Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[Mrs_Sally]

zenit.org/en/articles/aide-pope-prefers-communion-on-tongue

This article is from 2008, JPII’s funeral was in 2005.

The Pope is allowed to clarify his preferences. He can also allow others to do something he himself prefers not to.

I am not going to get into a long derailment over what happened with Br Roger. I think the point has been clearly made that a pope’s action in one specific circumstance does not necessarily mean that that is his intended course for the entire church or even for himself beyond that specific incident.

 

[jwinch2]

The tail on a kite is behind it in the airflow, stabilizing it. History, which is behind the Church in the flow of time, serves the same purpose. Without the stabilizing influence of that “tail”, the Church is subject to the winds of fashion.

Pretty good analogy.

 

[po18guy]

Brilliant post!

Pretty good analogy.

Whem I am weak, the Holy Spirit has a tiny window of opportunity to speak

 

[jwinch2]

Whem I am weak, the Holy Spirit has a tiny window of opportunity to speak

Amen, Alleluia.

 

[dixieagle]

This gets to the heart of what I do not understand. Why do we need background knowledge on him? Why do we need to see certain sides of him? Why can we not just trust that he was elected by the College of Cardinals under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and he is going to do the will of God? Remember, there have been several “bad” Popes, yet none has taught false doctrine or attempted to overturn things that are part of the revealed truth of God. The Lord promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. He also gave St. Peter, and through succession, Pope Francis the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, so no need for knowledge on him, no need to be anxious, just relax, pray, and watch God do the heavy lifting!

My feelings exactly. I simply do not begin to fathom how Catholics - particularly those who regard themselves as orthodox - can worry that Pope Francis is not. It is simply impossible for him to teach error in matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit provides the Church with what She needs at any given time; I believe that a Pope possessed of profound humility is what is most needed now.

 

[dixieagle]

Exactly. I"m really getting tired of the comments that make it seem that the (any) Pope is infallible in all that he does and that we are required to agree with him on EVERYTHING. No, that is NOT Catholic teaching.

I understand that some are frustrated with those of us who have concerns or questions, but I wish they would stop talking like anything the Pope does is infallible.

He is, of course, infallible when teaching about matters of faith and morals. If we don’t care for his “style”, that’s fine, but it isn’t the crux of the matter. As Catholics, we do, however, owe the Holy Father our profound respect and trust.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I was talking with some friends tonight about this subject.
Our consensus, based on our conversations with friends & aquaintances is this-
Pope Francis seems to be bringing the strongest reactions from both ends of the extremes. The ultra-traditional side is worried that he is not orthodox enough, and the ultra-progressive side is afraid he is too orthodox. To me this is a “good thing”. When both sides of the extremes have a problem with you, you’re most likely doing things right!

 

[devoutchristian]

My feelings exactly. I simply do not begin to fathom how Catholics - particularly those who regard themselves as orthodox - can worry that Pope Francis is not. It is simply impossible for him to teach error in matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit provides the Church with what She needs at any given time; I believe that a Pope possessed of profound humility is what is most needed now.

Has it ever occurred to you that one can disagree with a Pope’s decision to liturgically wash the feet of Muslims without doubting his doctrinally orthodoxy. This idea that everything the Pope does is infallible (as if an action could be infallible) is more sedevacantist than Catholic.

 

[graciew]

I would like to share something with you all.I am reading each post.
By the end of the 20th century,only a quarter of the children in the world were at school. according to UNICEF.
I understand there is beauty in symbols,beauty in rich voacbulary,beauty in colours ,beauty in books… But there are millions of brothers and sisters who can only read through what they see and hear.Many live in the streets as little adults,many in “villas”,“fabellas”,I think you call them “slums”. we all know this.
When communicating with these brothers in particular,language (and body language) needs to be simple,direct,easy,loving,unconcealing,transparent. .
cause they are wounded of being deceived,tricked,used, abused,forgotten,rejected .and they are keen at reading way beyond any of us ,other sort of things or intentions.
Bergoglio at that time,as most of priests, spent much time with them.
Let us bear in mind,that Francis knows and speaks this simple loving language better than Italian,and Spanish,and these kids who will never post in a forum or write an article,the voiceless,are in his heart and his audience.Thanks be to God.
God bless

 

[Brendan_64]

zenit.org/en/articles/aide-pope-prefers-communion-on-tongue

So he prefers to give Communion on the tongue. His preference for that would not, in any way mean, that he would not give a person Communion in the hand if that was the way the person presented themselves. As a Catholic you are entitled to choose the manner in which you present yourself for Communion. If a person presents themselves for Communion by holding out their hands, then the priest is obliged to give it that way.

Do you really think Benedict would say to a person holding their hands out to receive Communion, “Sorry, but I’m not going to give Communion to you that way, please put out your tongue”?

 

[JReducation]

I think that Pope Benedict has always been misunderstood by people at both ends of the spectrum. Everyone wants to say that he prefers this over that, because he does it. That’s not always true.

In Light of The World, he was asked if he preferred to give Communion kneeling and on the tongue. His answer was rather interesting. He sad that he had reintroduced the practice in papal masses, because people have forgotten that it is a permissible practice and because he felt the need to send a message about the sacred. He added that he did not intend for communion on the tongue to become the norm, nor did he intend to suggest that he opposes communion on the hand, nor does he believe that it is impossible to receive communion on the hand and be irreverent.

What I take away from that statement is that many of his gestures were meant to teach, not to tell us what he preferred or didn’t prefer. They were not about him, but about the subject at hand. I can believe this, because this is a very humble man. We must be very careful not to say that Pope Benedict preferred this over than, unless he specifically said so.

 

[otjm]

This is exactly true, but some of us are worried that the changes to discipline are leading towards doctrine changes later on.

For 2000 years, implicitly at first and explicitly as time went on, the Church has held that doctine cannot be changed.

It can be further explained; it can be nuanced. It cannot be changed.

Anyone who is properly catechized knows this. Therefore the problem seems to be coming, within the numbers of individuals,who identify themselves as traditionalists, from a group that has separated itself off from the Church. That group has been explicitly told that a) the Church cannot change doctrine; b) that certain official documents promulgated in the 1960s are official documents of the Magisterium of the Church; and c) they have to be interpreted in light of the previous 2000 or so years of doctrinal statments.

It would seem, therefore, that there are those who suddenly have this tremendous fear that somehow if a discipline is changed, that is going to lead to doctrinal change. Another way of saying it is that instead of listening to the Church, they have been listening to a splinter group.

Those who have not been listening to a splinter group are not having this angst attack over alleged future changes to doctrine.

I don’t in any way mean to be harsh. But I was catechized before Vatican 2, and I have never given any thought in the least that Vatican 2 somehow changed doctrine. It simply baffles me, given that no Pope in the last 60 years has ever made so much as a hint that doctrine is being changed or has been changed, that we have all these people running around in serious anxiety attacks because a ritual which was not even litugically necessary was modified.

What does a ritual change have to do with doctrinal changes? Absolutely nothing (to quote The Boss).

 

[otjm]

When Pope Francis washed the Muslim woman’s feet the other day, I don’t agree with his choice, because I think it implicitly promotes disregard for liturgical rules. BUT, I have also heard many people say how moving it was, and how non-Catholics are really responding to these kinds of things he’s doing. If other people are responding and maybe converting, I have to admit that maybe his choice here was right. Its a difficult thing, because obviously we can’t quantify how much “good” comes from one choice or another and compare.

My point is that for me, my worry is not the foot washing itself, Pope Francis has different ideas on how to best evangelize, and I should try my best to defer to his (admittedly) greater experience and wisdom. My worry is that the foot washing COULD point to women priests down the road, which would be a major problem. If I somehow knew absolutely for sure that this wasn’t going to happen, I wouldn’t have much problem at all with the foot washing.

That, perhaps (your worry) is the most frustrating issue I have come across (and I don’t mean in just this website).

John Paul addressed the issue about women and ordination. That issue, for anyone who understands doctrinal statements, is so thoroughly, completely, absolutely laid to rest, finished, ended, and resolved permanently that I cannot, for the life of me, understqand why it would ever occur to someone who sees themself as a traditionalist as in any way being even the remotest of possiblities.

I don’t care what the looney tunes on the left have to say; they are all members of the flat earth society and have already fallen off the left edge of the earth. And even more, I don’t care what the secular press has to say, as they know even less about the Church than the looney tuners. Those are so thoroughly non starters, non issues, and so absoltuely irrelevant and without content that I simply move on to the next issue without even responding.

I am sorry if I am coming across harshly; but your questions have appeared on several threads already, and have been answered repeatedly. I honestly don’t know what has been the source of your fear, unless you have been associating with a group that is clearly out of sync with the Church; if that is so, I would strongly suggest that you distance yourself from them as quickly as possible, as they seem to be a danger to your faith, and in particular to your equanimity.

 

[otjm]

Pretty easy actually. All you have to do is look at the teachings of previous popes, bishops, theologians, etc. on the relationship between the washing of feet during the Holy Thursday Mass and Christ’s call to the priesthood. People who dissent from the teachings of the Church on this area, or those who assent but hold out hope that it may change someday will latch on to things like this in order to give the impression that their positions have legitimacy.

Not to mention that violating the rubrics of the Mass sets an example for others to do the same.

It is not a rubric of the Mass. It is optional as to whether or not it even occurs.

Furthermore, the Pope cannot “violate” a rubric - he is the one who makes the rubrics. He is not bound by them; he binds others.

As to the teachings - you are making the assumption that whatever have been taught about the foot washing (as to its meaning) has exhausted all possible meaning; but there is no basis for that assumption other than the fact that "no one ever taught anything else, as if that proves that there was nothing more to teach.

Brother JR has explained the fact that there is more than one way to look at the foot washing; you would do well to read the other threads where he has explained this.

 

[graciew]

I think that Pope Benedict has always been misunderstood

What I take away from that statement is that many of his gestures were meant to teach,

I can believe this, because this is a very humble man. We must be very careful not to say that Pope Benedict preferred this over than, unless he specifically said so.

He was,Benedict was a humble man. Now he could be as sharp as a sword if he wanted to and we appreciated this enormously.
There was a time when Pope Benedict tried to help us denouncing poverty in Argentina was a “scandal”.He called it a “scandal”.And we,the people, did not know what else to do to help out …Bergoglio was Archbishop then,denouncing, doing. I won´t get into politics.
This sweet man´s words,Benedict´s, pierced the air.
These two Big Brothers gave us a huge example.One word,a huge teaching:

Just like in Benedict,there is a Bergoglio within Bergoglio:the one who denounces.Just like Jesus. You do not want to be there when his words sound like a whip to the concience.
Bergoglio knew every tile,every person in the most dangerous parts of the city.I am talking even about children prostitution.
There are phrases Bergoglio said still lingering in my head which in context were harsh,well deserved, and to the point. I will try and translate.among which are “speeches are not enough to revert poverty”, we live in a “culture of rejection/discarding” “there is death penalty in abortion and covert eutanasia”
“fratricide internal divisions” " people are thrown into existencial dumping places" which gave us more the idea of garbage… and “the self sufficient and proud that do not leave even the crumbs for the poor”
We respected him,he knew exactly was he was speaking about.

 

[otjm]

But can we be certain that BXVI recognized him? I can not see the Eucharist in the photo on the link. Also, would not have BXVI given it to him in the mouth, and not on the hand?

Benedict knew him personally. And no, I am not going to dig up the information as it is public knowledge.

 

[markomalley]

Fra’ JR:

Thanks for starting this thread. IMHO, your comments and analysis on this thread make it one of the most enlightening threads I’ve seen on CAF.

 

[Lucky7]

Has it ever occurred to you that one can disagree with a Pope’s decision to liturgically wash the feet of Muslims without doubting his doctrinally orthodoxy. This idea that everything the Pope does is infallible (as if an action could be infallible) is more sedevacantist than Catholic.

This is where I am. It is actually my main hurdle right now. However, I am willing to see how things unfold so to speak. And I do need to read the Vatican website someone posted earlier when I get enough time to give it the time it deserves.

 

[devoutchristian]

So he prefers to give Communion on the tongue. His preference for that would not, in any way mean, that he would not give a person Communion in the hand if that was the way the person presented themselves. As a Catholic you are entitled to choose the manner in which you present yourself for Communion. If a person presents themselves for Communion by holding out their hands, then the priest is obliged to give it that way.

Do you really think Benedict would say to a person holding their hands out to receive Communion, “Sorry, but I’m not going to give Communion to you that way, please put out your tongue”?

You realize that communion in the hand is only aloud by special permission to certain episcopal conferences?

 

[JReducation]

But can we be certain that BXVI recognized him? I can not see the Eucharist in the photo on the link. Also, would not have BXVI given it to him in the mouth, and not on the hand?

Yes, Pope Benedict did give Holy Communion to Brother Roger of Taize. However, there are some important details that people do not know or wish to ignore.

First, let’s look at Brother Roger himself. He was not a Protestant minister by this time. He was a monk and a Lutheran. However, he was also a believer in the Real Presence. One of the daily activities of the monks of Taize is adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Not all of the monks are Catholic, but adoration is available for those who wish to do so. Brother Roger started this and he was always present during the hour of adoration. This is well documented by his biographers. Brother Roger was also a believer in the sacrament of Holy Orders. One may ask why he never made the leap over to Catholicism. All that I have ever heard was a statement that he made once when asked the same question. “I have made my peace with the Catholic Church before God and my conscience.” Conscience is a very tricky area into which we do not go.

Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were very close friends of Brother Roger. Brother Roger was not a stranger to the Vatican. He was often a guest at the Vatican. He traveled with Pop Paul and Pope John Paul II. His religious community, though not Catholic, received the blessing of the Catholic Church. Catholic are allowed to join the Monks of Taize. In fact, the current superior is a Catholic priest, he was installed by the local Catholic bishop with the Vatican’s blessing. The monastery is not Protestant either. It is simply Christian.

With this kind of person and full knowledge thereof, any bishop can grant permission for the individual to receive Holy Communion if he requests it. That’s Church law.

I will warn people. Causing scandal is a sin as we all know very well. However, let us remember that looking for something about which we can be scandalized is a worse sin, because it often leads us to detraction. If God is love, then the violation of charity must be by far the greatest of sins.