Conservative Catholics question Pope Francis’s approach

[livingwordunity]

I’m a “conservative Catholic”, and I don’t question Pope Francis’ approach. Catholic Answers, EWTN and many other websites that are called “conservative” by the left haven’t given up on the Pope. I go to a very traditional parish that has an altar rail for Holy Communion, and our parish has a big picture of Pope Francis. There are 4 other parishes that I know of nearby that are also very traditional, and they all have a picture of Pope Francis, the Knights of Columbus fully support this Pope, etc. This “news article” (propaganda) is more trashy sensationalism from the secular media.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m a “conservative Catholic”, and I don’t question Pope Francis’ approach. Catholic Answers, EWTN and many other websites that are called “conservative” by the left haven’t given up on the Pope. I go to a very traditional parish that has an altar rail for Holy Communion, and our parish has a big picture of Pope Francis. There are 4 other parishes that I know of nearby that are also very traditional, and they all have a picture of Pope Francis, the Knights of Columbus fully support this Pope, etc. This “news article” (propaganda) is more trashy sensationalism from the secular media.

You bring up a good point. I don’t think the alleged outcry from conservative Catholics is nearly as great as the media makes it out to be. I know a great many “conservative Catholics” in real life who also have nothing but positive things to say about our Holy Father.

 

[McCall1981]

You bring up a good point. I don’t think the alleged outcry from conservative Catholics is nearly as great as the media makes it out to be. I know a great many “conservative Catholics” in real life who also have nothing but positive things to say about our Holy Father.

Interesting that you say that. My personal observation is that many “conservative” Catholics are not so much against the Pope, as they are caught in a kind of limbo where they don’t know what to think. That’s how I feel. I’ve been trying to “figure him out”, but haven’t been able to, and I think some other people feel the same way.

It’s like being stuck in this ongoing anxiety or tension that never gets resolved.

Honestly, I think a lot of liberal/progressive Catholics are kind of going through the same thing, but in reverse.

 

[bsroufek]

In Matt 12:37, “For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

It’s not Pope Francis’ style or approach, as many in the media state because they are so concerned with such things as “style” and “approach”. It’s his statements we must accept or not accept.

Not everything he says is objectionable, but some of it has definitely been objectionable to faithful Catholics, such as “You don’t have to believe in God to go to Heaven” and other statements which oppose The Gospel or The Apostles.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

In Matt 12:37, “For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

It’s not Pope Francis’ style or approach, as many in the media state because they are so concerned with such things as “style” and “approach”. It’s his statements we must accept or not accept.

Not everything he says is objectionable, but some of it has definitely been objectionable to faithful Catholics, such as “You don’t have to believe in God to go to Heaven” and other statements which oppose The Gospel or The Apostles.

I wonder if you have his statements in context, or if you’re reading them in the media’s echo-chamber.

Because it seems that some of the statements to which you object are directly in line with this long standing Church teaching: The Church lacks the power to judge. It does not say who God allows into heaven and who God rejects. It never assumes the ability to understand or state God’s reason for giving salvation to a particular soul.

The Church teaches the revealed truth and provides the revealed path to God’s mercy. But there is nothing in Church teaching - absolutely nothing whatsoever - that claims that atheists or Muslims or Mormons or Jews or Protestants or Wiccans are barred from heaven. To claim differently is to usurp God’s plenary authority.

In short: The Church doesn’t have that kind of swing.

Pax,
OA

PS: Funny, but just the other day in CCD class we were discussing something like this. The teaching: If you come across a priest that declares that a certain people or group of people aren’t getting into heaven, you’ve probably: (1) misunderstood the priest’s statement, or (2) you’ve stumbled across a lousy priest. If (2), time to explain to the priest that he’s wrong and time to find a better priest.

 

[Joe_5859]

Interesting that you say that. My personal observation is that many “conservative” Catholics are not so much against the Pope, as they are caught in a kind of limbo where they don’t know what to think. That’s how I feel. I’ve been trying to “figure him out”, but haven’t been able to, and I think some other people feel the same way.

It’s like being stuck in this ongoing anxiety or tension that never gets resolved.

Honestly, I think a lot of liberal/progressive Catholics are kind of going through the same thing, but in reverse.

Now that you say it that way, I can think of some people who more or less feel that way.

It is interesting to me because I recall speaking with “liberal” Catholics shortly after Benedict was elected. They had been living in fear (as some conservatives had been clamoring in gleeful anticipation) that he would bring down the hammer upon them. After about a year, they were starting to breathe a little easier as they were seeing that he wasn’t actually behaving according to that expectation.

Now, it is sort of reversed. Some are clamoring in gleeful anticipation that Francis is going to change all these teachings that they have been saying should be changed for the past 40+ years. And others are living in fear that Francis might actually do that.

I think things will end similarly, though, as we all once again recognize that Catholic teaching won’t change.

 

[McCall1981]

Now that you say it that way, I can think of some people who more or less feel that way.

It is interesting to me because I recall speaking with “liberal” Catholics shortly after Benedict was elected. They had been living in fear (as some conservatives had been clamoring in gleeful anticipation) that he would bring down the hammer upon them. After about a year, they were starting to breathe a little easier as they were seeing that he wasn’t actually behaving according to that expectation.

Now, it is sort of reversed. Some are clamoring in gleeful anticipation that Francis is going to change all these teachings that they have been saying should be changed for the past 40+ years. And others are living in fear that Francis might actually do that.

I think things will end similarly, though, as we all once again recognize that Catholic teaching won’t change.

Yes, it’s like people on both “sides” are kind of holding their breath to see what happens. When he was elected I was very worried and felt like I really couldn’t tell what he would be like. Since then so much has happened (good, bad and neutral), but I still feel pretty much exactly the same; I can’t tell what he will be like.

It’s like the usual anticipatory tension that happens for the first few days after a conclave has been extended indefinitely

 

[bsroufek]

I wonder if you have his statements in context, or if you’re reading them in the media’s echo-chamber.

Because it seems that some of the statements to which you object are directly in line with this long standing Church teaching: The Church lacks the power to judge. It does not say who God allows into heaven and who God rejects. It never assumes the ability to understand or state God’s reason for giving salvation to a particular soul.

The Church teaches the revealed truth and provides the revealed path to God’s mercy. But there is nothing in Church teaching - absolutely nothing whatsoever - that claims that atheists or Muslims or Mormons or Jews or Protestants or Wiccans are barred from heaven. To claim differently is to usurp God’s plenary authority.

In short: The Church doesn’t have that kind of swing.

Pax,
OA

PS: Funny, but just the other day in CCD class we were discussing something like this. The teaching: If you come across a priest that declares that a certain people or group of people aren’t getting into heaven, you’ve probably: (1) misunderstood the priest’s statement, or (2) you’ve stumbled across a lousy priest. If (2), time to explain to the priest that he’s wrong and time to find a better priest.

Whether or not the Church claims the authority to judge is one thing. But Jesus is the judge, as The Creed states, and His Gospel states the following:

Mark 16:16: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

Acts 4:12: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

So, salvation is only in Christ Jesus.

But, about the Church’s authority, I submit the following:

1 Corinthians 6:3: “Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!”

And

John 20:23: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

So the Gospel and the Apostles clearly state that the Church has the authority to judge, as long as it is in accordance with the Gospels and the Apostles.

For, on the other hand, I submit that if someone stands for the Gospel in some matter and is condemned by someone in the Church, then we have the following promise of Jesus:

Whoever whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.

So, the Church is supreme in her judgement, so long as she doesn’t oppose the Gospel or the Apostles, as I understand it.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Whether or not the Church claims the authority to judge is one thing. But Jesus is the judge, as The Creed states, and His Gospel states the following:

So, salvation is only in Christ Jesus.

But, about the Church’s authority, I submit the following:

And

So the Gospel and the Apostles clearly state that the Church has the authority to judge, as long as it is in accordance with the Gospels and the Apostles.

For, on the other hand, I submit that if someone stands for the Gospel in some matter and is condemned by someone in the Church, then we have the following promise of Jesus:

So, the Church is supreme in her judgement, so long as she doesn’t oppose the Gospel or the Apostles, as I understand it.

I disagree with your interpretation, and I’ll be happy to explain why. But, now, I’m at my desk at work and so my time is not my own.

But as a convert to Catholicism, I wonder: Are you also a convert? It’s not a slight in ANY way, but something about your writing started me to wonder.

Pax,
OA

 

[bsroufek]

I disagree with your interpretation, and I’ll be happy to explain why. But, now, I’m at my desk at work and so my time is not my own.

But as a convert to Catholicism, I wonder: Are you also a convert? It’s not a slight in ANY way, but something about your writing started me to wonder.

Pax,
OA

I’m not a convert, but come from a Catholic family. For various reasons, I didn’t practice my faith for a while, but returned.

To address your idea, though, I will say that I read the Scriptures daily and base some but not all of my reasoning on them; thus, I may come off as a Protestant, but I’m not.

In a nutshell, though, I believe in the Church and will follow her in everything that doesn’t directly oppose the Gospels or the Apostles, which doesn’t make me a Protestant or a dissident IMO. The Scriptures form part of my conscience, and I don’t think I’m very far off in my understanding of the NT, at least.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Hmmm, just curious. Has there been a mention of the opposite (a need for repentance in order to accepted back in the church)?

bump*

 

[pnewton]

I think this article is a good explanation of why “conservative” Catholics are worried.

lifesitenews.com/news/fallout-continues-from-misinterpretations-of-pope-francis-interviews

LIfeSiteNews and John Henry Westen have a history of antagonism toward the Catholic Church. I would trust them no more that Catholics for a Free Choice. At least the main stream media tries to keep the appearance of impartial journalism.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

This article touches at what I have found to be EXTREMELY disrespectful behavior by (some) traditionalist Catholics with regards to Francis’ recent remarks. People NEED to stop spinning and “correcting” the Pope, claiming “this is what Francis REALLY meant to say” etc…

Francis is incredibly clear and WISE.

 

[agnes_therese]

Hmmm, just curious. Has there been a mention of the opposite (a need for repentance in order to accepted back in the church)?

He has said that the teachings of the Church have not changed. There’s no point in him saying it every time he opens his mouth. Those who don’t want to hear that, won’t hear it no matter how many times he says it.
That goes for both the “oh goody, he’s going to change everything, we know that because we can read his mind” crowd, and the “oh, no, he’s going to change everything, we know that because we can read his mind” crowd.

 

[agnes_therese]

He said it plainly on at least two different occasions and two different threads on this forum
quoted him. Search the Forums.

No, I’d rather read what HE says, not what people accuse him of saying. He made no such blanket statement. Read the full context.

*I can’t find where he said immoral behavior doesn’t have to be repented. Could you provide a link, please?
*
Here:[accepting cohabitating couples] forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=824038
Here:[allowing second marriages] forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=812026

Your claimed statement by Pope Francis that he intends " to allow the immoral into the Sacraments without repenting from their immoral behavior" does not appear in either of these.

*Same here, I can’t find where he said women will have authority over priests. Could you tell me where to find that?
*
Since there are already women in authority in the Church, such as religious and in parish groups, and since they aren’t to be ordained, as cited above, the Pope is saying that there will be “women in authority” in the Church. This implies [to me] that he may accord authority over authorities in the Church, that is priests and bishops.

Thank you for admitting that this is only your personal interpretation, despite no evidence that this is his intention.

 

[Joe_5859]

This article touches at what I have found to be EXTREMELY disrespectful behavior by (some) traditionalist Catholics with regards to Francis’ recent remarks. People NEED to stop spinning and “correcting” the Pope, claiming “this is what Francis REALLY meant to say” etc…

Francis is incredibly clear and WISE.

No one is correcting the pope. We are referencing what Pope Francis actually said in order to correct the media reports on what they interpret the pope to mean.

 

[Jaberwocky]

He has said that the teachings of the Church have not changed. There’s no point in him saying it every time he opens his mouth. Those who don’t want to hear that, won’t hear it no matter how many times he says it.
That goes for both the “oh goody, he’s going to change everything, we know that because we can read his mind” crowd, and the “oh, no, he’s going to change everything, we know that because we can read his mind” crowd.

So to make sure I understand you, he has said about accepting people back in to the Church but has not mentioned the need for repentance explicitly?

Is that correct?

To ask a honest question, would it be needed to reiterate that sinners are accepted back in to the Church itself considering that it too is Church teaching and would be included in the statement “Church teaching has not changed”?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This article touches at what I have found to be EXTREMELY disrespectful behavior by (some) traditionalist Catholics with regards to Francis’ recent remarks. People NEED to stop spinning and “correcting” the Pope, claiming “this is what Francis REALLY meant to say” etc…

Francis is incredibly clear and WISE.

Well! That sounds like a finger wagging correction of some traditionalist Catholics, complete with akimbo stance for an avatar and choice of user name, if I ever saw one.

It’s the secular media and liberal Catholics spinning the Pope. When the Pope’s predecessors in dealing with post-Christian issues of abortion, homosexuality and women ordination were explained using doctrine and natural law from which moral principles flow, members of the secular media and liberal Catholics were not shy in correcting the Pope. They reject the doctrine or the infallibility of the pope on certain matters of faith and morals that do not align with their personal life choices.

Now that the succession of interviews issued by the Pope with language that arguably signals that Church teachings are being relaxed, or changed, as they fervidly hope, questioning conservative Catholics are being, my oh my, disrespectful.

The Pope as the Vicar of Christ has our great respect and esteem. It is important to note that he can not contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles, even as he flings the church doors wide open to detractors and rejectors of Church teaching.

TV host Taryn Asher in the linked tv show clip Let it Rip commented that the Pope is “not endorsing the gay lifestyle but he’s saying we have to be more accepting of it.”

This is clearly liberal spin, as an example, a common theme in the news and propaganda of the left, injecting hope at best and assumption at worst that acceptance of gays / the gay lifestyle comes without need for conversion on the part of active and unrepentant gays.
,

 

[McCall1981]

Well! That sounds like a finger wagging correction of some traditionalist Catholics, complete with akimbo stance for an avatar and choice of user name, if I ever saw one.

It’s the secular media and liberal Catholics spinning the Pope. When the Pope’s predecessors in dealing with post-Christian issues of abortion, homosexuality and women ordination were explained using doctrine and natural law from which moral principles flow, members of the secular media and liberal Catholics were not shy in correcting the Pope. They reject the doctrine or the infallibility of the pope on certain matters of faith and morals that do not align with their personal life choices.

Now that the succession of interviews issued by the Pope with language that arguably signals that Church teachings are being relaxed, or changed, as they fervidly hope, questioning conservative Catholics are being, my oh my, disrespectful.

The Pope as the Vicar of Christ has our great respect and esteem. It is important to note that he can not contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles, even as he flings the church doors wide open to detractors and rejectors of Church teaching.

TV host Taryn Ashed in the linked tv show clip Let it Rip commented that the Pope is “not endorsing the gay lifestyle but he’s saying we have to be more accepting of it.”

This is clearly liberal spin, as an example, a common theme in the news and propaganda of the left, injecting hope at best and assumption at worst that acceptance of gays / the gay lifestyle comes without need for conversion on the part of active and unrepentant gays.
,

Exactly, it’s the liberal media and part of the Church that spins the Pope comments, not the “conservatives”. It’s said over and over that all of his statements have to be taken in the light of orthodoxy, but that is ignored by the liberal groups that want to ignore it.

The “Nuns on the Bus” said he seems “teachable”, if that’s not spinning I don’t know what is.

You also don’t see anyone in the secular media, or on National catholic Reporter, or any other liberal groups quoting the other 99.999% of his statements (the statements that can’t possibly be spun), they will only quote the one in a thousand that happens to be just vague enough that they can spin it.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Exactly, it’s the liberal media and part of the Church that spins the Pope comments, not the “conservatives”. It’s said over and over that all of his statements have to be taken in the light of orthodoxy, but that is ignored by the liberal groups that want to ignore it.

The “Nuns on the Bus” said he seems “teachable”, if that’s not spinning I don’t know what is.

Yes.

They first reduced Jesus to this super pacifist fluffy cuddly figure who reflects an emotional view of love. This Jesus will never scold unrepentant sinners. He calls those who scold them hypocrites. This Jesus will accept you for who you are (including your sinful ways). This Jesus will also not send anyone to hell because how can he do so when he is so full of “love”.

Now they are making Pope Francis in the image of this new Jesus they invented. Everything that the Pope says that cannot be twisted to fit in to their agenda is conveniently ignored. The rest is emphasized and defended with an unimaginable zeal.

Then they take all of that fluff to smack any Orthodox Catholic in the face with it.