I Absolutely Love Pope Francis!

[JustPink]

:banghead:

No words necessary. I hear ya.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Eh, well that’s just your personal opinion, of course. Which is my point exactly. It’s a matter of personal opinion and taste, and what speaks the loudest and closest to each specific individual.

I cited the Church’s history in which high liturgy has been vastly more prevalent and low liturgy is really a modern deviation from the norm. The precedent is clearly on the side of the “high church” type - just examine the Missale Romanum from 1570 to 1962, to say nothing of prior years; still more examine the Eastern liturgies like the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and I think you’ll find formality as a common thread through the Eucharistic sacrifice. Look at Vatican II, which says that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (*Sacrosanctum Concilium *36), and which acknowledges that “Gregorian chant [is] specially suited to the Roman liturgy” and that “other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (*SC *116).

Further, examine the instruction Liturgiam authenticam of the Congregation for Divine Worship, which says that “the liturgical texts should be considered as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals; thus, they should be free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression” (27) and that the aforementioned Instruction has as a foreseen and desired effect the development of “a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language. Thus it may happen that a certain manner of speech which has come to be considered somewhat obsolete in daily usage may continue to be maintained in the liturgical context.” The Instruction, of course, does not say that liturgical texts are to be determined by what speaks most greatly to a particular congregation; it allows for that (since it allows for vernacular translations) but still emphasizes the importance of speaking to particular congregations within the tradition of the Roman Rite.

Still more examine studies of people like Fr. Michael Lang who in his Voice of the Church at Prayer notes the development of a specifically Christian manner of articulation, and that even in times where people spoke Latin ordinarily, Christian Latin was quite different than the vernacular speech, to such a great degree that St. Augustine found reading the Bible quite difficult because he was not versed in “the Lord’s way of speaking.”

So no, it’s not just my personal opinion.

Ok… Pope Francis isn’t insinuating otherwise so I don’t know how it applies here.

I was responding to you, not to the Pope.

 

[JustPink]

I cited the Church’s history in which high liturgy has been vastly more prevalent and low liturgy is really a modern deviation from the norm. The precedent is clearly on the side of the “high church” type - just examine the Missale Romanum from 1570 to 1962, to say nothing of prior years; still more examine the Eastern liturgies like the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and I think you’ll find formality as a common thread through the Eucharistic sacrifice. Look at Vatican II, which says that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (*Sacrosanctum Concilium *36), and which acknowledges that “Gregorian chant [is] specially suited to the Roman liturgy” and that “other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (*SC *116).

Further, examine the instruction Liturgiam authenticam of the Congregation for Divine Worship, which says that “the liturgical texts should be considered as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals; thus, they should be free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression” (27) and that the aforementioned Instruction has as a foreseen and desired effect the development of “a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language. Thus it may happen that a certain manner of speech which has come to be considered somewhat obsolete in daily usage may continue to be maintained in the liturgical context.” The Instruction, of course, does not say that liturgical texts are to be determined by what speaks most greatly to a particular congregation; it allows for that (since it allows for vernacular translations) but still emphasizes the importance of speaking to particular congregations within the tradition of the Roman Rite.

Still more examine studies of people like Fr. Michael Lang who in his Voice of the Church at Prayer notes the development of a specifically Christian manner of articulation, and that even in times where people spoke Latin ordinarily, Christian Latin was quite different than the vernacular speech, to such a great degree that St. Augustine found reading the Bible quite difficult because he was not versed in “the Lord’s way of speaking.”

So no, it’s not just my personal opinion.

Excuse me. It is A personal opinion. Not just yours, since I’m sure others share that opinion. Sorry for not being completely clear.

I was responding to you, not to the Pope.

That’s odd. I never suggested such a thing either. So I still don’t see how it applies.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Excuse me. It is A personal opinion. Not just yours, since I’m sure others share that opinion. Sorry for not being completely clear.

Ah. Well I’m glad that I share the “personal opinion” of the majority of Catholics (and otherwise apostolic Christians) in history, the Vatican II Council Fathers (who taught this “personal opinion” in a Council Constitution), and the Congregation for Divine Worship, as well as experts who have studied this topic.

I think we’re beyond the territory of personal opinion.

(A note, since this is an unfortunate misunderstanding these days: declaring something to be “an opinion” doesn’t mean that it can be summarily disregarded and one’s own thoughts can be substituted as equally meritorious; also, dissenting from a massive consensus opinion like this one should require a proportionate justification.)

That’s odd. I never suggested such a thing either.

“There is no right or wrong, really. Neither is there one way that is universally more beneficial to everyone’s relationship with God. It just depends on what each individual needs in order to get the most out of that relationship.” In response I gave several things which would be “wrong” - neglecting the seriousness of the sacrifice of the Cross, which is actually occurring on the altar, as well as neglecting the Roman patrimony of the Roman Rite. I also said that the liturgy should not be organized according to how particular congregations or people think their relationships with God are to be benefited. Because in reality, the benefit to people’s relationship with God is derived not from being architects of their own liturgy, but from worshiping God in communion with the Church of the past and present, which worships una voce - with one voice.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Ah. Well I’m glad that I share the “personal opinion” of the majority of Catholics (and otherwise apostolic Christians) in history, the Vatican II Council Fathers (who taught this “personal opinion” in a Council Constitution), and the Congregation for Divine Worship, as well as experts who have studied this topic.

I think we’re beyond the territory of personal opinion.

I think this conversation shows that being poorly informed about the liturgy and having the impression that anything goes always overrides official documents. I wonder what would happen if people actually went and read these documents they argue against.

 

[JustPink]

Ah. Well I’m glad that I share the “personal opinion” of the majority of Catholics (and otherwise apostolic Christians) in history, the Vatican II Council Fathers (who taught this “personal opinion” in a Council Constitution), and the Congregation for Divine Worship, as well as experts who have studied this topic.

I think we’re beyond the territory of personal opinion.

Haha ok. You can continue to tell yourself that, and that this type of mass is “better” if you want, as long as you understand that it IS a matter of opinion.

“There is no right or wrong, really. Neither is there one way that is universally more beneficial to everyone’s relationship with God. It just depends on what each individual needs in order to get the most out of that relationship.” In response I gave several things which would be “wrong” - neglecting the seriousness of the sacrifice of the Cross, which is actually occurring on the altar, as well as neglecting the Roman patrimony of the Roman Rite. I also said that the liturgy should not be organized according to how particular congregations or people think their relationships with God are to be benefited. Because in reality, the benefit to people’s relationship with God is derived not from being architects of their own liturgy, but from worshiping God in communion with the Church of the past and present, which worships una voce - with one voice.

Lol I was referring to “verbiage,” I wasn’t referring to not taking religious matters “seriously” in the sense of not acknowledging how important it is. Good grief, dude. Let’s remember that we’re talking about this post here below:

Originally Posted by Luvz2travel

^THAT is what I was saying is a personal opinion. So let’s keep things into context here and not drift so far away from the actual point like you so often tend to do around here. It is very annoying.

 

[JustPink]

I think this conversation shows that being poorly informed about the liturgy and having the impression that anything goes always overrides official documents. I wonder what would happen if people actually went and read these documents they argue against.

I hope you’re not referring to me having the opinion that “anything goes” because neither I, nor anyone here seems to have that belief.

 

[YinYangMom]

Unfortunately, I think he’s going the wrong way. We need more of a hardliner who will stand up and promote the truth. While he’s not denying the truth at all, he’s making it much easier for people to distort Catholic teaching. We already have bishops and priests who preach that it doesn’t matter what you do, you’re going to go to heaven anyway. All this will do is encourage more false teaching in the church and they will be taken for the truth.

From the moment Pope Benedict XVI announced he was stepping down it became evident that God has a special message for us at this time. It’s not fire and brimstone. it’s not a call to change. It’s a call back to our roots, the basics of the love and mercy of Jesus. Don’t you get it? This is HIS Church. We are to to be led by Her, not the other way around. Listen to the message. Discern what it means, especially those who presume to know what His Church needs more than God Himself.

Pope Francis does not hold back. He is loving, he is kind, he is actively modeling what it means to be Catholic. I wasn’t ready for that, I wasn’t looking for it, but it’s here and I have to admit, it’s like a splash of cool water in my face, shocking at first, but refreshing later.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Haha ok. You can continue to tell yourself that, and that this type of mass is “better” if you want, as long as you understand that it IS a matter of opinion.

It isn’t a matter of opinion. First, Vatican II taught that Latin is to be preserved. Second, on a purely essential level, the sacrament of the Eucharist is done when this is my body and this is the chalice of my blood are said - that is the essence of the Eucharistic liturgy. The rest is accidental, including Scripture readings, prayers, etc. Is there any way of judging the merits of the accidents of the liturgy, or is it all just a “matter of opinion”? In other words, would the Church be perfectly justified and acting in accordance with good liturgical and religious principles if she reduced the Mass to the priest saying “this is my body” and “this is the chalice of my blood”? Of course not. Why not? Because it eliminates valuable things and is out of conformity with the tradition handed down to us and grown from apostolic times.

So proposing that liturgical form is a matter of opinion is rather indefensible, really - just try to support it using any accepted Catholic principles. I challenge you to do that, rather than just tossing unsupported point after point out there.

Lol I was referring to “verbiage,” I wasn’t referring to not taking religious matters “seriously” in the sense of not acknowledging how important it is. Good grief, dude. Let’s remember that we’re talking about this post here below:

What “verbiage” one uses to express things reflects on the seriousness one gives to the subject. Papal encyclicals are written in a different style than rap music. Similarly, the prayer “We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency, that it may ascend before Thy divine Majesty, as a sweet savor, for our salvation, and for that of the whole world” bespeaks a greater mystery than “Father, you did X. Help us do Y” ever could. Therefore the verbiage is to be determined according to the reality which the verbiage is meant to express, not according to the subjective wishes of particular congregations.

^THAT is what I was saying is a personal opinion. So let’s keep things into context here and not drift so far away from the actual point like you so often tend to do around here. It is very annoying.

Exactly what in that post was a personal opinion? It was just an elaboration on the accepted dictum lex orandi, lex credendi. Hence the Catechism says in section 1124, “When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi … The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.” (It continues: “For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.”)

With regard to “like I so often tend to do,” I find that entertaining since I am the one presenting reasoned points supported with evidence (you may be able to tell that I have studied this topic quite a bit) rather than just waving the hand and dismissing things I don’t like as an “opinion.”

 

[JustPink]

It isn’t a matter of opinion. First, Vatican II taught that Latin is to be preserved. Second, on a purely essential level, the sacrament of the Eucharist is done when this is my body and this is the chalice of my blood are said - that is the essence of the Eucharistic liturgy. The rest is accidental, including Scripture readings, prayers, etc. Is there any way of judging the merits of the accidents of the liturgy, or is it all just a “matter of opinion”? In other words, would the Church be perfectly justified and acting in accordance with good liturgical and religious principles if she reduced the Mass to the priest saying “this is my body” and “this is the chalice of my blood”? Of course not. Why not? Because it eliminates valuable things and is out of conformity with the tradition handed down to us and grown from apostolic times.

So proposing that liturgical form is a matter of opinion is rather indefensible, really - just try to support it using any accepted Catholic principles. I challenge you to do that, rather than just tossing unsupported point after point out there.

What “verbiage” one uses to express things reflects on the seriousness one gives to the subject. Papal encyclicals are written in a different style than rap music. Similarly, the prayer “We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency, that it may ascend before Thy divine Majesty, as a sweet savor, for our salvation, and for that of the whole world” bespeaks a greater mystery than “Father, you did X. Help us do Y” ever could.

Exactly what in that post was a personal opinion? It was just an elaboration on the accepted dictum lex orandi, lex credendi. Hence the Catechism says in section 1124, “When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi … The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.” (It continues: “For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.”)

With regard to “like I so often tend to do,” I find that entertaining since I am the one presenting reasoned points supported with evidence (you may be able to tell that I have studied this topic quite a bit) rather than just waving the hand and dismissing things I don’t like as an “opinion.”

Again, context please. I was referring to your answer to Luv2Travel’s post saying that she’s glad we have a pope that is more concerned with other things like the poor and needy verses verbiage of mass. (I re-posted it for you and everything, though it’s as if it went right over your head). You then responded to it by insinuating that a certain type of verbiage is somehow more beneficial to everyone involved… to which I pointed out is simply not true. Anyway, the first problem is that you are taking the conversation waaay out of the context it started in - the context of that post.

Of course, I agree that the heart of what is said in mass is important and needs to stay the same. I wasn’t saying otherwise. But we are talking specifically about verbiage here, and not everyone is going to benefit from a more formal verbiage or from the Latin mass. It is a matter of taste and opinion. I for one, am in complete support and agreement with Pope Francis and the focus he is taking. I have absolutely 0 qualms with the fact that he’s not so concerned with verbiage of mass. I’m sorry you are having issues with that, but I really don’t know what to tell you.

 

[YinYangMom]

It just seems some are so busy taking about what the pope did or did not say or how he said it - worried about how the “world” might interpret it - that there seems little thought given to what God might be trying to tell us, the faithful, through this man who is Christ’s Vicar.
To me - this is what should be more important. What is Christ, through Francis, telling us.

Peace
James

Well put.

I’m not so worried about how the world interprets his messages. Mainstream media is enthralled. This is good. They seek him out. They actually give what he says column space and airtime. They are not putting him on the back shelf. This is important.
They may be a bit off in presenting his message, but they’re seeking his opinion, and in time, I trust the Spirit will lead them to the Truth as a result.

In the meantime the USCCB and the Vatican have had time to create an internet presence that enables us Catholics the opportunity to not only receive the Pope’s messages directly from him, but to have access to explanations, clarifications, and solid discussions through Catholic Answers and other apologist bloggers who have also been able to establish an internet presence. Coincidence? No. Divine Providence. The time is right for the message God has to share with the world.

 

[YinYangMom]

I just believe the end result of this will not be what the pope is looking for. He’s a good man, but I speaks too freely, for lack of a better term and is spreading confusion. He has to be aware of how the secular media will twist what he says and be as precise as possible. Yes, WE all know what he meant and understand it, but you have people who don’t and will twist it because it’s so vague.

Even people with good intentions will be in trouble. You’ll have people who don’t know the truth here this and think the church is changing and might start going to church. Unfortunately, most priests and teachers won’t correct these misunderstandings so they’ll continue and spread. Then you’ll have the people who are hostile to the church intentionally trying to twist what the pope says to suit their agenda and push for more “change”. I’ve already heard from people saying they need to protest the church even more now because the church is “so close to approving same sex marriage.”

Sounds like you have little faith in the Spirit. Please don’t be so discouraged. It’s just as likely the returning Catholic will find a priest reinvigorated by Pope Francis’ message. Besides, from what I gather from the Pope’s interview, the onus falls more on how you and I receive these returning members at church, not the priest. They’re likely to have more interaction with us than with him. If we welcome them with truth and love then they will stay, and if the priest is still a bit off the mark his negative influence will not have as much of an effect.

I think the pope is perhaps too nice and it will ultimately hurt the church in the long run.

Can’t help but think there were quite a few disciples back in the day saying the exact same thing. Judas comes to mind, not that I’m comparing your position to his, but think about about it, Judas couldn’t make sense of the soft side of this Messiah so he interceded as he believed was in Jesus’ best interest. People were looking for a different type of leader even back then.

 

[YinYangMom]

It’s good that you’ve found some semi-reliable news, then. All I know is that my friends keep coming to me saying “Did you hear that the pope said this? This changes everything!” And I keep responding, “Well, actually…”

I’m getting this too, which is why I finally had to read the interview. This is what I like about the Pope being misunderstood, though; if it wasn’t for those people reacting the way they did I wouldn’t have made the time to read the interview. Their enthusiasm led me to receive the message myself, instead of relying on reports on the message. I’ll say this, Pope Francis speaks so frequently and is being picked up so often that it’s becoming a challenge to keep up!

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Again, context please. I was referring to your answer to Luv2Travel’s post saying that she’s glad we have a pope that is more concerned with other things like the poor and needy verses verbiage of mass.

And? I objected to the implication that the “state of the Church” is somehow independent of the liturgy, as if the liturgy is some accidental aspect that doesn’t have to do directly with the state of the Church.

(I re-posted it for you and everything, though it’s as if it went right over your head).

What are you talking about? I responded to what you posted. I saw a distinction being drawn between the state of the Church and the liturgy, and I wanted to bring up the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi to show that they can’t be separated. Seriously, the condescension is unwarranted.

You then responded to it by insinuating that a certain type of verbiage is somehow more beneficial to everyone involved… to which I pointed out is simply not true.

It is true, though. If it weren’t, the liturgy *could *in principle be “anything goes” except for the essential points of consecration. But it can’t - that’s ridiculous. Why not? Because the Church recognizes that one particular liturgical structure is better than other possible liturgical structures. Otherwise she would not prescribe it to be observed. Similarly the Church prescribes one particular form of translation (the corrected Roman Missal of 2011) over another possible form of translation (the previous inaccurate translation) precisely because she recognizes it as better and more suitable to liturgical worship, and therefore better for congregations, since they have a right to dignified and authentic liturgy in continuity with their ancestors and patrimony.

It seems that there is an issue about where spiritual benefit is derived in the Mass texts. I don’t think the view that the texts themselves considered in a vacuum and their influence on one’s internal relationship with God is the point. These texts have developed through the faith of our ancestors who lived and died for Christ, and our reading and hearing of them is to pray with the whole Church - militant, suffering, and triumphant - since we pray here together with our own generation and previous generations on Earth, with those in Purgatory who knew and loved the liturgy, and with those in Heaven who experience the glories of the liturgy in their purest form. We pray in the Mass with one voice, from the Church as one to God who is one; it is fitting that we should pray in continuity with our ancestors, with past, present, and future also together as one.

Of course, I agree that the heart of what is said in mass is important and needs to stay the same. I wasn’t saying otherwise. But we are talking specifically about verbiage here, and not everyone is going to benefit from a more formal verbiage or from the Latin mass. It is a matter of taste and opinion.

Ok, I can agree that there is a degree to which it is a matter of taste (appropriate liturgical Latin vs. appropriate liturgical English, for example - consult Liturgiam authenticam for what constitutes “appropriate” and “liturgical”. Although even between those 2 languages I think there are objective factors to consider) but Catholic culture would be in wide agreement if I said that to make the liturgical texts overly casual, dumbed down, or too attached to the quickly shifting manners of speech of the day is to make them unsuitable for liturgical use. And I think it would be difficult to hold that the previous English translation was not at least one of those three.

I for one, am in complete support and agreement with Pope Francis and the focus he is taking. I have absolutely 0 qualms with the fact that he’s not so concerned with verbiage of mass. I’m sorry you are having issues with that, but I really don’t know what to tell you.

Yes, but how much experience do you have on this topic? Perhaps your lack of interest in liturgical form is due to not having exposure to the profound ideas proposed by liturgically-astute theologians like Cardinal Ratzinger (in Spirit of the Liturgy, for example), or perhaps you have not developed an appreciation of the Church’s ancient liturgical forms. I am not assuming, just giving thoughts or possibilities. The reason is that one does not always immediately perceive the depth of the matter, so it can take a good amount of appreciation and thought to realize how important good liturgy is. But it seems to me that it must be, since the traditional groups and parishes appear to have no issue with vocations.

 

[JustPink]

And? I objected to the implication that the “state of the Church” is somehow independent of the liturgy, as if the liturgy is some accidental aspect that doesn’t have to do directly with the state of the Church.

What are you talking about? I responded to what you posted. I saw a distinction being drawn between the state of the Church and the liturgy, and I wanted to bring up the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi to show that they can’t be separated. Seriously, the condescension is unwarranted.

It is true, though. If it weren’t, the liturgy *could *in principle be “anything goes” except for the essential points of consecration. But it can’t - that’s ridiculous. Why not? Because the Church recognizes that one particular liturgical structure is better than other possible liturgical structures. Otherwise she would not prescribe it to be observed. Similarly the Church prescribes one particular form of translation (the corrected Roman Missal of 2011) over another possible form of translation (the previous inaccurate translation) precisely because she recognizes it as better and more suitable to liturgical worship, and therefore better for congregations, since they have a right to dignified and authentic liturgy in continuity with their ancestors and patrimony.

It seems that there is an issue about where spiritual benefit is derived in the Mass texts. I don’t think the view that the texts themselves considered in a vacuum and their influence on one’s internal relationship with God is the point. These texts have developed through the faith of our ancestors who lived and died for Christ, and our reading and hearing of them is to pray with the whole Church - militant, suffering, and triumphant - since we pray here together with our own generation and previous generations on Earth, with those in Purgatory who knew and loved the liturgy, and with those in Heaven who experience the glories of the liturgy in their purest form. We pray in the Mass with one voice, from the Church as one to God who is one; it is fitting that we should pray in continuity with our ancestors, with past, present, and future also together as one.

Ok, I can agree that there is a degree to which it is a matter of taste (appropriate liturgical Latin vs. appropriate liturgical English, for example - consult Liturgiam authenticam for what constitutes “appropriate” and “liturgical”. Although even between those 2 languages I think there are objective factors to consider) but Catholic culture would be in wide agreement if I said that to make the liturgical texts overly casual, dumbed down, or too attached to the quickly shifting manners of speech of the day is to make them unsuitable for liturgical use. And I think it would be difficult to hold that the previous English translation was not at least one of those three.

Yes, but how much experience do you have on this topic? Perhaps your lack of interest in liturgical form is due to not having exposure to the profound ideas proposed by liturgically-astute theologians like Cardinal Ratzinger (in Spirit of the Liturgy, for example), or perhaps you have not developed an appreciation of the Church’s ancient liturgical forms. I am not assuming, just giving thoughts or possibilities. The reason is that one does not always immediately perceive the depth of the matter, so it can take a good amount of appreciation and thought to realize how important good liturgy is. But it seems to me that it must be, since the traditional groups and parishes appear to have no issue with vocations.

Lol, forget it. You seem unable to keep things in the context they were originally brought up in, and the context of which I speak so I don’t see the point in repeating myself again.

Like I said, I’m sorry to hear you take issue with our new pope but I don’t know what to tell you. I personally think he’s great.

 

[JustPink]

I like his style he tells the truth in a loving way. He’s also more concerned about the state of the church then what someone names their child or what verbage is said during mass. He’s a people pope. I pray he’s pope a long time and enjoys good health.

Agreed! He’s just what we need. Praise God!

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Lol, forget it. You seem unable to keep things in the context they were originally brought up in, and the context of which I speak so I don’t see the point in repeating myself again.

I actually took all necessary context into account. If I didn’t, I’m sure you will be able to point out *exactly *what I said that failed to take context into account, and *exactly *how that led what I said to be erroneous. Of course, it’s extremely rude and obnoxious just to sit on the sidelines and say “you’re wrong! you’re taking things out of context! you don’t make sense!” and then refuse to support your claims or to engage your discussion partner when he takes significant time out of his day to write a thoughtful response to your post, so I am sure you don’t mean to do that, do you?

Then again, maybe it’s a defense mechanism when you realize you’re in over your head with someone who actually knows and studies this sort of thing

Like I said, I’m sorry to hear you take issue with our new pope but I don’t know what to tell you. I personally think he’s great.

Wow, can you point to any place where I “took issue” with the Pope?

 

[joshvanrad]

I’m so sick of the ridiculous arguments of people around this forum. It seems to be getting progressively worse, and I am blown away that my threads become the grounds for unending battles.

I wish I could just close this thread because it is evident that some people would prefer to argue their point whether they are right or wrong just for the sake of arguing, or proving they are right, or attacking someone they may have a grudge against. Maybe if we were all as humble as Pope Francis…

I am frustrated, ashamed, and angry that when I try to start a a nice thread about the leader of our church that it would degrade as quickly as it did, to the level that it did.

Discern that, my friends

Joshua C.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

I’m so sick of the ridiculous arguments of people around this forum. It seems to be getting progressively worse, and I am blown away that my threads become the grounds for unending battles.

I wish I could just close this thread because it is evident that some people would prefer to argue their point whether they are right or wrong just for the sake of arguing, or proving they are right, or attacking someone they may have a grudge against. Maybe if we were all as humble as Pope Francis…

Of course, it is not so much disagreement that is a problem but the manner of disagreement (this is a forum, and it would be naive to expect everyone to agree on everything) since it is clear that one side is persistently unwilling to engage in critical evaluation of its thoughts, preferring as it does to fire off salvo after salvo of unsupported positions, to place its hands firmly on top of its ears, and to say “la la la, I’m not listening” when its opinions are treated as less than infallible divine oracles.

I am frustrated, ashamed, and angry that when I try to start a a nice thread about the leader of our church that it would degrade as quickly as it did, to the level that it did.

Discern that, my friends

Joshua C.

You seem to have a strong reaction to something that isn’t that much of a big deal, no? Is it that bad if people disagree on something? I would expect no one here disputes that the Pope is a wonderful man. So if misconceptions about the liturgy or some theological topic arise, is it a problem to correct those misconceptions?

 

[joshvanrad]

I refuse to feed your ego. We have discussed things before and I feel there is no discussion with you, Audit- there is only argument.

I am finished posting in this thread for fear that I am beginning to feed into this issue. I will go and pray for our Pope instead of battling over trivial details.

Ite in pace,
Joshua C.