Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[simple_soul]

Some of us have a hard time saying the first part, some of us have a hard time saying the second part, but Christ said both. I guess that should tell us something

What I have a hard time understanding, and maybe you can help me to understand, is when you and others use this line of “sin no more” how does one apply it to oneself? If We are not perfected until we die and we know our turning away from sin is a transforming and gradual process how can one possibly ever “sin no more” all at once? Or are you saying that we should all instantly know and have full knowledge of all sin and have instant perfect love for God right here right now so that we do not sin anymore? If this is correct then why is reconciliation recommended frequently if we are expected to instantly “sin no more?” The way I see it only Jesus in His letting me come to know His Love and Mercy is He able to show me how much I am not like Him. It is through His grace that He gives me through His Love and Mercy that I am able to start to see and understand sin. But I have to first accept His Love and Mercy in order for Him to open my eyes to see how sinful I am. It is only because of His Love and Mercy that I even have a clue as to what sin is. It is only through Him and His Love and Mercy that I am ever able to stop sinning so until I surrender myself completely to His Love and Mercy by coming to know and understand it will I ever be able to stop sinning. Sorry to just seemingly ramble here but I hope it makes some sense. I understand that we need to come to and understand what sin is but this understanding of what sin is only comes from knowing and understanding and accepting and surrendering ourselves to Him and His Divine Love and Mercy. Does this make sense to anyone or am I way off base here?

 

[sojo]

Here’s a thought, we have the cath all phrase “fire and brimstone” to refer to very stern teaching. What is the cath all phrase for very non-stern teaching?

Effective teaching?

 

[McCall1981]

What I have a hard time understanding, and maybe you can help me to understand, is when you and others use this line of “sin no more” how does one apply it to oneself? If We are not perfected until we die and we know our turning away from sin is a transforming and gradual process how can one possibly ever “sin no more” all at once? Or are you saying that we should all instantly know and have full knowledge of all sin and have instant perfect love for God right here right now so that we do not sin anymore? If this is correct then why is reconciliation recommended frequently if we are expected to instantly “sin no more?” The way I see it only Jesus in His letting me come to know His Love and Mercy is He able to show me how much I am not like Him. It is through His grace that He gives me through His Love and Mercy that I am able to start to see and understand sin. But I have to first accept His Love and Mercy in order for Him to open my eyes to see how sinful I am. It is only because of His Love and Mercy that I even have a clue as to what sin is. It is only through Him and His Love and Mercy that I am ever able to stop sinning so until I surrender myself completely to His Love and Mercy by coming to know and understand it will I ever be able to stop sinning. Sorry to just seemingly ramble here but I hope it makes some sense. I understand that we need to come to and understand what sin is but this understanding of what sin is only comes from knowing and understanding and accepting and surrendering ourselves to Him and His Divine Love and Mercy. Does this make sense to anyone or am I way off base here?

Some people have a hard time saying the “I don’t condemn you” part, in that they can fall into the trap of being focused on the sins of others, of focusing on condemning others, and thereby ignoring their own sins.

On the other hand, some have a hard time with the “go and sin no more” part, in that they fall into the trap of ignoring sin altogether, of pretending that morality doesn’t really matter because “come as you are, stay as you are”.

My feeling is that we need to be balanced in the middle of these extremes, and in my opinion that is what Christ is saying here, He points out, corrects, and forgives the sin in a loving, merciful way.

As far as how it applies to oneself, it’s not literally “I’m never going to sin again”, its “I recognize that I have sinned and I am going to try not to do it again”, I will have the intention of not sinning again (even though I know that I will).

You said: “I understand that we need to come to and understand what sin is but this understanding of what sin is only comes from knowing and understanding and accepting and surrendering ourselves to Him and His Divine Love and Mercy.” and I think this is a great way of saying it. We know our sin through and because of God’s love and mercy, *and becasue of that we try our best to not sin. *

 

[McCall1981]

Effective teaching?

Tell that to the 50 million pro-choice Catholics in America

Now, granted, if the Church came down hard on them, many would probably leave forever, and that’s obvuisly bad, and we have to be compassionate in how we deal with these things. But I don’t think you can argue that these people have been “effectively taught”

 

[clem456]

This homily from Pope Francis is helpful in this area:

news.va/en/news/audience-living-like-gods-children-full-text

The Apostle tells us that the Resurrection of Jesus is something new: we are freed from the slavery of sin and become children of God, that we are born to a new life. When does this happen to us? In the Sacrament of Baptism. In ancient times, it was normally received through immersion. Those to be baptized immersed themselves in the large pool within the Baptistery, leaving their clothes, and the bishop or the priest would pour water over their head three times, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Then the baptized would emerge from the pool and put on a new vestment, a white one: they were born to a new life, immersing themselves in the death and resurrection of Christ. They had become children of God. In the Letter to the Romans Saint Paul writes: you “** For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, “Abba,Father! '**”(Rom. 8:15). It is the Holy Spirit that we received in baptism that teaches us, leads us to say to God, “Father.” Or rather, Abba Father. This is our God, He is a father to us. The Holy Spirit produces in us this new status as children of God, and this is the greatest gift we receive from the Paschal Mystery of Jesus. And God treats us as His children, He understands us, forgives us, embraces us, **loves us even when we make mistakes . In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah said that even though a mother may forget her child, God never, ever forgets us (cf. 49:15). And this is a beautiful thing, beautiful!
However, this filial relationship with God is not like a treasure to be kept in a corner of our lives. It must grow, it must be nourished every day by hearing the Word of God, prayer, participation in the sacraments, especially the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist and charity. We can live as children! We can live as children! And this is our dignity. So let us behave as true children! This means that each day we must let Christ **transform us and make us like Him; it means trying to live as Christians, trying to follow him, even if we see our limitations and our weaknesses. The temptation to put God to one side, to put ourselves at the center is ever-present and the experience of sin wounds our Christian life, our being children of God. This is why we must have the courage of faith, we must resist being led to the mentality that tells us: “There is no need for God, He is not that important for you”. It is the exact opposite: only by behaving as children of God, without being discouraged by our falls, can we feel loved by Him, our life will be new, inspired by serenity and joy. God is our strength! God is our hope!

Dear brothers and sisters, we must first must firmly have this hope and we must be visible, clear, brilliant signs of hope in world. The Risen Lord is the hope that never fails, that does not disappoint (cf. Rom 5:5). God’s hope never disappoints!. How many times in our life do our hopes vanish, how many times do the expectations that we carry in our heart not come true! The hope of Christians is strong, safe and sound in this land, where God has called us to walk, and is open to eternity, because it is founded on God, who is always faithful. We should never forget this; God is always faithful! God is always faithful! Be risen with Christ through Baptism, with the gift of faith, to an imperishable inheritance, leads us to increasingly search for the things of God, to think of Him more, to pray more. Christianity is not simply a matter of following commandments; it is about living a new life, being in Christ, thinking and acting like Christ, and being transformed by the love of Christ, it is allowing Him take possession of our lives and change them, transform them, to free them from the darkness of evil and sin.
Dear brothers and sisters, to those who ask us our reasons for the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15), let us point to the Risen Christ. Let us point to Him with the proclamation of the Word, but especially with our resurrected life. Let us show the joy of being children of God, the freedom he gifts us to live in Christ, who is true freedom, freedom from the slavery of evil, sin and death! In looking to our heavenly home, we will also have a new light and strength in our commitment and in our daily efforts. It is a precious service that we give to our world, which is often no longer able to lift its gaze upwards, it no longer seems able to lift its gaze towards God.

sorry for the long quote.

 

[McCall1981]

This homily from Pope Francis is helpful in this area:

news.va/en/news/audience-living-like-gods-children-full-text

sorry for the long quote.

This is a great example of what I’m trying (failing?) to say. In this homily, which I think we would *all *agree is full of hope, love, mercy, forgiveness, (it’s very much NOT fire and brimstone) Francis also mentions the following:

Sin is slavery
We make mistakes
Penance/Confession
Putting ourselves at the center
Sin wounds our Christian life
Resisting the mentality of not needing God
Free from the darknes of evil and sin
Freedom from the slavery of sin, evil and death

In other words, he touches on the reality of these things, but is able to do so in a way that is not off putting, not condemning, not attacking. This is the kind of homily I wish I could hear my home parish.

I really can’t see anyone saying this homily is fire and brimstone, but read that list again and see if you remember hearing phrases like that at your home parish, I certainly don’t.

 

[simple_soul]

Some people have a hard time saying the “I don’t condemn you” part, in that they can fall into the trap of being focused on the sins of others, of focusing on condemning others, and thereby ignoring their own sins.

On the other hand, some have a hard time with the “go and sin no more” part, in that they fall into the trap of ignoring sin altogether, of pretending that morality doesn’t really matter because “come as you are, stay as you are”.

My feeling is that we need to be balanced in the middle of these extremes, and in my opinion that is what Christ is saying here, He points out, corrects, and forgives the sin in a loving, merciful way.

As far as how it applies to oneself, it’s not literally “I’m never going to sin again”, its “I recognize that I have sinned and I am going to try not to do it again”, I will have the intention of not sinning again (even though I know that I will).

You said: “I understand that we need to come to and understand what sin is but this understanding of what sin is only comes from knowing and understanding and accepting and surrendering ourselves to Him and His Divine Love and Mercy.” and I think this is a great way of saying it. We know our sin through and because of God’s love and mercy, *and becasue of that we try our best to not sin. *

Well, of you can understand that and even believe that this is a great way of saying it then maybe there is hope that some day others can come to see and understand why more emphasis and focus “seems” to be put on God’s Love and Mercy instead of what is or is not a sin. Peace and God Bless you and yours.

 

[simple_soul]

This is a great example of what I’m trying (failing?) to say. In this homily, which I think we would *all *agree is full of hope, love, mercy, forgiveness, (it’s very much NOT fire and brimstone) Francis also mentions the following:

Sin is slavery
We make mistakes
Penance/Confession
Putting ourselves at the center
Sin wounds our Christian life
Resisting the mentality of not needing God
Free from the darknes of evil and sin
Freedom from the slavery of sin, evil and death

In other words, he touches on the reality of these things, but is able to do so in a way that is not off putting, not condemning, not attacking. This is the kind of homily I wish I could hear my home parish.

I really can’t see anyone saying this homily is fire and brimstone, but read that list again and see if you remember hearing phrases like that at your home parish, I certainly don’t.

I believe what the problem may be that some want to take this and make it into a " fire and brimstone" homily. But I have been wrong before about what I believe so who knows.

 

[Lucky7]

This. No one is trying to advocate for fire and brimstone, and yes of course we need balance, but right now the balance in most parishes is shifted dramatically towards the “let’s never mention sin” side, so to obtain balance we’d need to move the other way.

If we actually want balance, we would need to move towards addressing sin, confession etc more becasue right now it’s skewed the other way (in my opinion).

For instance, when I went through RCIA, it was at a very “don’t mention sin” parrish. I had a lot of knowledge of Catholicism on my own from beforehand and knew what I was getting into so it didn’t bother me. But if I hadn’t, this parrish would have been very off putting for me, because it would have felt like I got very little real content.

This is how I feel coming out of Mass on most Sundays…watered down, wishy washy homilies. I want to hear about sin. I want to be challenged. I want to hear full-fledged Catholic teaching.

But apparently my desire to hear tough love from my priests means I’m arrogant.

Added: I can also see why there are some folks who do leave the Church for evangelical churches. I could never do this because I know they do not hold the Truth, but I can understand the attraction. They are not afraid to say things that might “offend”.

 

[otjm]

Tell that to the 50 million pro-choice Catholics in America

Now, granted, if the Church came down hard on them, many would probably leave forever, and that’s obvuisly bad, and we have to be compassionate in how we deal with these things. But I don’t think you can argue that these people have been “effectively taught”

I am not sure what the source of the 50 million pro choice Catholics is, but I suspect that if a properly worded and prepared poll were conducted, you would find that the majority, if not the large majority, already have left the Church; either through going somewhere else, or going nowhere (as in, no longer attending any church).

However, given that there are an estimated 66.3 to 78.2 million Catholics in the US, and that somewhere between 22 and 26 percent may be attending Mass weekly, whatever the statistics actually are is not good.

 

[simple_soul]

This is how I feel coming out of Mass on most Sundays…watered down, wishy washy homilies. I want to hear about sin. I want to be challenged. I want to hear full-fledged Catholic teaching.

But apparently my desire to hear tough love from my priests means I’m arrogant.

Added: I can also see why there are some folks who do leave the Church for evangelical churches. I could never do this because I know they do not hold the Truth, but I can understand the attraction. They are not afraid to say things that might “offend”.

Well, if it matters, I don’t think you are arrogant.
Something I discovered in my own personal struggles is that I wanted people tell me what is a sin and what is not. It really frustrated me to know end that I could not seemingly get a black and white answer from anyone. What I am learning is that I have to grow and figure out what sin is or is not under guidance. In this way I am taking responsibility for my own sinfulness and can not blame others for it. It’s like the journey of discovering God’s Love and Mercy and what separates me from Him is something I am helped to discover and learn. It reminds me of the saying give the man some money and feed him for a day. Teach him a trade feed him for life. If we are just told don’t do this or that because it is a sin we may stay sinless for little while but if we are taught how to discover and figure out what sin is or is not through going through the spiritual growth using faith and reason ourselves we learn how to avoid it for the sake of Life Himself. Not sure if that makes any sense but I hope and pray it does.

 

[McCall1981]

I am not sure what the source of the 50 million pro choice Catholics is, but **I suspect that if a properly worded and prepared poll were conducted, you would find that the majority, if not the large majority, already have left the Church; either through going somewhere else, or going nowhere (as in, no longer attending any church). **

However, given that there are an estimated 66.3 to 78.2 million Catholics in the US, and that somewhere between 22 and 26 percent may be attending Mass weekly, whatever the statistics actually are is not good.

Well, I mean nominally “catholic”, I’m guessing on the number, I really just mean there are a lot (I know there are tens of millions).

And if these nominal catholics became nominal and left the Church, that supports what I’m saying, that they did not experience “effective teaching”.

I’m not trying to pin all of the Church’s problems on this one issue, just saying I think Catholic cathecesis/teaching has left something to be desired, and that can be seen in the large number of Catholics who hold heterodox views, or leave the Church.

 

[JReducation]

This is how I feel coming out of Mass on most Sundays…watered down, wishy washy homilies. I want to hear about sin. I want to be challenged. I want to hear full-fledged Catholic teaching.

But apparently my desire to hear tough love from my priests means I’m arrogant.

Added: I can also see why there are some folks who do leave the Church for evangelical churches. I could never do this because I know they do not hold the Truth, but I can understand the attraction. They are not afraid to say things that might “offend”.

The person in the pew and the preacher at the pulpit have to be equally careful not to go beyond what the Catholic Homiletics teaches us a homily should be and not to stay beneath either.

A homily must break open the Word of God. It should not be a self-help talk or a motivational talk. That’s not a homily. Some preachers certainly sound that way.

On the other sideo, Homiletics is very clear that a homily is not supposed to be catechesis. The focus is on the scriptures, the liturgical season, the event or the target audience. Those are your choices. You’re not supposed to use a homily to teach in the catechetical sense.

For example, if the mass is for a feast of a saint, the homily must focus on something related to the saint or the scriptures of the day. If the homily is for a particular group, such as the homily that the Holy Father preached at the chrism mass. The focus of that homily was the ministry of the priest. He didn’t really address the scriptures too much.

It’s very easy to go off an a tangent. This happens with both the preacher and the audience. The preacher may go off on something that’s good, but not what is prescribed for that liturgy. The audience may go off wanting something that is good, but not prescribed for that liturgy.

A homily is also supposed to be very brief. Homiletics teaches us that a homily is not a talk. It should not be more than 7 - 10 minutes. It’s part of the Liturgy of the Word. It’s not supposed to outshine the rest of the Liturgy of the Word. There should be a seamless movement from reading to psalm to reading to response to gospel to homily. This entire liturgy must be of equal, not greater, intensity to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. There is supposed to be a balance between the two.

I can understand how people who do not understand what the liturgy is supposed to be or who do not understand the value of the Liturgy of the Eucharist would place a greater emphasis on the preaching and find Evangelical Protestantism very attractive. An Evangelical service is one long Liturgy of the Word.

If we look at the Holy Father’s homilies, not just Pope Francis, but all of them, they follow this pattern of which I was speaking. They are about the readings or the audience or the occasion. They don’t just pull out an idea out of their sleeves, even if it’s a great idea. Their homilies follow the rules of homiletics. Style is unique to each person.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

A homily is also supposed to be very brief. Homiletics teaches us that a homily is not a talk. It should not be more than 7 - 10 minutes.

If I give you one of my pastor’s phone number, who it be a great bother for you to give him a call and inform of this fact?

 

[surritter]

Homiletics is very clear that a homily is not supposed to be catechesis. The focus is on the scriptures, the liturgical season, the event or the target audience. Those are your choices. You’re not supposed to use a homily to teach in the catechetical sense.

I understand this, but the down side is that a Sunday Mass is – for most adults – the ONLY chance they have to learn about the faith! So a good homilist will know how to take the readings of the day and extrapolate them to indeed become catechesis, if that is what his flock needs. To do such would not be a violation of the priest’s directives.
I think that is still within the ideas of your comment, Brother, but I felt obligated to say it, because many priests today stay too close to the surface of the readings and that results in some rather forgettable homilies, to be honest.

 

[JReducation]

Tell that to the 50 million pro-choice Catholics in America

Now, granted, if the Church came down hard on them, many would probably leave forever, and that’s obvuisly bad, and we have to be compassionate in how we deal with these things. But I don’t think you can argue that these people have been “effectively taught”

The Church doesn’t really have that much power. You may want to reach Light of the World. Pope Benedict said this in answering a similar question. He said that some people mistakenly think that the Church has power. Neither the Church nor the pope have power. The power of the Church and the pope rests on the willingness of the faithful to listen and to obey. If they choose not to do so, there is nothing that the Church can do to enforce anything.

In a similar interview, Cardinal Francis Arinze joking answered a similar question by saying, “What do you want us to do, send a squadron of Swiss Guards to arrest these people?”

Part of the problem is that the authorities in the Church are not assertive enough. Part of the problem is that even when authority is assertive, all it can do use is moral authority. The Church herself recognizes the limits drawn by religious freedom. She is the keeper of truth, but she cannot force truth on anyone. She can only teach it and invite.

If I give you one of my pastor’s phone number, who it be a great bother for you to give him a call and inform of this fact?

LOL Too long or too short?

Well, I mean nominally “catholic”, I’m guessing on the number, I really just mean there are a lot (I know there are tens of millions).

And if these nominal catholics became nominal and left the Church, that supports what I’m saying, that they did not experience “effective teaching”.

I’m not trying to pin all of the Church’s problems on this one issue, just saying I think Catholic cathecesis/teaching has left something to be desired, and that can be seen in the large number of Catholics who hold heterodox views, or leave the Church.

The term “nominally” Catholic is an interesting one. It does not exist. It’s an American term. The Church does not acknowledge it, nor use it. Even those who no longer practice are still Catholic as long as they do not join another faith. I don’t know where that term came from. I’ve only heard it in the USA. My guess is that it was probably created by the media and Catholics have run with it. You won’t hear bishops, religious superiors, or anyone in authority in the Church using it. One is either Catholic or other.

There are degrees of communion. That’s another story. That does not make one “nominally” Catholic.

 

[McCall1981]

Part of the problem is that the authorities in the Church are not assertive enough. Part of the problem is that even when authority is assertive, all it can do use is moral authority. The Church herself recognizes the limits drawn by religious freedom. She is the keeper of truth, but she cannot force truth on anyone. She can only teach it and invite.

The term “nominally” Catholic is an interesting one. It does not exist. It’s an American term. The Church does not acknowledge it, nor use it. Even those who no longer practice are still Catholic as long as they do not join another faith. I don’t know where that term came from. I’ve only heard it in the USA. My guess is that it was probably created by the media and Catholics have run with it. You won’t hear bishops, religious superiors, or anyone in authority in the Church using it. One is either Catholic or other.

To the first part, I don’t mean the Church should try to enforce it’s authority on people now. I mean the fact that there is a large population of Catholics with heterodox views (or who have left the Chruch) means that teaching has not been effective in recent times. We shouldn’t enforce orthodoxy now, we should have convinced them of orthodoxy when they were young and continued supporting their orthodoxy over the years.

To the second part, by nominally catholic I mean people who were born or raised in the Church that now hold heterodox views, dont attend mass, have left the Church etc. Doesn’t really matter what we call it, I’m saying there are (unfortunately) a great many of these people, and some of it might be due to failures in Church teaching methods.

This being said, I don’t pretend to have all the answers about how to help with teaching/education, I’m just making the observation.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

LOL Too long or too short?

Wait. There’s such a thing as too short? http://www.thescuderia.net/forums/images/smilies/giveup.gif

 

[McCall1981]

The Church doesn’t really have that much power. You may want to reach Light of the World. Pope Benedict said this in answering a similar question. He said that some people mistakenly think that the Church has power. Neither the Church nor the pope have power. The power of the Church and the pope rests on the willingness of the faithful to listen and to obey. If they choose not to do so, there is nothing that the Church can do to enforce anything.

In a similar interview, Cardinal Francis Arinze joking answered a similar question by saying, “What do you want us to do, send a squadron of Swiss Guards to arrest these people?”

Part of the problem is that the authorities in the Church are not assertive enough. Part of the problem is that even when authority is assertive, all it can do use is moral authority. The Church herself recognizes the limits drawn by religious freedom. She is the keeper of truth, but she cannot force truth on anyone. She can only teach it and invite.

LOL Too long or too short?

The term “nominally” Catholic is an interesting one. It does not exist. It’s an American term. The Church does not acknowledge it, nor use it. Even those who no longer practice are still Catholic as long as they do not join another faith. I don’t know where that term came from. I’ve only heard it in the USA. My guess is that it was probably created by the media and Catholics have run with it. You won’t hear bishops, religious superiors, or anyone in authority in the Church using it. One is either Catholic or other.

There are degrees of communion. That’s another story. That does not make one “nominally” Catholic.

And perhaps Pope Francis will be good at reaching out to these people, they seem to like him so far, and he has a lot of “moral authority” built up already. I’m hoping that as he teaches orthodoxy, maybe some of those people will start to listen

 

[triumphguy]

I understand this, **but the down side is that a Sunday Mass is – for most adults – the ONLY chance they have to learn about the faith! ** So a good homilist will know how to take the readings of the day and extrapolate them to indeed become catechesis, if that is what his flock needs. To do such would not be a violation of the priest’s directives.
I think that is still within the ideas of your comment, Brother, but I felt obligated to say it, because many priests today stay too close to the surface of the readings and that results in some rather forgettable homilies, to be honest.

Aren’t catechisms available where you live?

Not picking on you (‘cos it;s not just you saying it), but I’m sick of hearing, time and time again how it’s all the priests’ fault.

We live in a self help age. We live in a Youtube, age. We live in a google age. But we rely on the priest to give us everything we need to be Catholic in 10 minutes on a Sunday?

I teach my kids about sin, not the priest.
I teach them about prayer, about the sacraments, about the mass, about vocations, not the priest.
I am the head of my household. I teach by example and by word - for good and bad because I am not perfect. But if my kids fall away from the Church I will not blame the or priest or the Church - only me.