Bishop scared me

[Teek]

Why does his - I repeat minority and misguided - opinion carry weight in the slightest?

Because he is important to God and so he is important to me, and he was misguided by the words of the Pope.

The misguided need guidance, and that is the single most important way that the Pope is meant to serve God through the Church.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I reiterate, it is, after all, the internet.

 

[runningdude]

If someone has a concern about part of what someone says, and wants to ask about it, do they have to post the entire sermon?

You do not have to quote the entire speech, but you also did not give a link to the full text or article where you got the quote, nor discuss what “scared you”.

You asked “I wanted to hear people’s response to what was said”. My response is that it does not matter what was said, because it is rather obviously an isolated quote, and thus cannot be fairly interpreted.

I was trying to be clear about what part concerned me, and I posted the links so people could see for themselves the entirety.

If you did, it was only after several posters reacted negatively to the initial post.

Speaking of context, one should read the first few replies of a thread before responding to the OP.

I did read the first few posts, and they were nothing but hostile to the anonymous bishop based on his quote taken in isolation. That is why I admonished against providing a quote and a squirrelly answer about who said it and when. It would be unfair to anyone, pope or not.

 

[Teek]

My response is that it does not matter what was said, because it is rather obviously an isolated quote, and thus cannot be fairly interpreted.

That is an answer that has a lot of merit.

When I posted the same quote on a different thread with the source link and the information about who said it, a lot of hostility and animosity was directed at me and it prevented people from being able to rationally explain to me ways I could accept it.

I made a choice to post it without that context, hoping the hatred and anger could be avoided and we could discuss what was said rationally because my intent was to know what people thought about the content, not to just find out what people think of me for questioning the content of something said by the Pope. That information was not making me feel better about the Holy Father’s sermon. It was making me feel badly towards other people.

If you did, it was only after several posters reacted negatively to the initial post.

When people expressed that they felt deceived, yes, I then provided the context and the quote. I had not anticipated that response. People quote things all the time. I always automatically go look at it in context before I reply. I assumed it would be the case, here, if people wanted to. Maybe I am an idiot. But I was not intentionally an idiot. I fixed it as soon as I became aware of the way it was viewed by others. If I didn’t care about that I wouldn’t have bothered.

I am very methodical and intellectual in the way I look at theological issues. To me, what is, IS. What was said, was said.

I like to look at the words themselves, whether they have merit or value. Then I plug it into context and see how it is different. Both ways of looking at it have value, merit, and meaning.

It may distort the understanding of what was said in some ways to look at it isolated from the person saying it, but in other ways it prevents you from being distracted by bias-you are able to look at the actual content and divest it of its meaning.

Likewise, to only look at what was said by first guessing what the person must have meant because of who they are without looking closely at what they said opens you up to error.

Without knowing it was the Pope, people said that it shouldn’t have been said. Not just in this thread, but in conversation with people I know, who know I am not what I have been judged to be here in this thread. They gave reasons based on what was contained in the sermon.

When people hear that it was the Pope, they say, well then he couldn’t have meant it, it must be ok, and they do all kinds of justifying and reading between the lines to make it ok to say it. You have to infer a lot to make it OK.

I feel that BOTH ways of looking at it are important. I think you get the truest nderstanding when you look at BOTH, which is why it is so frustrating when the two ways of looking at it are diametrically opposed.

You can disagree. But you cannot claim to know my motives or intent better than I do.

I did not intend to deceive.

 

[Fidveritas]

I saw what the unknown bishop, later revealed to be the Pope, was getting at. In all honesty it did come across awkwardly, though, so I do see where one could have some legitimate concern before understanding it – especially with other goings on around the Church.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Why does his - I repeat minority and misguided - opinion carry weight in the slightest?

Because he is important to God and so he is important to me, and he was misguided by the words of the Pope.

The misguided need guidance, and that is the single most important way that the Pope is meant to serve God through the Church.

God put this person in your reach. You had the opportunity to un-misguide him. Assuming you are familiar with the Creed, you could have instructed your brother in the same way I just did, as one example off the top of my head.

 

[Crusaderbear]

‘But do you believe?’: 'Yes! Yes! '; ‘What do you believe in?’; ‘In God!’; ‘But what is God for you?’; ‘God, God’. But God does not exist: Do not be shocked! So God does not exist! There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds … This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist!”

The nebulous ‘God’ is a vague notion. This was said to make people see God as someone there beside you every day, not sitting on a high throne thinking great thoughts. He’s in the trenches every day, beside you, helping you up when you fall down…

Not hard to see, unless you have already made up your mind you know best…which many Catholics seem to have done.

 

[Cruciferi]

Hate to say it but I think they’re gonna start banning certain topics. I seem to remember evolution was banned for a while…

 

[Teek]

God put this person in your reach. You had the opportunity to un-misguide him. Assuming you are familiar with the Creed, you could have instructed your brother in the same way I just did, as one example off the top of my head.

---

 

[Teek]

Yes! I agree. And I do think that, as far as theology is concerned, there could not be a more difficult pair to follow than Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I loved Pope Benedict XVI’s precision in theology and in communicating.

I think the contrast in precision is not helping.

I wonder about this, too.

I did not “bash” the Pope. I asked about something that he said that disturbed me very much. I felt a lot of ill will was aimed in my direction for this.

If I didn’t love the Church what he said would not have bothered me in the slightest. The way people are treated here is paradoxical. Those who feel concern about the confusion people are experiencing are attacked with vengeance and anger. These are people who love the Church enough to feel concern!!

How is that a bad thing? They can be wrong in the conclusions they have drawn, but that doesn’t mean they are trying to cause a problem.

And yes, I am saying this in self defense. I love the Church. I don’t want to be worried about what the Pope says.

I was not expecting or looking for bad things said by the Pope. People keep saying you couldn’t read it wrong unless you wanted to.

I disagree sincerely with this.

 

[Usagi]

Teek, the Pope’s phrasing there is certainly strange, and it is impossible to deny that he utters (or is translated as uttering) “God does not exist” multiple times.

Like others, from the rest of the quoted material I think he was denying a particular idea of God, and reiterating his own belief in the three very real and specific Persons of the Trinity as a counter to that. But that is an interpretation, I admit.

“God spray” is not a meaningful phrase in English, so I am unsure what he is getting at there. Maybe it’s mentioned earlier in the sermon?

Ultimately I don’t think even a wicked Pope would deny a key part of Trinitarian doctrine (especially in those very shocking words) just offhand in a local sermon, so I tend to assume there is no heretical intent. I don’t think you’re a basher or a hater for being concerned, though, and I would love to know if anyone has ever followed up with Pope Francis to seek clarification on his meaning.

Unfortunately, there are people who have decided that Pope Francis is the enemy and that anything he says and does must be dissected to prove his departure from the Faith. I fear some of the people you’ve been dealing with mistook you for one of those folks and unloaded on you unfairly. I am sorry you have had that experience here.

 

[LilyM]

Yes! I agree. And I do think that, as far as theology is concerned, there could not be a more difficult pair to follow than Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I loved Pope Benedict XVI’s precision in theology and in communicating.

I think the contrast in precision is not helping.

I wonder about this, too.

I did not “bash” the Pope. I asked about something that he said that disturbed me very much. I felt a lot of ill will was aimed in my direction for this.

If I didn’t love the Church what he said would not have bothered me in the slightest. The way people are treated here is paradoxical. Those who feel concern about the confusion people are experiencing are attacked with vengeance and anger. These are people who love the Church enough to feel concern!!

How is that a bad thing? They can be wrong in the conclusions they have drawn, but that doesn’t mean they are trying to cause a problem.

And yes, I am saying this in self defense. I love the Church. I don’t want to be worried about what the Pope says.

I was not expecting or looking for bad things said by the Pope. People keep saying you couldn’t read it wrong unless you wanted to.

I disagree sincerely with this.

But every Pope over the last 50 years has said and done controversial things, things that seemed out of whack to some. Or else been wrongly accused.

Pius XII is wrongly accused of being a Nazi sympathiser, which could bot be further from the truth.

From John XXIII we had Vatican II and the confusion of its aftermath.

From Paul VI we had Humanae Vitae on birth control, published against the advice of the majority of Cardinals if I recall, certainly against the wishes of the majority of Catholic laity at the time. I recall many being confused as to whether HV was binding teaching or not.

From JPII we had ecumenism and the Assisi multifaith gathering which scandalised and confused some. He was shown in a photo supposedly kissing a Quran, which I think turned out to be a book of the Gospels in Arabic or something.

And Benedict XVI - well, one minute he was making comments about Islam which caused offence, the next he was praying at a mosque (the nerve!)

There really is nothing new in a Pope being misunderstood, regardless of how clearly he may try to express himself.

 

[Mavzylor]

I just wanted to say that even before I read @Spyridon’s replies, I didn’t see anything wrong with this. Even without more context, I clearly understood that what was being said is that God is three person’s with whom to have a relationship, not just some abstract concept. I never assumed that what was being said was that the three persons do not exist as one God, only that the false concept that people create does not exist as God.

“What do you believe in?”; “In God!”; “But what is God for you?” “God, God”.

A point was being made, that people need to get to know God, if you don’t have a better answer to the question, “But what is God for you?”. God is not just some abstract fatherly figure watching over and protecting you according to your imagination, He is so much more than just a comforting thought. He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He wants a relationship with you. He has expectations of you, He has a plan for you, He wants to hear from you, He wants you to love Him.

 

[Teek]

There really is nothing new in a Pope being misunderstood, regardless of how clearly he may try to express himself.

I 100% agree with this!

And I never said or implied that what he said made the Holy Father a bad Pope. I just asked what other people made of it. If most people read it and had no problem, then maybe I was overreacting or misreading it, which appears to be the case.

But when people attack you and imply and accuse you of terrible purposes and deplorable character when you were just truly upset and concerned, well, it is difficult to know what to do with that.

Did it make people who misunderstood and sought clarity in any of those circumstances Pope-haters? Aren’t there people of good-will on both sides? And people without, also on both sides?

Conversation is supposed to help—keeps people from remaining in error.

I am still horrified by some of the reactions in this forum. How could that help?!? When people PM you to show support or agreement, but are afraid to post public support, that is a really terrible thing.

 

[Teek]

Even without more context, I clearly understood that what was being said is that God is three person’s with whom to have a relationship, not just some abstract concept. I never assumed that what was being said was that the three persons do not exist as one God, only that the false concept that people create does not exist as God.

Seriously, this was the exact kind of response I was hoping for when I first posted this thread.

Thank you very, very much.

If you threw in there how ignorant or wrong minded anyone who thought otherwise must be and how they must have wanted to hear it wrong, even if it is what you feel, you would have made it more difficult (for anyone who reacted the way I did to what was said) to hear what you heard and accept it.

Thank you for responding. That is very reassuring, and helps give weight to the idea that it wasn’t automatically heard as a denying the oneness of the Trinity by everyone. Or necessarily anyone else.