Is Catholicism A Democracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JReducation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I couldn’t disagree more strongly. The real rejection and criticism of the pope came not regarding unorthdox practices - such were celebrated by many within the church (and of course by those outside the church if that tells you anything), but was in regard to his orthodoxy on moral issues such as abortion, contraception, etc.

Such rejections and criticisms went for the most part unaddressed - and in some circles (even among alot of clergy) - were celebrated vocally and publically.

On the other hand, criticism of unorthodox practices (traditional concerns that is) were never given such leeway…such were demonized instantly. Such concerns would get one thrown out of seminaries, off of parish councils, out of teaching PSR, etc. In fact, even criticizing those who criticized the pope on these matters was frowned upon as not being in line with the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

Only now are we beginning on a larger scale to realize such “traditional” concerns were and are legitimate. Thank you Pope Benedict XVI!

No my friend, if you are concerned with the “democratization” of the Church, your concern does not lie with “traditionalist” catholics. Not by a long shot. The very idea of “democratization” is a modern - “liberal” - phenomena. You won’t find it among traditionalists.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
Actually, while I recognize that you feel free to disagree with me, I have to object when you’re in error. It was in relation to Humanae Vitae (and Pope Paul VI) that many Catholics in this nation began to berate the Pope in terms of his “not listening” to the suggestions of the laity (as in: hey we’re a democratic nation).

At that time, I recall no one of the traditionalist view making a public outcry to shut up the complainers (who were in error and who should have been SHUT UP). Further, when Pope John Paul II visited the States and was verbally insulted at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception by one (Sr.) Theresa Kane, rsm, who had been assigned to WELCOME him, again I remember no great outcry from ANY traditionalists at the profound disrespect and random cruelty exemplified by Kane’s behavior. In my opinion, the grievous example given by the most radical liberals has been followed and emulated by the most radical conservatives with the Church in this country.

It is only on CA and only by traditionalists that I have heard anyone refer to any of the Popes (over the past 100 years) as heretics and public sinners. I have objected strongly to such statements and will continue to do so - exactly as I objected strongly to remarks such as those offered by Theresa Kane and many others. Two similar wrongs will never make one objective right. As for those who dare to judge a Pope, I have to believe they put themselves at great risk of being judged for such actions. (The possibility of giving grave scandal to the young and innocent is another matter as well.)

So while the act of rebuking Popes might have been INITIATED by one group of extremists, it was never called to a halt by the other group. Indeed, the other group seems to have “caught the fever” of random condemnations of those who serve as Holy Father(s).

Please be assured that I am not accusing you of calling any recent Pope a public sinner or a heretic. In fact, I remember all too well what posters stated such things.

Needless to say (?), I believe there is no need for me to trust the opinions of those posters regarding the Church or her Teachings.
 
I saw neither the Good Friday Liturgy at the Vatican, only your description of it (which parts to my ears sound troublesome as you describe and interpret it), so can’t comment on it fairly. Nor did I see the “complaining”, only your complaining of this complaining. It seems to me, and don’t take this the wrong way, ygat you seem to have an “issue” here with some fellow catholics’ voicing a concern for the Church. Something about removing the plank from one’s own eye comes to mind…hmmmm.

Christ’s promise to the Church does not guarantee that every single homily issued from a pulpit at the Vatican is going to be an excellent rock solid homily. Heck, if documents of a Council can be ambiguous, certainly a homily can be - and thus be prone to misinterpretation. I will look for the text of the homily online and comment on it/your comments later.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
First, I’m not complaining. I was answering your statement that traditionalists do not want democratize the Church and that one would never hear such a thing come from them. I was pointing how I have seen complaints on different threads about bits and pieces of the Good Friday Liturgy. This is not a complaint, it was an observation of what some people didn’t like.

My position is that some people are never satisfied with anything. That’s where I was going with this. I felt that the entire service brought together some Tridentine, NO and even Franciscan elements very seamlessly and very reverently. I don’t think that they could have done a better job at it.

At some point, people (concservative or liberal) have to realize that they run to risk of trying to make their own rules for the Church. When you do this, then you also run the risk of not benefiting from what the Church offers you.

Please stop pulling planks out of my eyes that are not there. That’s rude.

JR 🙂
 
I just want to add that I went and read the sermon on the link that Indy supplied and I don’t see what a poster on another thread found wrong with it.

The poster complained because it was not an appropriate sermon for Good Friday and that it proposes that God saves all people, even those who are not Catholic.

I see nothing in the sermon that suggests anything that is contrary to scritpure or Catholic teaching.

Another person complained that the sermon suggests that times have changed.

It does suggest that, but again, there is nothing wrong with that either. He simply puts forth the need for ecumenism at two different levels.

In the end he concludes by proclaiming that Christ died for all. To me, that’s the message of Good Friday.

Once again, thanks for the link, Indy. It reinforces what I heard on TV. It is easier to read it, because on TV I was trying to listen to the preacher and the English speaking translator at the same time.

Happy Easter!

JR 🙂
 
Dunstin et al:

I want to suggest something. You can take it or leave it as it’s just a suggestion. We all know that there are weaknesses in the Church and that they have been there since the beginning. The first recorded weakness was Peter’s resistance to admitting Gentiles into the Church. We see how Paul had to present his case and finally Peter accepted Paul’s cause for the Gentiles. From there the number of debates, schisms, heresies and abuses are too long to list on this tiny space. That would require an entire book. I won’t write it, because I believe several people have already done so.

I get the impression, correct me if I’m wrong, that you have great devotion to the writings of Dr. van Hildebrand, whom I believe was a very holy man. What impressed me most about him were his love for the Church and his reverential obedience.

Have you ever thought of looking at our Christian faith and the Gospel from the same perspective as the great saints and mystics? I believe that you would still see the weaknesses in the Church that need correction, but you would also see a great deal of possibilities and promise.

You once mentioned St. Francis de Sales in one of your posts. St. Francis de Sales (we have too many St. Francis) is a good place to start. If we adopt his method and his spirit, we find that he focussed more on spiritual direction and spiritual formation, as we see in Introduction to the Devout Life. He makes it his ministry to write and preach ways that bring people closer to God through prayer and charity. He brings a certain joy to the Christian life. He was not ignorant of the Church’s weaknesses. The man was very intelligent. But his focus was on bringing individual’s to sainthood. He unites himself to that part of the Church that was most important, the formation of the soul. His writings and teachings all focus on the soul, not on the Church’s strengths and weaknesses, but on the strengths and weaknesses of the soul.

He advocated for the return of the Calvinist to the Church and gained a great deal of ground. He preached to their souls, not to their weakness. He preached to them of the love of Christ and how this love had not abandoned the Church which they struggled with. He also made great progress in bringing souls to Christ by preaching and writing about the poor and living an ascetical life. He taught asceticism through his sermons and his life.

He saw the need for a new form of religious life and took advantage of Jane de Chantal’s desire to be a Carmelite, but her inability to do so for many reasons. Together they founded the Order of the Visitation which follows a mitigated version of the Benedictine Rule. Instead of making things more difficult or challenging for Jane and her sisters, he tried to soften them so that they too could reach the spiritual union of the soul with Christ that Teresa has preached for her Carmelite Brothers and sisters.

Francis de Sales found what was good in the Church and capitalized on it. By doing so, he also made great contributions to renewing the Church of his time. Like Calvin, he too saw many weaknesses in the Church and he agreed with some of Calvin’s concerns. Unlike Calvin, Francis de Sales looked at the Church through the eyes of Christ. He saw the Church, her leadership and her faithful as the objects of his love. He did not look at them with condescension, because they made poor prudential judgements. He did not look at the Calvinists with condescension, because they had pulled so far away from the weaknesses of the Church that they fell into heresy.

Francis de Sales looked at everything with joy. Francis came to the conclusion that whatever God had in store for him and the Church was good, because God is love. This faithful devotion to the God of love not only expelled his doubts, but also influenced the rest of his life and his teachings.

Our Holy Father St. Francis of Assisi, for whom St. Francis de Sales was named, called this the way of Holy Poverty, detaching ourselves from what we want and leaving ourselves open for what God wants and when God wants it.

Maybe this vision is healthier and will lead us and others to Heaven.

Happy Easter!

JR 🙂
 
JR,
The above is beautifully written.
May we all take it to heart this Easter Season.

PAX
James
 
JR et al - I’ll add this by way of confession and apology.

Because I was raised to adulthood in the pre-Vatican II Church, I was familiar with a style of Catholic faithfulness that afforded little welcome to finger-pointing or blame, especially in regard to the Church, its Teachings, the Holy Father and the other bishops. That was simply the circumstances of my upbringing in the Catholic Church. AT THE SAME TIME, WE WERE FORMED TO ACCEPT DIRECTION FROM ROME EVEN WHEN SUCH CLEAR DIRECTION MEANT CHANGE.

I admit to “taking it personally” when I hear other Catholics give a big “bad news” voice to what has transpired within the Church, often blaming everyone but themselves for a failure of faith, prayer and personal sacrifice. Indeed, all of us bear such responsibilities in our efforts to keep the Bride of Christ a spotless entity. I’m especially grieved when I see and/or hear public attacks that seem to be fully lacking in charity and compassion. For about forty years, I’ve faced down such people who have heaped disrepect on Church Teachings and Church leaders. Until very recently, all of those detractors were of the “liberal persuasion.” I’ve faced them in public, in private, face-to-face and through personal correspondence. I’d do so again in a heartbeat.

Yet until the here-and-now of CA traditional forum, I’ve never heard or seen such inflammatory accusations against the Chair of Peter. So, I speak out here as well. If I’m too frank or un-gentle in my approaqch, then I apologize to anyone who might take offense. However, having been raised in the very heart of the Church, I must add that I know I MUST speak up since I find that pointless atacks on the Church are, for me, pointless atacks on my dearest family.
 
After reading through the sermon you mention at the Good Friday liturgy, I’ll comment ona couple of things from your post…

  1. The sermon was on Ecumenism
If Ecumenism is properly understood as efforts to bring folks back to the Church, then there is no problem. Misunderstandings often pop up on what is not said, or what is said amiguously, in the modern approach. And with that, yeah, I think the homily was pretty typical of today’s ecumenical approach. That is, a bit watered down, ambiguous in parts. Some very good things in there of course, but alot went unsaid, and unfortunately, one can come away with some strange conclusions.
…2. The preacher said that Christ can and does save beyond the Catholic Church.
If you mean beyond the visible bonds of HMC, then you would be fine. However, if you mean to say that one can be saved outside HMC - and leave it at that - then are drifting into dangerous ground here - mighty dangerous.
… The preacher said that the writings on previous popes on the Mysitical Body was misunderstood and misapplied.
Sorry, I don’t see that in the text. Can you provide a quote or something that leads you to believe this?
…The preacher is an ordained priest. Why didn’t he wear at least a stole to preach? How does the rule of St. Francis overrule the rule that priests must wear stoles to preach?
No biggie.
…5. They used Arabic during the service…
As you said, this wasn’t an EF service - it’s permissable.
…They gave communion in the hand to those who put out their hands…
As you said, this wasn’t an EF service - it’s permissable.
…The prayer for the Jews did not condemn their lack of faith in Christ.
As you said, this wasn’t an EF service - the Good Friday prayers are much “softer” (painfully so, I’d say) in the OF. And just because the OF prayer doesn’t mention condemnation for lack of faith in Christ doesn’t mean the lack of faith in Christ won’t condemn. This is an example of reading unorthodox interpretations into the text what is not there - as if faith in Christ is optional for salvation. C’mon!

Seems these things you mention are permissable in the OF, and I have to ask, did someone actually complained about each of these things, or are you just assuming they did based on their preference for the EF in the first place?
…8. The preacher said that Christ did not wear a seamless garment.
He said he wore a seamless tunic…not sure what the problem is here.
…These people failed to see the other elements from the Tridentine form that were present. It seems they wanted to see the service the way THEY believe it should be. We can call this democratization or simply fundamentalism. But it is very critical of things that were good and holy.
I think you generalize too much. And you assume that because something is permitted means it is best. This is impossible, because more than one thing is permitted, and not all things are equally good and holy, nor do all things transmit the faith with the same amount of clarity. It is not a call to “democratization” to desire the shepherds - or the liturgy - to be more clear.
…It misses the entire message of Good Friday that the Liturgy from Vatican was trying to send. Christ died for all, including those who are not Catholics.
Christ died for all - His Salvation is not applied to all. Some “don’t cash the check” so to speak. Check your footing my friend, make sure you aren’t on the slippery slope to “universal salvation” and “religious indifference.” Many are caught in this snare of the Devil these days.
…This kind of person never sees the good. They only see the cup half empty. This is dangerous, because people begin to make up their own reality and their own truth rather than receiving what the Church offers.
Just so long as one admits that what the Church offers today in terms of faith and morals can’t contradict what was offered yesterday in terms of faith and morals. If one tries to tweak this infallible Truth, then he is not receiving what the Church offers - he’s receiving something man made in place of it.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
…You once mentioned St. Francis de Sales in one of your posts. St. Francis de Sales (we have too many St. Francis) is a good place to start. If we adopt his method and his spirit, we find that he focussed more on spiritual direction and spiritual formation, as we see in Introduction to the Devout Life. … He advocated for the return of the Calvinist to the Church and gained a great deal of ground…
Indeed, the quote “Cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet” from St. Francis de Sales is the motto of the Institute of Christ the King Soverign Priest, and as such, we could all learn a thing or two from it. For the tradtional person, he can focus on the charity aspect of the motto. For others, they might do well to focus on the truth aspect of it. It is not charitible to hide or water down the truth in an effort not to offend.

That being said, it would be interesting to imagine what enthusiasts of the modern ecumenical approach might have to say to a St. Francis de Sales - one who set out to **convert **Calvinists after all :eek: , and was pretty successful at it by the grace of God. Would he be viewed positively? My guess is they would champion his charitable ways, and downplay his adherence to EENS as being an unfortunate “product of his times”.

This from a Creighton University professor seems to confirm my suspicions.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Indeed, the quote “Cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet” from St. Francis de Sales is the motto of the Institute of Christ the King Soverign Priest, and as such, we could all learn a thing or two from it. For the tradtional person, he can focus on the charity aspect of the motto. For others, they might do well to focus on the truth aspect of it. It is not charitible to hide or water down the truth in an effort not to offend.

That being said, it would be interesting to imagine what enthusiasts of the modern ecumenical approach might have to say to a St. Francis de Sales - one who set out to **convert **Calvinists after all :eek: , and was pretty successful at it by the grace of God. Would he be viewed positively? My guess is they would champion his charitable ways, and downplay his adherence to EENS as being an unfortunate “product of his times”.

This from a Creighton University professor seems to confirm my suspicions.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
The remarks by Dr. Wright are introduced in this fashion: R. Wayne Kraft Lecture.
(This annual lecture, part of the university’s Heritage Week celebration, offers a current theological viewpoint related to or informed by the spiritual tradition of the university’s patron – St. Francis de Sales. Speakers of national prominence are invited to present this lecture on campus. The text that follows is provided for personal enrichment and is not intended as a commercial or professional publication.)

Wendy Wright, Ph.D.

FRANCIS DE SALES, JANE DE CHANTAL

AND THE MINISTRY OF LOVE

[presented on] February 5, 1997

Yes, Dr. Wright who is described by the university (in its programming notes) as an expert in Salesian Spirituality is an unknown quantity for me. It’s clear that she presented the ideas in her lecture as “for personal enrichment,” not as a lecture in a course in Theology at Creighton.

I know very little of Sts. Francis de Sales and Jane Frances de Chantel, other than the fact that they became saintly in very troublesome times. While it’s clear that Dr. Wright presented this lecture in 1997, I’ve no idea how she would approach the subject today - or even what relevance it might have to any argumentation supporting (or even disregarding) Francis de Sales’ very successful work toward ecumenical reunion in his times.
 
… I’ve no idea … or even what relevance it might have to any argumentation supporting (or even disregarding) Francis de Sales’ very successful work toward ecumenical reunion in his times.
Um…I would say viewpoint that traditionalists’ desire for clarity in preaching/pracitce and doctrine and the approach of St. Francis de Sales are not mutually exclusive. The position alluded to by JR earlier is more explicit (or more blatant) in the text from Dr. White:
"I cannot anachronistically claim that Francis de Sales was not in many ways a product of his own time or that he possessed an ecumenical mind-set worthy of late twentieth century America.** He was a loyal adherent to the Church of Rome and in his day the church of Rome could not admit that Protestants were anything but the enemy, the unsaved. Nonetheless**, how de Sales approached the evangelization of the Chablais is strikingly out of keeping for his time. In a very real sense he is – as Pope Paul VI said in 1967 – a “precursor of Vatican II.” He approached his mission in a genuine spirit of love. “Do everything through love, nothing through force,” he was later fond of saying to those under his spiritual guidance. He practiced what he preached. He came to the Chablais not out of hatred, not out of fear, not zealous to condemn or even correct those who were believed to be in error. He came filled with the love of that magnificent God-heart that aches and longs so poignantly for human response. “Geneva must have its walls shaken by charity, be invaded by charity, be retaken by charity,” he was quoted as saying.
There’s alot wrong in this paragraph - just like there’s alot wrong with thinking the Church, in calling others to conversion for the salvation of their eternal souls, was uncharitable.

In short, it paints a false dichtomy between charity and truth. Unfair and erroneous.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Um…I would say viewpoint that traditionalists’ desire for clarity in preaching/pracitce and doctrine and the approach of St. Francis de Sales are not mutually exclusive. The position alluded to by JR earlier is more explicit (or more blatant) in the text from Dr. White:
"I cannot anachronistically claim that Francis de Sales was not in many ways a product of his own time or that he possessed an ecumenical mind-set worthy of late twentieth century America.** He was a loyal adherent to the Church of Rome and in his day the church of Rome could not admit that Protestants were anything but the enemy, the unsaved. Nonetheless**, how de Sales approached the evangelization of the Chablais is strikingly out of keeping for his time. In a very real sense he is – as Pope Paul VI said in 1967 – a “precursor of Vatican II.” He approached his mission in a genuine spirit of love. “Do everything through love, nothing through force,” he was later fond of saying to those under his spiritual guidance. He practiced what he preached. He came to the Chablais not out of hatred, not out of fear, not zealous to condemn or even correct those who were believed to be in error. He came filled with the love of that magnificent God-heart that aches and longs so poignantly for human response. “Geneva must have its walls shaken by charity, be invaded by charity, be retaken by charity,” he was quoted as saying.
There’s alot wrong in this paragraph - just like there’s alot wrong with thinking the Church, in calling others to conversion for the salvation of their eternal souls, was uncharitable.

In short, it paints a false dichtomy between charity and truth. Unfair and erroneous.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
We are products of our times - much as Jesus spoke Aramaic, a “Product” of His times and place. The greatest of charity is always the call of others to salvation. I can’t see that anyone has said otherwise. It’s occured to me more than once that those on CA who claim to be traditionalist are at times those who have left the faith for a considerable time. Then they return, claiming to know better than those who remained in the Church learning quite dutifully over the passage of time. I have to wonder if such as they, the “reverts” and even some “converts,” have any idea that they can, at times, sound rather proud of their ‘fuller and better’ knowledge as if such would be a normal result of their errors, as if the Church were to blame for the failure of their own will to “keep the faith.” Both St. Francis de Sales and his contemporary, St. Vincent de Paul, preached conversion through profound charity rather than out of a need to condemn and/or correct. I’ve no doubt regarding that fact.
 
We are products of our times - much as Jesus spoke Aramaic, a “Product” of His times and place. The greatest of charity is always the call of others to salvation. I can’t see that anyone has said otherwise. It’s occured to me more than once that those on CA who claim to be traditionalist are at times those who have left the faith for a considerable time. Then they return, claiming to know better than those who remained in the Church learning quite dutifully over the passage of time. I have to wonder if such as they, the “reverts” and even some “converts,” have any idea that they can, at times, sound rather proud of their ‘fuller and better’ knowledge as if such would be a normal result of their errors, as if the Church were to blame for the failure of their own will to “keep the faith.” Both St. Francis de Sales and his contemporary, St. Vincent de Paul, preached conversion through profound charity rather than out of a need to condemn and/or correct. I’ve no doubt regarding that fact.
These are good observations Catharina.

Christ drew the multitudes not because he condemned, but the opposite, because he LOVED. The only people we see he had any harsh words and condemnations for were those who were religious and yet uncharitable toward others, who claimed to know better than even He what was the road to righteousness and truth and ultimately salvation.

This seems to be a trend, not only within Fundamentalist Protestantism, but sadly the * extremes* of the Traditionalists within Catholicism. There is a harshness, an edge that comes across as anything but humble and very rarely having the spirit of charity, or a willingness to hear what the Church is saying and teaching in our age by the leading of the Holy Spirit, who is given to us to protect the Church from error. We always need to be on guard so as not to find ourselves too extreme and in danger of misrepresenting Christ and his Church to each other and/or to the world.
 
These are good observations Catharina.

Christ drew the multitudes not because he condemned, but the opposite, because he LOVED. The only people we see he had any harsh words and condemnations for were those who were religious and yet uncharitable toward others, who claimed to know better than even He what was the road to righteousness and truth and ultimately salvation.

This seems to be a trend, not only within Fundamentalist Protestantism, but sadly the * extremes* of the Traditionalists within Catholicism. There is a harshness, an edge that comes across as anything but humble and very rarely having the spirit of charity, or a willingness to hear what the Church is saying and teaching in our age by the leading of the Holy Spirit, who is given to us to protect the Church from error. We always need to be on guard so as not to find ourselves too extreme and in danger of misrepresenting Christ and his Church to each other and/or to the world.
amen, thank you. I was away for many years, but getting back into the swing of things. Seems like some are really vicious, especially about “old school” issues. Jesus changed his preaching to match up with whoever he was preaching to. Seems like the church should be able to do the same.
 
These are good observations Catharina.

Christ drew the multitudes not because he condemned, but the opposite, because he LOVED. The only people we see he had any harsh words and condemnations for were those who were religious and yet uncharitable toward others, who claimed to know better than even He what was the road to righteousness and truth and ultimately salvation.

This seems to be a trend, not only within Fundamentalist Protestantism, but sadly the * extremes* of the Traditionalists within Catholicism. There is a harshness, an edge that comes across as anything but humble and very rarely having the spirit of charity, or a willingness to hear what the Church is saying and teaching in our age by the leading of the Holy Spirit, who is given to us to protect the Church from error. We always need to be on guard so as not to find ourselves too extreme and in danger of misrepresenting Christ and his Church to each other and/or to the world.
Thank you for your kind words, Jeannette. It’s been painful to learn at this late date in my life that as well as “persecution” from the extreme liberals, the Church can face the same and at times even worse disrespect from extreme traditionalists. A Peaceful Eastertime to you.
 
amen, thank you. I was away for many years, but getting back into the swing of things. Seems like some are really vicious, especially about “old school” issues. Jesus changed his preaching to match up with whoever he was preaching to. Seems like the church should be able to do the same.
And yet this beautiful and simple understanding of the obvious seems to be so difficult. 🤷
 
amen, thank you. I was away for many years, but getting back into the swing of things. Seems like some are really vicious, especially about “old school” issues. Jesus changed his preaching to match up with whoever he was preaching to. Seems like the church should be able to do the same.
I’m very glad to hear you’re back. Welcome - again!
 
Dunstin

As usual, you have chosen to focus on what disturbs you, rather than on what brings you and others closer to Christ. I provided the thread with a brief overview of the Good Friday Liturgy at the Vatican. As with all synopsis, it did not capture the totality of its beauty and meaning, nonetheless, I posted what I believed captured the spirit of the Church for this Good Friday, its unity in diversity, its unity through the cross of Christ, and its unity in prayer. I fail to see what you find troublesome in any of this. I fear that you and many others may be on a slippery slope in your effort to defend traditional practices and teachings of the Church you may have raised these to a status of divinity. The practices and the teachings have become ends in themselves, rather than means to salvation.
saw neither the Good Friday Liturgy at the Vatican, only your description of it (which parts to my ears sound troublesome as you describe and interpret it)
Here again, you become hyper vigilant. We cannot live within a Church that we do not trust any more than we can live in a marriage where there is a lack of trust or a parent whom we do not trust. Our relationship with the Church must be the same trusting relationship that we have with our spouse or with a good parent. Of course spouses and parents make mistakes and eventually they either correct them or their effect passes and life continues. When there is love on both parts, ourselves and our beloved, there is trust in the good intentions of the beloved. If you live hyper vigilant of everything that the Church does, preaches or teaches, I would believe that you have a problem of trust. A lack of trust is not a good foundation for a holy relationship.
Christ’s promise to the Church does not guarantee that every single homily issued from a pulpit at the Vatican is going to be an excellent rock solid homily. Heck, if documents of a Council can be ambiguous, certainly a homily can be
What you may consider ambiguous, those who write and preach them consider them to be good theology.
And with that, yeah, I think the homily was pretty typical of today’s ecumenical approach. That is, a bit watered down, ambiguous in parts. Some very good things in there of course, but alot went unsaid, and unfortunately, one can come away with some strange conclusions.
Again, you are passing judgment on the homily of a man who probably has much more and better education and training than you and I put together on these matters and who is probably a very holy man or he would not be the official preacher to the Pope. This is not an office to which one comes to easily. It requires a very special person to get this assignment. If I were to take my chances, I would take my chances with what the friar preached.

You call it watered down. I believe this statement is condescending coming from someone who has neither the authority not the status to challenge this man’s knowledge. As Fr. Corapi, SOLT (sp?) once said in a sermon on EWTN, “I have 12 years of theology under my belt and a PhD. I know what I’m talking about. You have opinion. I teach from what I know, you teach from what you opine. Be careful of what you opine, it can be dangerous and lacking in charity.”
If you mean beyond the visible bonds of HMC, then you would be fine. However, if you mean to say that one can be saved outside HMC - and leave it at that - then are drifting into dangerous ground here - mighty dangerous.
The message was making an allusion to ET Unum Sint (John Paul II, 1995)
According to Catholic faith, the Catholic Church has been endowed with the whole of revealed truth and all the means of salvation as a gift which cannot be lost. Nevertheless, among the elements and gifts which belong to the Catholic Church (e.g.; the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity etc.) many can exist outside its visible limits. The Churches and ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation, for the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.116 In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or ecclesial Community, their celebrations are able to nourish the life of grace in their members who participate in them and provide access to the communion of salvation.
As you said, this wasn’t an EF service - the Good Friday prayers are much “softer” (painfully so, I’d say) in the OF. And just because the OF prayer doesn’t mention condemnation for lack of faith in Christ doesn’t mean the lack of faith in Christ won’t condemn.
It is not the job of the Church to play God, but to accept what God has revealed to it. When the Holy Father prays that the Jewish people who were the first to be chosen by God may discover the fullness of redemption, rather than use words of condemnation, all of us have the obligation to believe as Peter prays.

JR 🙂
 
I went to the site that Dunstinsdad suggested Christ the King Soverign Priest, and I found exactly what Cathy and I have said about St. Francis de Sales and his approach.

“Cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet," this famous quotation of St. Francis de Sales is the principle of our apostolic work. Fruitless discussions or, worse, uncharitable polemics never help to attract souls to the Lord. Again, St. Francis de Sales said: “One drop of honey attracts more bees than a barrel of vinegar.”

We will not save souls with spears, but only with love. Our Holy Father St. Francis sent the Brothers into a town to preach to the infidels of that town and to fallen away Catholics. He ordered them not to say word until he told them to do so. They walked across the town to the other side and asked, “Father where and when should we preach?” Our Holy Father responded, “We already have. The Gospel is preached by the way you live and by how you love others.” He taught us to preach with life, not just words.

He also left the Church another legacy, that legacy was Holy Poverty. Holy Poverty was not just material poverty to be lived by those who vow to follow the Franciscan rule as friars, nuns, religious sisters or secular brothers and sisters. It is for all the Church. Pope Benedict told a group of Marian Youth last week, “Follow Francis of Assisi and Benedict. Let them guide you.”

Pope Benedict acknowledges that the gift left to us by our Holy Father St. Francis was truly a gift from Christ to the Church. Holy Poverty goes beyond material detachment, though this too is important on the journey to Heaven. But material detachment without detachment from our love for our own opinion and our own point of view is nihilism, because it leads no where. It does not lead to Christ. Material poverty is the beginning of a conversion process, but it must conclude with poverty of the heart, of the mind and of the soul.

Holy Poverty is putting ourselves and our ideas aside and opening our arms to receive what Christ gives us through the Church. Francis understood this. Even though the Church of his time was guilty of many sins, probably more than the Church of today, he loved her dearly. Instead of criticizing her or publicly displaying her dirty laundry, he approached Pope Innocent III with humility and reverence, despite Innocent being less innocent than his name suggests. But Francis saw only the Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, not the sinful man. He knew that only the Vicar of Christ had the authority to accept or reject the gift that he had to offer the Church, the renewal of the Church.

At first Innocent was reluctant to accept Francis’ offer, the offer to rebuild the Church in Christ’s image. However, he was moved by Francis’ humility and submission to his authority and his will. So, he gave temporary approval for the way of life that our Holy Father Francis was proposing – to live the Gospel literally. After Innocent’s death, Honorius was elected Pope. Once again, Francis gift to the Church was called into question by the Pope. Once again Francis presented himself before the Holy Father. This time the Holy Father asked Francis to rewrite his rule and to soften it, because it was too hard for any Christian to follow the Gospel as literally as Francis proposed.

Francis respectfully informed the Pope that he had written what Christ had told him to write. For Francis had heard the voice Christ telling him what to write. Even then, the Pope told him to soften it. Francis went back to Assisi and rewrote the rule and mitigated it as has been directed by the Pope, knowing full well that this was a slightly different version of the rule from what Christ had dictated. But he believed that Christ would want him to obey his Vicar, even if that meant changing the words that Christ had dictated to him.

When Francis thought about it and prayed over it, he realized one very important thing. Christ was testing his faith. Christ had inspired his first rule, but in it there was one passage that said, “I Father Francis and all the Brothers promise obedience to the Pope, the Vicar of Jesus Christ” Christ had tested Francis’ love for him and Francis passed the test. He understood that his conscience had to be guided and enlightened by faith and the Church. They could not be separated.

How did he pass the test? He passed through the exercise of Holy Poverty, letting go of his idea of what was right or evangelical and accepting what was received from the Church. Regardless of her sinfulness, her weakness, the Church was the bride of the King. Francis knew that the King had promised his bride that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her. Regardless of how right it felt to him to follow his original inspiration and to reform the Church by introducing a lifestyle like the life lived by the Apostles and early Christians, it was even more right to obey and love the Bride of Christ, trusting Christ’s promise that the Church would never be overcome by sin.

There was sin in the Church and there would always be sin, but sin would never triumph. Francis did not need to fight the sin within the Church to renew her. He needed to fight the sin within him, he was too attached to his own idea of what the Church ought to be. The only way to fight this sin was by embracing Holy Poverty. To be so poor that one doesn’t even attach much importance to one’s opinion or ideas in the face of the Church’s teachings and gifts. Thus he reformed the Church of his time as millions followed his marriage to Holy Poverty and the Gospel life.

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top