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

[Thomas_White]

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

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.

Isn’t it extreme to change “concentrating more” to read “disconnected” and then to base an argument on this alteration of what was said?

 

[DlandFan06]

So change as in abortion, gay marriage, contraception? Those kind of changes?

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

Fran, the attraction of the Latin Mass isn’t that it is in Latin, and it isn’t a longing for the past. The fact is that most of the people now being attracted to the Latin Mass weren’t even born before Vatican II. The attraction is the reverence, the absolute focus on the Eucharist, the beautiful intensity, and the sheer Catholicity of the Mass. Compare that to some ‘progressive’ Masses where you could be forgiven for thinking you were in a low church Anglican service, or even in the Methodist church. Where altar servers can be seen chewing gum and people wander up chatting as they go to receive the Eucharist. Where you could be forgiven for be confused as to whether the purpose of the Mass was to give glory to God or to glorify the community. The reason people are attracted to the Latin Mass is not to do with the Latin, or to do with a longing for the past. The whole focus of the Latin Mass is the Eucharist, the sacrifice on Calvary, not the people, that is very, very explicit at a Latin Mass.

I travel 40 minutes to go to a Latin Mass every now and then (but that is nothing more than a short hop and I’ll often travel more than that go to particularly reverently said Novus Ordo Masses). Do I know you?

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

And I would also put it that those who are unhappy with the Church as she is, particularly with regards to Church teachings (sexuality, divorce, female ordination, contraception etc.) also ought to ask themselves why? And what makes this current century so special amongst all the 20 previous centuries in the history of the Church that it needs special consideration? Do we seek to conform the Church to the world, or do we seek to conform the world to the Church? Do we seek to modernise the Gospel in order to do this?

Best wishes,

Brendan

 

[clem456]

Isn’t it extreme to change “concentrating more” to read “disconnected” and then to base an argument on this alteration of what was said?

This is what you said.

Originally Posted by Thomas White View Post

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

This is my reply which directly addresses your post.

Originally Posted by clem456 View Post
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

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.

Your post is directly addressed. I even repeat the exact words. Not sure what your issue is.

Your post illustrated an disconnect, -which does not exist-, between having a relationship with Christ and listening to what the Church teaches. As if the risen Lord and the teaching of his Church are separable. And then tacking on judgmentalism for some reason.

It is sad that simple and direct conversations cannot be had.

 

[Thomas_White]

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 it happens, I grew up in the pre-Vatican II Church. We attended a Tridentine Mass at the beginning of every school day, and for several years during the period, in the 50’s, I was an altar server. I prefer the TLM, actually, but this is not the point. I do not see traditional Catholicism and conservatism/fundamentalism as the same thing at all, and I know it from personal experience. I saw this emerge in the excesses during the implementation of Vatican II and the reaction to it. I believe it was here that the liberal/conservative division occurred. It does not seemed resolved.

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.

Yes, but I was referring to the cultural paradigm described in Laudato Si.

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.

That is surprising. I’ve thought Pope Francis wants both, and it concerns the genuine religiousity of those on the periphery and the importance of the preferential option for the poor (and by extension the poor in spirit). As a Jesuit in Buenos Aires, Pope Francis came to appreciate this religiousity (processions, patron saints and the like–even of Satan as a real presence, not an abstract concept) and it would be surprising if he now would wanted to discard it. That he transcends this duality of external/internal is perhaps why he is sometimes not easily understood. It does not necessarily resonate with those who have a fixed perspective.

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

It is very complicated, and as a result I believe there is much misunderstanding about Pope Francis. He is saying we have to get away from only following rules since this is not in itself genuine spirituality. Religion must be practiced too. It became an obsession on a few issues (sexual morality primarily) and as such an impediment to spiritual growth. It is a dead end for both the individual and the Church, and he said in his short address to the conclave that would elect him Pope that this was the greatest danger to the Church today.

Hearing this said, some get upset.

 

[Michael1978]

***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.

I find this hard to believe considering that Pope Francis lays flowers at the feet of the Blessed Mother everywhere he goes.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is what you said.

This is my reply which directly addresses your post.


Your post is directly addressed. I even repeat the exact words. Not sure what your issue is.

Your post illustrated an disconnect, -which does not exist-, between having a relationship with Christ and listening to what the Church teaches. As if the risen Lord and the teaching of his Church are separable. And then tacking on judgmentalism for some reason.

It is sad that simple and direct conversations cannot be had.

I think the point was how does “concentrating more on the Lord on His teaching than on rules” become a “disconnect” from the rules (i.e., listening to what the Church teaches). It is only a shift from what has long been an emphasis. I did not tack on ‘judgmentalism’ for some reason. It was a quote from another poster which is why the entire phrase is in quotation marks.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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

Jesus was asked many trick questions.
You’re going to have to do better even for we mortal folk!

BOTH, of course.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Indeed.

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.

I think the same thing that worked in the year 30 (about) will work today: The Gospel and the Word of God.

Just curious: Which country are you speaking of with tambourines and relaxed liturgies?
Is THIS the spririt of Vat II???

 

[frangiuliano115]

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

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”.

I really have a difficult time exchanging ideas with you.

I never said church disciplines are silly. i wish you would read carefully what I say.

I’m sorry that people are reading along and who knows what they must think of me based on your replies to me which I really don’t care to answer for the above stated reason.

When two people misunderstand each other (see, I’m taking the blame - maybe) it’s of no use to continue!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

So change as in abortion, gay marriage, contraception? Those kind of changes?

NO. This is not what the Pope is talking about.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Fran, the attraction of the Latin Mass isn’t that it is in Latin, and it isn’t a longing for the past. The fact is that most of the people now being attracted to the Latin Mass weren’t even born before Vatican II. The attraction is the reverence, the absolute focus on the Eucharist, the beautiful intensity, and the sheer Catholicity of the Mass. Compare that to some ‘progressive’ Masses where you could be forgiven for thinking you were in a low church Anglican service, or even in the Methodist church. Where altar servers can be seen chewing gum and people wander up chatting as they go to receive the Eucharist. Where you could be forgiven for be confused as to whether the purpose of the Mass was to give glory to God or to glorify the community. The reason people are attracted to the Latin Mass is not to do with the Latin, or to do with a longing for the past. The whole focus of the Latin Mass is the Eucharist, the sacrifice on Calvary, not the people, that is very, very explicit at a Latin Mass.

I travel 40 minutes to go to a Latin Mass every now and then (but that is nothing more than a short hop and I’ll often travel more than that go to particularly reverently said Novus Ordo Masses). Do I know you?

And I would also put it that those who are unhappy with the Church as she is, particularly with regards to Church teachings (sexuality, divorce, female ordination, contraception etc.) also ought to ask themselves why? And what makes this current century so special amongst all the 20 previous centuries in the history of the Church that it needs special consideration? Do we seek to conform the Church to the world, or do we seek to conform the world to the Church? Do we seek to modernise the Gospel in order to do this?

Best wishes,

Brendan

Oh my gosh. It must be me. Did I say the above??? I know it’s not just the Latin! The Mass Fra’ Lorenzo celebrates, with his back to the parishoners, is about 1 1/2 hours long, if not more.

But, I don’t LONG for the past either. I said, as long as Jesus is there I’m happy.

But, I agree with you entire last pp.

Jesus didn’t conform to the world - He wanted the world to conform to HIM!

The gospel is the gospel, it doesn’t need to be modernized. it worked 2,000 years ago (3,000 converted in one day?) and it’ll work today. Please tell me you see some difference between that and all the rules we’ve instituted that are man-made. Please don’t get into obedience.

This is not what the Pope is talking about.

Am I your neighbor? Do you live in the vicinity of Italy?

Fran

 

[Brendan_64]

OAm I your neighbor? Do you live in the vicinity of Italy?

Fran

Sadly, I don’t live in the vicinity of Italy. You are blessed to live in such a beautiful country.

 

[frangiuliano115]

As it happens, I grew up in the pre-Vatican II Church. We attended a Tridentine Mass at the beginning of every school day, and for several years during the period, in the 50’s, I was an altar server. I prefer the TLM, actually, but this is not the point. I do not see traditional Catholicism and conservatism/fundamentalism as the same thing at all, and I know it from personal experience. I saw this emerge in the excesses during the implementation of Vatican II and the reaction to it. I believe it was here that the liberal/conservative division occurred. It does not seemed resolved.

Yes, but I was referring to the cultural paradigm described in Laudato Si.

That is surprising. I’ve thought Pope Francis wants both, and it concerns the genuine religiousity of those on the periphery and the importance of the preferential option for the poor (and by extension the poor in spirit). As a Jesuit in Buenos Aires, Pope Francis came to appreciate this religiousity (processions, patron saints and the like–even of Satan as a real presence, not an abstract concept) and it would be surprising if he now would wanted to discard it. That he transcends this duality of external/internal is perhaps why he is sometimes not easily understood. It does not necessarily resonate with those who have a fixed perspective.

It is very complicated, and as a result I believe there is much misunderstanding about Pope Francis. He is saying we have to get away from only following rules since this is not in itself genuine spirituality. Religion must be practiced too. It became an obsession on a few issues (sexual morality primarily) and as such an impediment to spiritual growth. It is a dead end for both the individual and the Church, and he said in his short address to the conclave that would elect him Pope that this was the greatest danger to the Church today.

Hearing this said, some get upset.

I grew up in pre Vat II. But I’m still only 28.
This is exactly what makes me question all these rules. Now Guanophore is going to get upset with me because I was a catechist till last year, let me assure everyone that I taught what the church teaches and believes to be true - not my personal opinion.

Do you remember that we couldn’t eat meat on Friday’s? Now we could.
Do you remember that we had to tell the priest how many times we committed each sin?
(gosh, I used to make a list!)
Do you remember that we couldn’t eat anything after 10 pm or midnight the evening before receiving communion? Now it’s an hour before.

Why have any tme limit? To teach honor and respect for the host. To remind us what is is we’re doing - Who we’re going to meet. To remind us of the importance of that meeting. Can’t I do this sans the 1 hour rule?? Am I in such need of a rule? Didn’t Paul say we need to get away from milk and get to the meat? Can I not be a mature catholic?
I think this is what he’s getting at.

These are rules Thomas White. All this stuff that makes us think more of The Rule than of Jesus. I didn’t even meet Jesus till I was well into my 20’s. And yet I followed all the rules. I think this is what the Pope is talking about.

I’m not going to read Laudato Si again. I remember very well the part about Mary and am fuzzy on the rest. I can’t remember what it has to do with culture… help. ( I really don’t need to know).

I also don’t think the Pope wants one or the other. Maybe he feels like we’re concentrating too much on one side, as another poster stated. Maybe even a BALANCE isn’t right. Maybe we should be leaning toward spirituality (not gnosticism).

I very much agree with the following. You say:

That he transcends this duality of external/internal is perhaps why he is sometimes not easily understood. It does not necessarily resonate with those who have a fixed perspective.

Yes. And also, many take his statements to mean whatever they wish them to mean. Difficult to watch every word you say. He’s not saying to do away with church doctrine - which is different, IMO.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

I find this hard to believe considering that Pope Francis lays flowers at the feet of the Blessed Mother everywhere he goes.

Honoring Patron saints is not like laying flowers at the feet of Mary.
I live in a different country.

Just to clarify.

 

[Brendan_64]

The gospel is the gospel, it doesn’t need to be modernized. it worked 2,000 years ago (3,000 converted in one day?) and it’ll work today. Please tell me you see some difference between that and all the rules we’ve instituted that are man-made.

Church teachings are not man-made rules, they represent revealed truth and authentic interpretation of Scripture. The Church is the bride of Christ, created by Him. The Church is not a man-made institution and the Church’s teaching authority does not come from man, but from Christ. And yes, obedience is important.

Or should we become like Protestants with each man making his own interpretation of the Gospel? Each man his own magisterium? Just by a Bible, read it and off you go?

And as for the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ in the UK? This would include guitars, no mention of Mary, no Rosary, no encouragement of Eucharistic Adoration, no Benediction, definitely no incense, a celebration of the community as a focus for the Mass, holy water fonts left dry, no Latin prayers ever in Mass, no Benedictine chanting, no pipe organ etc., but a real eagerness to do anything that involves working with Protestant clergy.

Now some of those things are more important than others, but the things that really hurt about this are the downplaying of the sacrificial character of the Mass, the disregard for Eucharistic adoration, and the ignoring of our Blessed Mother Mary. It really is enough to make you cry sometimes. That is the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ in the UK. And they wonder why congregations are shrinking with younger Catholics preferring more traditional Masses.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Church teachings are not man-made rules, they represent revealed truth and authentic interpretation of Scripture. The Church is the bride of Christ, created by Him. The Church is not a man-made institution and the Church’s teaching authority does not come from man, but from Christ. And yes, obedience is important.

Or should we become like Protestants with each man making his own interpretation of the Gospel? Each man his own magisterium? Just by a Bible, read it and off you go?

No Brendan, YOU’RE blessed.

But anyway, I really would like to get to the bottom of this:

Is there a difference between church teachings and man-made rules?

 

[Brendan_64]

Is there a difference between church teachings and man-made rules?

Church doctrine is not man-made. Disciplines can be (although they will be based on sound theological reasoning) but dogma and doctrine are not man-made. The Church has been given direct authority from Christ and the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Church doctrine is not man-made. Disciplines can be (although they will be based on sound theological reasoning) but not dogma and doctrine are not man-made.

Yeah. It’s always words. I think before people try to communicate they should get the same dictionary and study it and not speak until…

Brendan: Disciplines
Fran: Rules

 So we agree!

Dogma: Cannot be changed
Doctrine: Ongoing revelation is possible and change can occur.

Okay…

Fran

 

[Brendan_64]

Yeah. It’s always words. I think before people try to communicate they should get the same dictionary and study it and not speak until…

Brendan: Disciplines
Fran: Rules

 So we agree!

Dogma: Cannot be changed
Doctrine: Ongoing revelation is possible and change can occur.

Okay…

Fran

However doctrine cannot be developed in such a way that it contradicts previous revelation of doctrine. That would be saying that previous revelation was wrong, which is impossible. Truth cannot contradict Truth. Doctrine does not change, doctrine develops.

And pastoral practice is doctrine lived out in reality. Pastoral practice cannot be in contradiction to doctrine.