Catholicism can and must change, Francis forcefully tells Italian church gathering

[guanophore]

Well put.

Jesus’ intent was to get us close to God, show us how to have a spiritual nature, how to win the battle with satan by transforming our nature into a Godly nature, He said to go forth and baptize - when we get baptized we die to ourselves and the H.S. is infused in us.

I am glad we agree on these fundamentals of the faith.

I sometimes wonder where the H.S. has wandered off to when I read some posts –

Fran

Yes, I see your point. I wonder the same thing when a Catholic Catechist states that the disciplines of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, are “silly”.

 

[guanophore]

AH HA. So this is why some posters are upset with me lately. I’ve been talking about legalism because I see so much of it on these threads.

Didn’t know it was a Political Term - Politics does affect everything, doesn’t it? Sad.

Well, not like I’m going to change my position on anything. Which is that we should be concentrating more on the Lord and His teachings than on rules and regulations and judging each other. I though that was Jesus’ role…

(this is not meant specifically for you Thomas White).

Fran

Just for the record, this poster is not upset with you over any posts you have made on the topic of legalism. On the contrary, I am fully in agreement with your perspective that getting close to Jesus is what is most important.

 

[guanophore]

Well AMEN to that!



There are those who expouse regulations and there are those who expouse the love Jesus meant for us to share.

Fran

Fran, the two are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason we cannot embrace the disciplines of the Church and still love Jesus. After the first Church Council in Jerusalem, the Apostles wrote regulations to the faithful who loved Jesus. The regulations were so that everyone could coexist in Christ better.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… God was always like Pope Francis, enigmatic and laconic, working through pictures.

Not laconic. I don’t buy laconic any more.

 

[Thomas_White]

AH HA. So this is why some posters are upset with me lately. I’ve been talking about legalism because I see so much of it on these threads.

Didn’t know it was a Political Term - Politics does affect everything, doesn’t it? Sad.

I did not mean legalism is a political term here. What I meant was the discussion (or debate) between those posters of a liberal or conservative perspective obviously concerns legalism. It seems this is true at least in part on this thread and in the comments of Pope Francis in the OP as well. Pope Francis has said that politics should not be part of a ‘practical Christian humanism’, and this is the topic of a current thread on the forum. Why would politics be present in religion?

There is what seems a natural phenomenon among humans involving differing modes of thought, and it is manifest in those with a liberal or conservative perspective. This could be said the differing outlooks of the scientist and the poet, though there are many, many ways to describe it. This way of thinking also becomes manifest in politics, and at times political views are commingled with religious ones. At times, it is extreme.

It seems few want to own the term ‘legalism’. But legalism is the outlook that Church teaching must not change, and there are arguments put forth for why it cannot change, ever. It is an exclusive reliance on the way teaching was understood in a bygone era. Nevertheless, the understanding of teaching has always changed as revelation is understood anew by each new generation–in this way revelation is a process that is revealed continuously, again and again as the sun also rises. Do those of the West today have the same perspective or outlook on the world that people did in the Eighth Century? I don’t think so, and so one’s understanding is necessarily different (though it varies).

frangiuliano115:

Well, not like I’m going to change my position on anything. Which is that we should be concentrating more on the Lord and His teachings than on rules and regulations and judging each other. I though that was Jesus’ role…

(this is not meant specifically for you Thomas White).

Fran

I agree “we should be concentrating more on the Lord and His teaching than on reules and regulations and judging other”. But that there is a dispute here would seem to involve more than the teachings themselves. It has a psychological component, and in its extreme it involves every behavior Pope Francis criticized in his final address to the synod. It is a personality type, and its mode of thought transcends religion and politics.

 

[pnewton]

Is he saying Church doctrine must change to fit with the times? Is truth not immutable? What exactly does he mean that Doctrine is not a closed system? If we are free to question doctrines, why should we bind mens’ consciences to them?

Doctrine and Truth are different ideas. Truth is absolute. Doctrine is what we teach about the absolute. Not only can the Church evolve doctrine over time, the Church can also apply the same doctrines to different circumstances in different ways. Thus, we have in one time the idea that outside the Church there is not salvation being used to support Catholic monarchs who mandate the Catholic faith. Now, we understand in a pluralistic society the value of civil religious freedom. The doctrine did not change, but the times did, so the application had to change.

There are a lot more examples.

 

[clem456]

I agree “we should be concentrating more on the Lord and His teaching than on reules and regulations and judging other”.

This perfectly illustrates the disconnect:
Christ, the Son of the Living God, second person of the Trinity, seen as disconnected from the teaching and disciplines of the Church.

“Concentrating more on the Lord than…”
Yet Christ says

He who hears you hears me

A relationship with Jesus Christ is not separable from Church teaching.

Plus the confusion of

1. relationship with Christ
2. doctrine
3. disciplines ( I guess? Don’t really know what you mean by “rules and regulations” since the issues are so confused)
4. judgmentalism

These things are utterly confused here and not of a mind with the Church.

 

[graciew]

Maybe you have , but strangely enough us ‘trads’ and ‘conservatives’ also do such things. So don’t paint us as people who sit and judge others and peole who don’t ‘go forth’ onto the streets.

The first time I met our then new priest ,I offered to buy milk for the kids in Apoyo Escolar( support after school with homework ,etc).
Another day we talked about what might be helpful. Since sprcific skills were necessary ,and I was acquainted with art and painting ,he suggested the kids restroom for Apoyo was a mess ,so …I continued by painting the bathroom.
Were you not standing in the public sqaure ,there would be nobody in our restroom. Did we not have a restroom , well .,.maybe they would return to the public square…hahaha
Thanks for your ministry.A lot of thanks

We have different gifts to share. And God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think the Church needs a variety of people. We must be merciful and cause others to feel the Mercy of Christ and His Church. But we cannot pretend that wrong is right and right is wrong.

Absolutely right!

However listening to some people today you could be forgiven for thinking that mercy is a modern concept within the Church, and something that has been lacking in the Church for 2000 years.

This is of course not true, the Church has always been merciful, the Church has always been accepting of people. Mercy flows from Truth.

If I went to a doctor with high dangerously high blood pressure I would expect him to accept me as a patient and respect me, but I wouldn’t expect him to say, “Don’t worry about your diet, keep piling salt onto your chips, carry on with your current lifestyle, be happy, all is cool. Come back next week for another nice chat where I make you feel good about yourself”.

 

[Darryl1958]

Pope Francis is addressing the Italian Church.
Catholicism in Europe is dying. People still wedded to sentimentality and tradition still go to Church, whether or not they believe. Others do not, because the Church does not appear all that relevant to what they believe either way.

I suppose we can take the popes words as some sort of continuation of the culture wars, and an attempt to change Catholic dogma and truths.

Or we can go beyond the culture wars, and see the pope as a man who loves the message of Christianity and is beckoning us to find ways to make Catholicism relevant to the people of Italy again.

I think his intent was the latter more than the former.

Either way I am not sure how to make the Church relevant again to the lives of modern Europeans, or the lives of modern North Americans, for that matter.

To be blunt, I don’t know how his ministry to date has shown us how. A lot of it has been about environmentalism, but the environmental movement has been moving forward long before Francis spoke on it. Adding a ‘Thou shalt’ in front of the word compost is probably not all that necessary to move the environmental movement forward. People will recycle because it makes sense to do so, and not because they can be guilted into it.
I am not really sure what his game plan is, and I am even less sure what our game plan should be to bring his vision about.

 

[Brendan_64]

Interestingly though, traditional Catholicism in growing quite rapidly in Europe, from a small base. And vocations in traditional orders or in the relatively few dioceses with more traditionally minded bishops are booming while vocations in other areas are declining fast. That would seem to indicate where the future eventually lies for the Church in Europe. Or do we really want to go on believing that the answer to the fast decline over the past 50 years is to go on promoting more of the same and in an increasingly exaggerated form?

If a doctor gave a patient medicine and he got sicker, would it make more sense to prescribe an even higher dose of that medicine in order to try to make him better?

 

[Thomas_White]

Pope Francis is addressing the Italian Church.
Catholicism in Europe is dying. People still wedded to sentimentality and tradition still go to Church, whether or not they believe. Others do not, because the Church does not appear all that relevant to what they believe either way.

I suppose we can take the popes words as some sort of continuation of the culture wars, and an attempt to change Catholic dogma and truths.

Or we can go beyond the culture wars, and see the pope as a man who loves the message of Christianity and is beckoning us to find ways to make Catholicism relevant to the people of Italy again.

I think his intent was the latter more than the former.

Either way I am not sure how to make the Church relevant again to the lives of modern Europeans, or the lives of modern North Americans, for that matter.

To be blunt, I don’t know how his ministry to date has shown us how.

Making the Church relevant again to modern Europe and North America would be a very tall order to accomplish in less than three-years time, would it not? There is without doubt resistance to the attempt, and what it would require is already found, in great detail, in the encyclical Laudato Si. It concerns a cultural and epistomological paradigm shift, but as we have seen there is resistance to the essential moral teaching by those of a certain perspective. We see those who oppose the attempt as they reveal themselves, and Pope Francis has been more and more direct in his comments.

 

[Darryl1958]

Making the Church relevant again to modern Europe and North America would be a very tall order to accomplish in less than three-years time, would it not? There is without doubt resistance to the attempt, and what it would require is already found, in great detail, in the encyclical Laudato Si. It concerns a cultural and epistomological paradigm shift, but as we have seen there is resistance to the essential moral teaching by those of a certain perspective. We see those who oppose the attempt as they reveal themselves.

Making the Church relevant in even a hundred years would be a tall order.
Other than that, you are talking above my head.

 

[clem456]

Making the Church relevant again to modern Europe and North America would be a very tall order to accomplish in less than three-years time, would it not? There is without doubt resistance to the attempt, and what it would require is already found, in great detail, in the encyclical Laudato Si. It concerns a cultural and epistomological paradigm shift, **but as we have seen there is resistance to the essential moral teaching by those of a certain perspective. We see those who oppose the attempt as they reveal themselves, **and Pope Francis has been more and more direct in his comments.

Oh, of course.
“those of a certain perspective”
“those who oppose”

“:Those”. Conversion is always for someone else.
The Pope rightly speaks against hypocrisy.

 

[guanophore]

Interestingly though, traditional Catholicism in growing quite rapidly in Europe, from a small base. And vocations in traditional orders or in the relatively few dioceses with more traditionally minded bishops are booming while vocations in other areas are declining fast. That would seem to indicate where the future eventually lies for the Church in Europe. Or do we really want to go on believing that the answer to the fast decline over the past 50 years is to go on promoting more of the same and in an increasingly exaggerated form?

If a doctor gave a patient medicine and he got sicker, would it make more sense to prescribe an even higher dose of that medicine in order to try to make him better?

Is this not what homeopathy is all about?

 

[graciew]

If a doctor gave a patient medicine and he got sicker, would it make more sense to prescribe an even higher dose of that medicine in order to try to make him better?

Well , we were prescribed much prayer… and Adoration…what do you think ?

 

[Thomas_White]

Making the Church relevant in even a hundred years would be a tall order.

I believe so. Paradigm shifts only unfold in the course of history. Arguably, Vatican II isn’t yet fully resolved after half a century. I suppose the current dicussion and debate about the recommendations of the synod could be understood that way.

But I don’t believe traditional Catholicism and conservatism/fundamentalism are at all the same thing.

 

[Brendan_64]

Is this not what homeopathy is all about?

Indeed.

Well , we were prescribed much prayer… and Adoration…what do you think ?

Yes indeed. Unfortunately in far too many ‘progressive’ parishes in Europe things such as the Rosary, Divine Mercy, and even Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass are viewed as things that look towards the past, things to be tolerated, but not encouraged too much. As things not in tune with the ‘spirit of the times’. Much better to concentrate on guitars, tambourines, ‘relaxed’ liturgy, and increased ‘laity involvement’, that’ll revitalise the church and have the young people flocking in, won’t it?

Except it doesn’t. Look in a typical ‘progressive’ parish church and look at the average age of the parishioners, and then look in a FSSP Mass and look at the average age of parishioners. Those attending an FSSP Mass will be on average a lot younger. Younger Catholics do not want what the 'Spirit of V2" 1960’s generation think that young people ought to want.

 

[clem456]

Or steering clear of two imposters that always try to poison Christianity “from the inside”: “Pelagianism” (**which brings us to have faith “in structures, organisations, and plans **that are perfect because abstract”) and Gnostic impulses, **spiritualist and subjectivist tendencies **that promise salvation through “reasoning and knowledge”, whilst locking the individual inside the suffocating “immanence of their own reason and feelings”.

Which Catholic is the Pope asking to change?
(yea, it is a trick question)

 

[frangiuliano115]

I believe so. Paradigm shifts only unfold in the course of history. Arguably, Vatican II isn’t yet fully resolved after half a century. I suppose the current dicussion and debate about the recommendations of the synod could be understood that way.

But I don’t believe traditional Catholicism and conservatism/fundamentalism are at all the same thing.

I don’t think it’s because Vat II hasn’t been resolved in 50 years. I think it’s more the idea that something new takes a couple of generations to sink in. Some are still complaining that we don’t have the Mass in Latin anymore. I have friends that travel 40 minutes to go to one every now and then. Personally, I do like how the communion is celebrated; however, as long as Jesus is there, I don’t really care too much about the FORM of the Mass.

As to your paradigm shift. It’s happening already. Not enough priests to do all the extra celebrations/liturgies as in the past. Some have as many as 6 to 8 parishes so things are changing quickly, and the changes are already here.

This cultural aspect of the church (ie processions, honoring patron saints, etc) is what the Pope is talking about. These are EXTERNAL acts and he wants more of an INTERNAL christianity. He’s calling it Ecce Homo. He actually used those words down in Florence yesterday. Here the man. Or Here is man.

He said, literally, that we have to get away from following rules and come to know the Man of Christ. I can’t remember if he said the “man”, but he meant to come to know Christ.

Sometimes when this is said on these threads, some get upset. I hope what I’ve said could be confirmed.

Some may like it, and some may not, but some change is coming our way. If one is unhappy about it, they should ask themselves why they’re unhappy.

Very complicated.

Fran