieAnne]

I suspect that our Holy Father has a different perspective than most, if not all, of us. As such, it’s rather presumptuous of any of us to attempt to insert our own judgments into the mix.

 

[mdgspencer]

Actually in this case it is the Western media that interpreted his words so that they would seem offensive. The Moslems simply heard this interpretation. This is another of the cases where the media distorted something about Catholicism, which is, in part, only natural because they have little understanding of it.

QUOTE=JimR-OCDS;2882385]Its the obligation of the person( especially in the case of an international figure) giving the speech to not offend. Its not the responsibility of the offended to interpret the words as meaning something different than other what was said.

Its my opinion as well as many others, that the Pope should not have used the 14th century quote, because of the offense it would cause. His apparent insensitivity to the political climate we’re living is, is what he needs to be informed on.

From what I recall from Catholic experts that I listened to on this issue, saod that the speech that the made had not gone through Vatican screeners, as is usually the case for Popes. Had the Pope used the screeners, they would’ve advised him not to use the quote.

Jim

 

[Marsha_Adams]

If you are waiting for this Pope to start flinging parishoners into the street, don’t hold your breath. He may be a bit of a traditionalist on some things, he is an old fogey that can’t stand modern music, he occasionally says things that the Vatican’s diplomats probably wish he hadn’t. But he’s not going to encourage people to leave Christ’s Church, even if some think their faith is not perfect.

Benedict XVI won’t have to fling parishioners into the street. They will leave of their own accord – probably dancing down the aisle and out the door – when the Pope demands that Catholics be Catholic.

 

[TMC]

Benedict XVI won’t have to fling parishioners into the street. They will leave of their own accord – probably dancing down the aisle and out the door – when the Pope demands that Catholics be Catholic.

Does he not demand that now?

I am curious about something. Those who think the Church is no longer fully Catholic say that those changes are why Mass attendance is down, vocations are down, etc, etc. (I’m not saying this is Marsha’s view, I don’t know). But others, like Marsha, say that a ‘return’ to ‘really’ being Catholic will drive out people in droves. Aren’t those positions logically inconsistent? Which is right?

 

[Brendan]

If I recall, Jesus was critical of the teachings by the leaders of his own religion. He didn’t make statements toward other religions which would insult or inflame them.

He called the prayers of pagans to be ‘babbling’ (Matt 6:7)

So I suppose it would be OK, if Pope Benedict said the same thing about the Buddists or Wiccans?

Surely you agree that it would, by definition, be a Christ like thing for him to do

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The pope no error in speech, He called for reasoned discussion. What he got was murder. Good for the pope. I hope he continues to call for reasoned discussion. Reasoned discussion beats the heck out of murder every time.

CDL

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t deny that Benedict seems more traditionalist than, say, John XXIII

I don’t know why Bl. John XXIII is not considered traditional. He was much more so than recent Pontiffs. He is definitely close to a Pius XII than he is to a Paul VI or John Paul II. I’d say Benedict XVI and Bl. John XXIII are almost the same, with Bl. John being a little moreso.

Here’s a good encyclical of his that is worth reading:

Ad Petri Cathedram

Here’s a good quote from him on his coronation:

“The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: ‘I am the door of the sheep.’ Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth.” (Pope John XXIII, homily to the Bishops assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958 Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1962, par. 1556.)

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Does he not demand that now?

I am curious about something. Those who think the Church is no longer fully Catholic say that those changes are why Mass attendance is down, vocations are down, etc, etc. (I’m not saying this is Marsha’s view, I don’t know). But others, like Marsha, say that a ‘return’ to ‘really’ being Catholic will drive out people in droves. Aren’t those positions logically inconsistent? Which is right?

Both

Mass attendance is down because the majority of pseudo-catholics have been told that not going to Mass is NOT a sin, hence Mass attendance is optional, no big deal right?

Now, suppose the Bishop stands up and says – missing Mass for any but the most grave reason is mortal sin, you must go to confession before ever receiving Communion again

Then you had better believe that the pseudo-catholics are going to say – Who are you to tell me what to do? I am so out of here.

Of course, since we never actually saw them at Mass except for Christmas and Easter, we might not notice they are gone.

Now, permit me a moment of hair splitting. You write: those who think the Church is no longer fully Catholic . . . The Church is and was and ever shall be FULLY Catholic. The Bishops may falter and slip into heresy, the priests may run off with parishoners of either sex, the faithful may lose faith and wander down to the Everlasting Church of the Born Agains, BUT THE CHURCH is fully Catholic.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The other issue I have with Pope Benedict XVI, which some disagreed with me on, is that the Pope’s decision to alow a greater use of the TLM, was an apeasement to schismatics of the Pius X Society. Cardinal O’Malley, who attended the meeting with the Pope, says that is indeed what it was about.

Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, who attended the meeting, confirmed to Catholic News Service that the purpose of the encounter was to inform the bishops about the coming papal document and help ensure its favorable reception.

“The Holy Father is obviously most concerned about trying to bring about reconciliation in the church,” Cardinal O’Malley said later on his Web log. He said an estimated 600,000 Catholics participate in the Tridentine liturgies of the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist group that broke with the Vatican in 1988.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703702.htm

This appeasement will do nothing other than backfire in the Pope’s face, as it has already begun dividing the church between TLM’s and the main body of the Church. Meanwhile, this will do little to bring the Pius X people back in union with the Church, because there are other issues, including their not accepting the legitimate elections of popes since Pius X.

In discussions on the internet with Pius X members over the years, Pope John Paul II, was constantly referred to as a non-Pope by the society’s members.

Jim

 

[KathleenElsie]

Job is not to bring together if it means compromising the faith.

I’m sure A Call To Action would love to see the pope allow married priests and women clergy, but that’s not going to happen.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[KathleenElsie]

No one is telling him how to do his job, but we can evaluate how he’s doing it. Have you noted how frequently someone or other critcizes either a bishop or even all our bishops? Are they telling them how to do their jobs? No, but they can evaluate those men’s performances.

Respect for his views and those of others is never wrong. IMHO this Pope is here for a “little” time to put some matters back in line with Tradition. I know that God will keep him in place as long as he is needed.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I too think Benedict is the best Pope since Pius X. Benedict is shaping up to be the Pope who will bring the liturgy back to Tradition, and make the Novus Ordo fully live up to its expectations in practice.

He has clearly defined where we as Catholics stand on numerous issues, and that we aren’t willing to compromise the truth.

Yes, he may have inflamed some Muslim radicals in proclaiming the Truth, but do you mean to tell me that Muslim violence against Chrisitians is all Benedict’s fault? Next thing you know, people will be saying that 9/11 was his fault.

John Paul II may have made me feel good about myself and my faith (on top of setting an ideal of what every priest should be like), but Benedict, in this short amount of time, has already helped deepen my personal relationship with Jesus Christ through his wise words and writings. After 39+ years of praying my husband will become Catholic this Easter. PAPA Benedict has had much to do with this. As my husband said this Pope is CATHOLIC with a capital C.

In short, Benedict probably doesn’t care about what heretics and media-types think. He cares about getting souls to Heaven. Bottom line. Good relations with Islam and modernist heresies don’t get more people to Heaven. Re-enforcing Church teaching and refining Catholic spirituality does.

Tact is important in this, of course, but there is such a thing as too much tact, which JPII, as you might recall, wouldn’t approve of. He didn’t approve of the war in Iraq, despite what many Americans thought about him as a result.

For health and long life to PAPA Benedict.

 

[LRThunder]

If I recall, Jesus was critical of the teachings by the leaders of his own religion. He didn’t make statements toward other religions which would insult or inflame them.

The comparison of Jesus to Pope Benedict’s insensitivity toward Muslims in when he used the offensive quote, is silly.

The Pope himself was clearly upset by the misinterpretation of his words, but as Pope, he has to be aware that this misinterpretation was an easy one to make, especially where rhetoric in the Muslim world is that Islam is under attack. President Bush invades Iraq and along the way, carelessly uses the word, “crusade,”… Muslims took it seriously. Then the Pope uses a quote from the 14th century, which was a slam against Islam, and is surprised that it offended Muslims.

It was a mistake on the part of the Pope and I think he knows it.

Jim

Didn’t Jesus also call the pharisees “a brood of vipers?”

What Pope Benedict said was less stinging by a mile, and yet it’s his fault that the Muslims rioted.

We can’t let what others might think affect what we’re going to say. More often, the truth will be seen as offensive.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

LRThunder

Didn’t Jesus also call the pharisees “a brood of vipers?”

The pharisees were his people, not some one else.

What Pope Benedict said was less stinging by a mile, and yet it’s his fault that the Muslims rioted.

The Pope shouldn’t be using language that stings the sensitivities of other religions and cultures, especially in this current hot-bed of political climate between Islam and the West.

We can’t let what others might think affect what we’re going to say. More often, the truth will be seen as offensive.

Well the Pope in his apology said, he did not share the view of Islam, with that of the 14th century quote he used that was insulting to Muslims.

You call this quote truth, so you’re in disagreement with the Pope on this issue?

Jim