Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[JReducation]

Ha…:yup:

I’d rather a Pope whe restores the pre-scholastic schools of theology based on prayerful meditation on the scriptures.

My daughter’s two year preparation for confirmation is a perfect example… plays and essays and classes and service projects, so much busy-ness, but not one iota of instruction on how to pray. I asked my pastor if, since she was educated by Dominicans, she could skip some of the didactic formation and go instead to a monastery for a few days for instruction from the monks on how to pray - no phone, no TV, no internet - just breathe, unwind and learn how to speak with God and how to be docile to the Holy Spirit which she was to recieve.

Communion with God has been reduced to reception of the Eucharist on Sundays. Understanding doctrine now equals knowledge of God. Obedience to canon law now equals trust. Breathtaking architecture and sublime liturgy has replaced mysticism.

Facts are easy nowadays. Knowledge is power but the guy sitting on a park bench looking at the clouds is “Wasting time.” I think we have lost sight of the transcendent.

-Tim-

The red is mine.

I agree completely. I believe that this the reason that Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Francis have steered clear of Thomism. Aquinas’ work is the product of contemplation. He never meant for anyone to read his Summa as one reads a dictionary. For some people, the “glory of Thomism” is nothing more than the recitation of Aquinas’ conclusions without going through the process that Thomas underwent. This is as far as you can get from the glory of Thomism. The glory of Thomism lies in the transcendent encounter with Truth.

Philosophy, Bonaventure, Augustine, Ignatius and De Sales are better for today’s man. Today’s man needs to learn how to stop, contemplate, discern, and respond.

Some of those folks who want to see Aquinas back are not understanding that the most important part of Aquinas was his contemplation. People often want the faith to be like microwave food. “I should be able to open a book and find the answer in 30 seconds or less.” That’s not true knowledge. That’s just information.

Aquinas did not set out to write an encyclopedia of Catholic information. On the contrary. He built on what Augustine had done. Augustine introduces us to the contemplation of Love. Aquinas follows Augustine’s method and arrives at the Truth, which he then sets out to deliver using logic. But this logic was the product of an encounter with the Transcendent.

Bonaventure, Ignatius and De Sales would later realize that Catholics knew their catechism, but were short on love. They returned to Augustine. From the few homilies that I have read and heard by Pope Francis, I see him going in the same direction as these great men. He is focusing on the need to live in a spiritual tension between the present and the transcendent.

I find that I get much more out of observing and reflecting on what the Holy Father is doing and how he does it, than on all of the dogmatic and moral principles that I have learned through the years. What I see him doing and how he does it is very dynamic. It’s a system. It’s not just for me to hear and memorize some principles. I have to actually discern his system and then try to emulate it. Emulation requires energy, time and attention.

 

[McCall1981]

Bonaventure, Ignatius and De Sales would later realize that Catholics knew their catechism, but were short on love. They returned to Augustine. From the few homilies that I have read and heard by Pope Francis, I see him going in the same direction as these great men. He is focusing on the need to live in a spiritual tension between the present and the transcendent.

I agree with what you’re saying about how to understand Aquinas.

But to the bold, aren’t we in the exact opposite situation today? And thus wouldn’t a different (opposite?) approach than Bonaventure, Ignatius, De Sales took be more appropriate?

 

[JReducation]

I agree with what you’re saying about how to understand Aquinas.

But to the bold, aren’t we in the exact opposite situation today? And thus wouldn’t a different (opposite?) approach than Bonaventure, Ignatius, De Sales took be more appropriate?

We’re in a world where men don’t know how to love. They don’t know how to make time for God and neighbor. Everything moves so quickly that people miss hearing the voice of God in their daily lives as St. Jose Maria Escriva would say to the Opus Dei.

In order to contemplate truth as the great saints did, one has to learn to things:

a. To be quiet and slow down.

and

b. To love and to recognize love.

Unless one slows down, one will miss out on God’s love. God’s love is rarely loud. There are few people whom he knocks off horses and there is not a burning bush on every corner. Generally, God’s love is like a breeze. But if you’re running and sweating, you will probably miss the breeze. It’s very important to teach people to pay attention.

Along with paying attention, we need to help people understand what it is they’re paying attention to. This is where discernment of spirits comes in. St. Ignatius developed an entire system for this.

As people discern they will also contemplate. In their contemplation, they will experience love, which is what Augustine teaches in his Confessions. He did not experience God in doctrine. He knew the doctrine. Monica had seen to that. He had not experienced God’s love. It was Ambrose who taught him to contemplate God’s love.

When one experiences God’s love, one must do something in response. This is where Bonaventure comes in. He gives us an itinerary for the journey based on the itinerary of St. Francis of Assisi.

Finally, one is ready to enter into a deeper understanding of faith and morals. This is where Francis de Sales enters with his guidance on how to live the devout life.

These are not steps and stages like going through school where you work your way from preschool to graduate school. These are often happening almost simultaneously. At the very least they are overlapping. But there is definitely a systematic process.

You need to provide the entire system at the same time, because not everyone is at the same stage in the process. Because a pope is a single individual, he cannot provide everything. He has to leave much to be provided at the grassroots level. He will provide according to his gifts, according to his interests, according to his ecclesiology and according to his agenda.

Pope Francis’ agenda became very clear when he told the cardinals that he was to be called Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi. Just look at St. Francis’ legacy.

1. He rebuilds the Church from the bottom up. He converts the Catholic layman.
2. He is the universal brother, not just the brother to Catholics, but to all men and to all created things, including the environment.
3. He is the peace keeper. He commands his followers to refuse to bear arms, pledge allegiance to any one nation, to avoid quarrels and conflicts of all kinds, and to refrain from engaging in any form of criticism of the Church, the clergy, religious and the hierarchy.
4. He preaches penance and promotes the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Such was his love of penance that one of the orders that he founded he named the Brothers and Sisters of Penance.
5. He also preached a passion for Christ crucified whom he sees in the poor and in the Eucharist. For him, the poor and the Eucharist are inseparable. To receive the Eucharist without reaching out to the poor is imperfect love. To reach out to the poor without the Eucharist is social work.
6. Finally, Francis’ greatest legacy to the Church was declericalization. He prohibits the use of such terms as abbot and prior. He commands all of his friars to be called Brother, be they priests or not. He creates an order for lay people and secular clergy so as to bring them into an equal share in the graces and gifts of his order. He founds the Poor Clares, but he gives them autonomy. No male is to interfere with them. They are to be our equals. He even introduced Pope Gregory IX to toning it down. Gregory was known for wearing the Franciscan habit, no shoes and for be called Brother Gregory. There is a theory that he may have been a Secular Franciscan, but we have no documentation to prove it. They were not good record keepers in those days.

If we look at everything that goes along with the name Francis, we can get a glimpse of this pope’s agenda.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I agree with what you’re saying about how to understand Aquinas.
**
But to the bold, aren’t we in the exact** opposite situation today? And thus wouldn’t a different (opposite?) approach than Bonaventure, Ignatius, De Sales took be more appropriate?

I was struck by the same question. Awaiting Brother Jay’s response.

 

[TimothyH]

Today’s man needs to learn how to stop, contemplate, discern, and respond.

You lost todays’ man at stop. He never made it to contemplate but went straight to respond.

I had a Protestant pastor tell me once that the the number one recommendation he makes to his flock is that they should ruthlessly eliminate hurry from their life.

I find that I get much more out of observing and reflecting on what the Holy Father is doing and how he does it, than on all of the dogmatic and moral principles that I have learned through the years. What I see him doing and how he does it is very dynamic. It’s a system. It’s not just for me to hear and memorize some principles. I have to actually discern his system and then try to emulate it. Emulation requires energy, time and attention.

It would be great to hear you flush this out more, if you have time, about system and dynamic and emulation.

-Tim-

 

[McCall1981]

We’re in a world where men don’t know how to love. They don’t know how to make time for God and neighbor. Everything moves so quickly that people miss hearing the voice of God in their daily lives as St. Jose Maria Escriva would say to the Opus Dei.

**In order to contemplate truth as the great saints did, one has to learn to things:

a. To be quiet and slow down.

and

b. To love and to recognize love.

Unless one slows down, one will miss out on God’s love. God’s love is rarely loud. There are few people whom he knocks off horses and there is not a burning bush on every corner. Generally, God’s love is like a breeze. But if you’re running and sweating, you will probably miss the breeze. It’s very important to teach people to pay attention.**
Along with paying attention, we need to help people understand what it is they’re paying attention to. This is where discernment of spirits comes in. St. Ignatius developed an entire system for this.

As people discern they will also contemplate. In their contemplation, they will experience love, which is what Augustine teaches in his Confessions. He did not experience God in doctrine. He knew the doctrine. Monica had seen to that. He had not experienced God’s love. It was Ambrose who taught him to contemplate God’s love.

When one experiences God’s love, one must do something in response. This is where Bonaventure comes in. He gives us an itinerary for the journey based on the itinerary of St. Francis of Assisi.

Finally, one is ready to enter into a deeper understanding of faith and morals. This is where Francis de Sales enters with his guidance on how to live the devout life.

These are not steps and stages like going through school where you work your way from preschool to graduate school. These are often happening almost simultaneously. At the very least they are overlapping. But there is definitely a systematic process.

You need to provide the entire system at the same time, because not everyone is at the same stage in the process. Because a pope is a single individual, he cannot provide everything. He has to leave much to be provided at the grassroots level. He will provide according to his gifts, according to his interests, according to his ecclesiology and according to his agenda.

Pope Francis’ agenda became very clear when he told the cardinals that he was to be called Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi. Just look at St. Francis’ legacy.

1. He rebuilds the Church from the bottom up. He converts the Catholic layman.
2. He is the universal brother, not just the brother to Catholics, but to all men and to all created things, including the environment.
3. He is the peace keeper. He commands his followers to refuse to bear arms, pledge allegiance to any one nation, to avoid quarrels and conflicts of all kinds, and to refrain from engaging in any form of criticism of the Church, the clergy, religious and the hierarchy.
4. He preaches penance and promotes the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Such was his love of penance that one of the orders that he founded he named the Brothers and Sisters of Penance.
5. He also preached a passion for Christ crucified whom he sees in the poor and in the Eucharist. For him, the poor and the Eucharist are inseparable. To receive the Eucharist without reaching out to the poor is imperfect love. To reach out to the poor without the Eucharist is social work.
6. Finally, Francis’ greatest legacy to the Church was declericalization. He prohibits the use of such terms as abbot and prior. He commands all of his friars to be called Brother, be they priests or not. He creates an order for lay people and secular clergy so as to bring them into an equal share in the graces and gifts of his order. He founds the Poor Clares, but he gives them autonomy. No male is to interfere with them. They are to be our equals. He even introduced Pope Gregory IX to toning it down. Gregory was known for wearing the Franciscan habit, no shoes and for be called Brother Gregory. There is a theory that he may have been a Secular Franciscan, but we have no documentation to prove it. They were not good record keepers in those days.

If we look at everything that goes along with the name Francis, we can get a glimpse of this pope’s agenda.

The bolded is very beautiful way of putting it, and I totally agree with what you said here.

But I must say I think my question still stands. If in, say, Ignatius’ time people knew their catechism, and in today’s world people don’t, wouldn’t that imply that we now need a different method of teaching? One more focused on Catechesis, not instead of the things you mentioned, but in addition to it.

(I promise I’m not trying to sound snarky here, I’m really asking )

 

[Lucky7]

The teaching role of the clergy is very different from catechesis. The teaching role of the clergy is rooted in the teaching role of the bishop. This means protecting the faith and clarifying when there is confusion.

The principles of homiletics cannot change, because they have been handed down to us from the Fathers of the Church. They are part of the living tradition of the Church. The Fathers did homilies at mass and many taught catechesis outside of mass.

OK, so they can not catechize during mass and that can not change (got it), but they are called to clarify when there is confusion. There is confusion…lots of it. So, how is the clergy working to clarify if they can not do so during mass? They no longer teach catechesis outside of mass either. Certainly there is a huge gap here. How is the Church working to fix that?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

1. Finally, Francis’ greatest legacy to the Church was declericalization. He prohibits the use of such terms as abbot and prior. He commands all of his friars to be called Brother, be they priests or not. He creates an order for lay people and secular clergy so as to bring them into an equal share in the graces and gifts of his order. He founds the Poor Clares, but he gives them autonomy. No male is to interfere with them. They are to be our equals.

This part moved me a great deal. Grazie, fratello.

 

[Lucky7]

I agree with what you’re saying about how to understand Aquinas.

But to the bold, aren’t we in the exact opposite situation today? And thus wouldn’t a different (opposite?) approach than Bonaventure, Ignatius, De Sales took be more appropriate?

See, I don’t see it as the opposite. I think the situation today involves both areas (love and Catechism). I therefore think the approach should be working on both.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

See, I don’t see it as the opposite. I think the situation today involves both areas (love and Catechism). I therefore think the approach should be working on both.

I see your point, amico mio. But I do think that Catholics today are “dying of thirst” or better “starving” for good catechesis. It is difficult for the laity to know of God’s love as expressed to us in Jesus through His Body the Church, if they are not taught the connection(s), if you will.

 

[Lormar]

Honestly, when I read threads like this, I long for the old days of the pray, pay and obey ignorant Catholic who went about their business and let the churchmen go about theirs. Some days on this place cause me more confusion. This is one of those days.

Lucky, this post is not in reference to anything you have written but the thread in general. Just so you know because my post is right under your last one.

 

[McCall1981]

See, I don’t see it as the opposite. I think the situation today involves both areas (love and Catechism). I therefore think the approach should be working on both.

Exactly, yes, I think we are generally deficient in both, and the methods that JReducation mentioned earlier address the problem of love, but if we are also deficient in Catechesis, then that would imply we need a different method of teaching that would address both issues.

Although I suppose this gets close to just saying “We need excellent teaching in all areas of the Church all the time”. This is true of course and is what we’d ideally like, but it wont ever be perfect

 

[clem456]

Catechesis is so hard to do. It seems to me the more of it you do the more you discover that teaching requires a relationship.

Our parish RCIA process is an example. In the fall we set out a program of education (which the USCCB specifically say RCIA is not, primarily a program of doctrine), with a firm schedule… speakers, reams of copied documents etc…
The catechumens and candidates don’t really catch fire until we stop all that and have a session of witness. Some of us will witness, some of the candidates also. There are nerves and tears and very powerful stories of struggles etc…When they hear a personal story from the catechists they will identify, they will see something in common with those that are “instructing” them. We come to an understanding together. The catechists finds some credibility…the candidate knows we are not just blowing smoke up their nose with fancy doctrine. Oncen this bond is formed, -then- we start to have people actively learn and ask questions about doctrine, about sacraments etc…
The session on reconciliation especially seems to bring out the personal witness of both catechists and candidates, 'cause the theology behind telling your sins to a guy sitting in a small booth is hard to absorb.
It never works very well to just throw concepts out. There’s a lot of relationship building in catechism, at least in RCIA. For most of them anyway, some do not want to get very personal. But for most it’s the way they grow into the faith.

 

[Lucky7]

But this one homily has to educate, inspire and fulfill all of them, which is a very difficult task.

This is true…and I certainly didn’t say it was an easy task.

However, if teachers must create lessons that will educate, inspire and fufill all of their students at every level in their classroom, I would think that our clergy must do their best to do the same for all of the parishioners in the pews.

 

[Lucky7]

Honestly, when I read threads like this, I long for the old days of the pray, pay and obey ignorant Catholic who went about their business and let the churchmen go about theirs. Some days on this place cause me more confusion. This is one of those days.

Lucky, this post is not in reference to anything you have written but the thread in general. Just so you know because my post is right under your last one.

It’s okay Lormar. I do think that things are different now and that is why there are so many of us lay folk sticking our noses into the business of the Church. I think most Catholics in the past didn’t see anything amiss…perhaps because there wasn’t anything amiss (and I am not referring to sinful priests, etc…that has always happened because we are all sinners)?

There is a part of me that just wants to be ignorant and “mind my own business” when it comes to certain matters. But something keeps gnawing at me…something seems awfully amiss and I can’t shake that. I know there are others thinking and feeling the same way. Maybe as laity we should keep our mouths shut…or maybe, just maybe what we have to say needs to be said.

 

[Lucky7]

I see your point, amico mio. But I do think that Catholics today are “dying of thirst” or better “starving” for good catechesis. It is difficult for the laity to know of God’s love as expressed to us in Jesus through His Body the Church, if they are not taught the connection(s), if you will.

Oh, if I had to pick one over the other, I would also pick catechesis. Both are needed, but yes, I would say that catechesis is needed more.

 

[McCall1981]

This is true…and I certainly didn’t say it was an easy task.

However, if teachers must create lessons that will educate, inspire and fufill all of their students at every level in their classroom, I would think that our clergy must do their best to do the same for all of the parishioners in the pews.

I guess we need to distinguish between:

A Priest that is trying their best with all good intentions, that may just not be very good at homiletics

vs.

One who intentionally gives a watered down, or vague, or however you want to put it, homily to suit their ideology.

In other words, I’m not referring to the “quality” of the homily, but to the “intent”.
I would never want to complain about or add to the burden of the first, they have more than enough on their plate. It’s the second that could be questioned.

 

[Lucky7]

I guess we need to distinguish between:

A Priest that is trying their best with all good intentions, that may just not be very good at homiletics

vs.

One who intentionally gives a watered down, or vague, or however you want to put it, homily to suit their ideology.

In other words, I’m not referring to the “quality” of the homily, but to the “intent”.
I would never want to complain about or add to the burden of the first, they have more than enough on their plate. It’s the second that could be questioned.

Yes, and obviously it is difficult to “know” the difference lots of the time. It is very possible that a big reason why many homilies are vague, etc is precisely because our priests are so busy and exhausted. If that is the case, what can be done to help them?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Yes, and obviously it is difficult to “know” the difference lots of the time. It is very possible that a big reason why many homilies are vague, etc is precisely because our priests are so busy and exhausted. If that is the case, what can be done to help them?

There are “canned” homilies available. Unfortunately, the end up sounding, well, canned.

 

[McCall1981]

Honestly, when I read threads like this, I long for the old days of the pray, pay and obey ignorant Catholic who went about their business and let the churchmen go about theirs. Some days on this place cause me more confusion. This is one of those days.

Lucky, this post is not in reference to anything you have written but the thread in general. Just so you know because my post is right under your last one.

Hey, at Vatican II they said they wanted to involve the laiety more, be careful what you wish for