Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[Lucky7]

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

LOL…true.

 

[graciew]

is precisely because our priests are so busy and exhausted. If that is the case, what can be done to help them?

Guess you could ask your priest…would you feel comfortable with that?
It is kind of personal.You know what you can offer and he knows what he needs .
I think…

 

[JReducation]

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?

I don’t know where you ared, where I am we have courses on scripture, adult religious ed, ministry courses, spirituality courses, retreats, conferences, workshops, an on-going synod, classes in the Church’s social teachings, religious education workshops, youth ministry education, formation for formators. There is a great deal happening. The problem that I notice is that it’s always the same faces at every event and learning opportunity.

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.

Preachers (deacons, priests and bishops) try their very best to do what they can with what they are given. We must also remember that not everyone is a good preacher. Preaching is a combination between training and natural talent.

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)?

Trust me, I was around. There was a great deal amiss. Two things were happening. First, we did not have the means of communication that we have today. Most people were not aware of what was amiss. Second, much of it was behind doors. The laity of that time could care less what happened behind closed doors as long as priests and religious gave them what they wanted. Behind closed doors, if priests and religious were miserable, the laity could care less, espcially in the USA. This was the great American Heresy, the rugged individualism.

Maybe as laity we should keep our mouths shut…or maybe, just maybe what we have to say needs to be said.

If people never say what they need, they will never get their needs met. On the other hand there is a right way and a wrong way of saying what one needs. One can layout what one needs and ask for help or one can challenge and act as if one is entitled. The latter is totally inappropriate. The clergy and religious have no obligation to satisfy the laity’s every whim. However, the clergy and religious do have a moral obligation to respond with whatever gifts we’re given.

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

The Council wanted to involve the laity. This is true. However, some laymen have taken this to mean that they can run the Church, which is not true.

 

[JReducation]

Talk about trying to understand and learn from Pope Francis. I found this fascinating interview. I thought others might enjoy it as much as I did.

There is no paupersim in Francis, just the Gospel

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Talk about trying to understand and learn from Pope Francis. I found this fascinating interview. I thought others might enjoy it as much as I did.

There is no paupersim in Francis, just the Gospel

Fantastic article! Grazie!

 

[Lormar]

I am going out on a limb asking this question, but I have to ask it. It is not being asked to start a heated discussion which will result in yet another locked thread, and I suppose it is being directed more towards those who would know - that would be Brother Jay and any priests who happen to be registered users here. Here is my question (and I thought it better to “hide” it here in this thread rather than call attention to it by giving it its’ very own thread - in fact, I won’t even put the question in a separate paragraph): is there any way that either the sspx (notice I didn’t capitalize it as to call attention to it ) or other independent priests (this means the you-know-who) can be right?



If it turns into a fight, I will report my own post. Have pity on me please. I really need an honest answer.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

No.

They have broken away from the right (yes, I know, but for ease of nomenclature). They are no different than so called Catholic groups that break away from the left (see above parentheses). I will admit that they “look” more in line with the Church than the (mostly) loonies on the other side.

You can certainly be against the “spirit of Vatican II” (I am, for example), but you can not be against Vatican II itself (a validly called/promulgated council).

At least this is my understanding. I am not a priest, however.

 

[JReducation]

I am going out on a limb asking this question, but I have to ask it. It is not being asked to start a heated discussion which will result in yet another locked thread, and I suppose it is being directed more towards those who would know - that would be Brother Jay and any priests who happen to be registered users here. Here is my question (and I thought it better to “hide” it here in this thread rather than call attention to it by giving it its’ very own thread - in fact, I won’t even put the question in a separate paragraph): is there any way that either the sspx (notice I didn’t capitalize it as to call attention to it ) or other independent priests (this means the you-know-who) can be right?



If it turns into a fight, I will report my own post. Have pity on me please. I really need an honest answer.

It depends on the pont on the table. There are some things about which they are right such as the need for better catechesis, the fact that it was not the intent of the Church to throw tradition out with the bathwater. They are certainly right that the older rites are still valid and licit, but only when celebrated by those who have permission to celebrate them, which right now does not include them.

They are right that people have confused religious freedom with moral relativism. They are right that Ecumenism does not mean that all religions are the same or that one is just as good as the other.

The problem is the the points on which they are wrong are so heinous, the the ones on which they are right, are often overlooked.

Wrong:

1. Ordaining anyone – no bishop may ordain without the permission of either the diocesan bishop or a male religious superior. Such ordinations are illicit and the priest and bishop only sink deeper and deeper into the sin of disboedeince.
2. Antisemitism-bigotry is always gravely sinful.
3. Breaking with the primacy of Peter – this is always a schismatic act, even if the intent is not schism. One cannot do what the pope does not allow. It is a grave sin against the unity of the Church and it can lead to formal schism. The risk involved far exceeds the good achieved. Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops. What did it change in the Church? Some would argue that had it not been for this, Summorum Pontificum would not exist. First, this is speculation. We have no way of knowing “What if . . . ?” Secondly, the attainment of the EF is not a good high enough to warrant the risk of schism, simply because we already have a valid and licit mass.
4. The condemnation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass as “Bad” to use Bishop Fellay’s own words, is very serious. The thinking behind this is that the Magisterium knows, allows and promotes something that is offensive to God and dangerous to souls. That’s one hairline short of Lutheranism. The issues between this and Lutheranism are different, but the statement is the same. “The Holy See knows of, allows and approves that which is bad for the soul.”
5. The attempt to bind current popes by the statements made by previous popes is inconsistent with the theology of the papacy. Each pope is the Supreme Pontiff during his reign. No pope can be bound by a previous pope. No pope is bound to agree with a previous pope except in those matters that are revealed. Previous popes did not intend to bind their successors. The intended to bind their contemporaries. Their successors were free to say whatever they felt needed to be said and to modify any statement made by a previous pope. Continuity is not guaranteed by repetition. Continuity is guaranteed by succession. Either the current pope is or is not a successor of Peter. In this the sedevacantists have the right of it. If he is the successor of Peter, then he must be obeyed as Peter. If he’s not, then don’t say that he is and then turn around and stay that you can’t obey him.

 

[JReducation]

1. The use of Athanasius and Paul to support their rebellion is an incorrect use of these men’s experience. First, Paul did not rebel against Peter. He submitted his argument to the Council of Jerusalem. He debated Peter, but nowhere are we told that he was ready to walk had Peter insisted on the circumcision of the Gentiles. Athanasius fought Arianism. But he never spoke about Pope Liberius the way that the SSPX speak about our current popes, stopping short of calling them heretics. Athanasius behaved and spoke like a saint, not a belligerent adolescent. And Athanasius did not violate Church law to fight Arianism.
2. Stirring up hatred toward Rome by referring to the Vatican as the Conciliarists, the Romans and other names that are pejorative is a blatant act of disrespect not worthy of any bishop. Even today, Bishop Williamson continues to publish virulent attacks on Rome.
3. Refusing to acknowledge that the Jews are the Chosen People and that Catholics are grafted on to the tree through Christ is contrary to what the Church teaches about Jews and Catholics. It is unnecessary, because there is nothing to be gained by such denials.
4. Invading diocese speaks of either poor ecclesiology or dishonesty. The diocesan bishop is the legitimate head of the Church in a geographical area. Whether he’s a saint or a heretic, he does not lose his authority as the head of the Church. No one has the right to put up their tent in his territory without his permission. To do so without a bishop’s permission is to deny the role of the bishop or it is a statement of ignorance in which the guilty party does not understand the role of the bishop. Given the formation of the SSPX clergy, the latter is highly unlikely. Therefore, one must go with what it appears to be, defiance. The argument that it’s done for the sake of the salvation of souls does not sell tickets to a ball game, much less pass muster in moral theology. One cannot do a wrong to achieve a good.
5. Rudeness, which is a milder infraction, but an infraction nonetheless, is unacceptable in anyone. The Holy See is still waiting for a written response from the SSPX. The SSPX has told the world what it thinks about the preamble, but it has not sent anything in writing to the Holy See. What is worse is that the Holy See has not badmouthed the SSPX. One would expect those in authority in the Church to make a public statement condemning such behavior. However, the so called horrible Conciliarist Vatican has been very gracious and tolerant, while SSPX clergy and laity have been aggressive, ugly, rude, and downright uncharitable toward the Holy See.

There are a lot of other issues that are too many to list here. The key is that even when you’re right on some points, it does not give you a license to be so wrong in so many other areas. In fact, it makes it harder for others to remember what it is that you’re right about.

 

[Lormar]

Brother Jay, I have saved this page with your post and will refer to it often.

I will offer my Mass and Holy Communion tomorrow for you and your intentions as my way of expressing my gratitude and saying “thank you!”

 

[graciew]

Talk about trying to understand and learn from Pope Francis. I found this fascinating interview. I thought others might enjoy it as much as I did.

There is no paupersim in Francis, just the Gospel

Thanks,Brother…
Thanks everybody just for being there.
I have learnt a lot from all of you.
Hope to follow your threads in the future,now I have much to do at home.
God bless you all.

 

[Lucky7]

There are a lot of other issues that are too many to list here. The key is that even when you’re right on some points, it does not give you a license to be so wrong in so many other areas. In fact, it makes it harder for others to remember what it is that you’re right about.

I’m also thankful for these two posts because although I am not an sspx’er, I happen to agree with them on certain points…apparently the ones that are okay. I also disagree with them on the things that are not okay to do/say. Very often I get the feeling on this website that my points are not okay to make. Maybe I’m being paranoid.

 

[JReducation]

I’m also thankful for these two posts because although I am not an sspx’er, I happen to agree with them on certain points…apparently the ones that are okay. I also disagree with them on the things that are not okay to do/say. Very often I get the feeling on this website that my points are not okay to make. Maybe I’m being paranoid.

To get back to the original subject of this thread, Pope Francis, I believe that we can learn from this man how to speak so that we can say what is OK to say without being negative. I think that all too often we have a tendency to be very negative when speaking of that which needs to be corrected.

Allow me to provide an example. I’ve taught theology and psychology most of my life. I discovered that my students did much better and became more interested in learning when I said something like, "The problem with this idea is . . . " or “Let’s try to look at this from a different perspective.”

In my early days I used to say, “You’re wrong,” or “That’s wrong,” or “Wrong answer. Try again.” Guess what. The student did not try again or if he did, he was very reluctant and very insecure, because I blew the student’s confidence right out of the water or I simply offended him. The truth was the even though the student was mistaken, he was making an honest attempt.

We tend to do that to the Church as well. Here is where Pope Francis seems to get it right. I see this man pointing out what needs to be addressed without pointing fingers at individuals and wihtout knowingly offending. From what I’ve read, he seems to have a history of this.

In dealing with tradition, we must learn this style of communication.

 

[Lucky7]

To get back to the original subject of this thread, Pope Francis, I believe that we can learn from this man how to speak so that we can say what is OK to say without being negative. I think that all too often we have a tendency to be very negative when speaking of that which needs to be corrected.

Allow me to provide an example. I’ve taught theology and psychology most of my life. I discovered that my students did much better and became more interested in learning when I said something like, "The problem with this idea is . . . " or “Let’s try to look at this from a different perspective.”

In my early days I used to say, “You’re wrong,” or “That’s wrong,” or “Wrong answer. Try again.” Guess what. The student did not try again or if he did, he was very reluctant and very insecure, because I blew the student’s confidence right out of the water or I simply offended him. The truth was the even though the student was mistaken, he was making an honest attempt.

We tend to do that to the Church as well. Here is where Pope Francis seems to get it right. I see this man pointing out what needs to be addressed without pointing fingers at individuals and wihtout knowingly offending. From what I’ve read, he seems to have a history of this.

In dealing with tradition, we must learn this style of communication.

A coupleof things. First of all, while I appreciate your inclusion of the word “we” I have definitely been getting the feeling from your posts in reponse to mine that what you really mean is “me” and others like me…including the comment about arrogance in an earlier post. Unlike your students, I much prefer folks to be direct with me.

Wrt tradition, I do not recall ever coming out and saying the Pope was wrong which is another reason why I am questioning your posts to me. I think there has only been one thing that i have questioned with regards to the message it might send. Still, I have never accused the Pope of being “wrong”.

 

[choliks]

A coupleof things. First of all, while I appreciate your inclusion of the word “we” I have definitely been getting the feeling from your posts in reponse to mine that what you really mean is “me” and others like me…including the comment about arrogance in an earlier post. Unlike your students, I much prefer folks to be direct with me.

Wrt tradition, I do not recall ever coming out and saying the Pope was wrong which is another reason why I am questioning your posts to me. I think there has only been one thing that i have questioned with regards to the message it might send. Still, I have never accused the Pope of being “wrong”.

I don’t think Brother Jay was singling you out. Trust me. If he is, he’ll let you know. I think he’s trying to make a point to everybody. So please take no offense.

 

[JReducation]

A coupleof things. First of all, while I appreciate your inclusion of the word “we” I have definitely been getting the feeling from your posts in reponse to mine that what you really mean is “me” and others like me…including the comment about arrogance in an earlier post. Unlike your students, I much prefer folks to be direct with me.

Wrt tradition, I do not recall ever coming out and saying the Pope was wrong which is another reason why I am questioning your posts to me. I think there has only been one thing that i have questioned with regards to the message it might send. Still, I have never accused the Pope of being “wrong”.

Actually, I think that I´m being misunderstood. I try to post that anyone can read what I´m writing. If I limit to answering a specific person, I feel that excludes other people. That´s no fun at all. You may be the person putting the topic on the table, but my response it to the topic, not to the individual.

I hope that helps.

 

[Lucky7]

Actually, I think that I´m being misunderstood. I try to post that anyone can read what I´m writing. If I limit to answering a specific person, I feel that excludes other people. That´s no fun at all. You may be the person putting the topic on the table, but my response it to the topic, not to the individual.

I hope that helps.

Then I am being paranoid afterall. My sincere apologies. I’ll try not to take things personally.

 

[choliks]

It’s an unconfirmed story, but I still think it’s worth the read. Compassion.

Pope prepares sandwich for Swiss Guard outside his room

 

[sojo]

I read about this yesterday. And already, folks were criticizing the Pope for putting the soldier in an awkward position, for working against the hard-taught military discipline, etc.

I think I’m learning more about the state of the Church from how people react to every simple act of kindness from the Pope more than the acts themselves.

 

[gentle_atheist]

It’s an unconfirmed story, but I still think it’s worth the read. Compassion.

Pope prepares sandwich for Swiss Guard outside his room

The story says that the Pope first brought a chair for the guard to sit in so that he wouldn’t have to stand.

Just like George Costanza!

youtube.com/watch?v=Bsxiz7DFHuI