If he wanted to hold a press conference, he could. If he wanted to issue a position paper, or any other document directly to the cardinals, to the bishops, or to the world, he could. If he wanted to issue public “dubia”, he could.And yet… perhaps the Pope Emeritus indeed wanted to make a public statement. What bothers the people aligned with Pope Francis is that opponents of giving communion to the divorced and remarried are encouraged by the remarks of the Pope Emeritus. Private reassurances from the ex-Pope won’t change this.
This is like saying that I believe a violinist should have beautiful tone, but that actually practicing technique is of secondary importance.I personally believe the Church’s first and foremost goal is the salvation of souls, and that rules and regulations are of secondary concern.
To be fair, this is one step away from saying that everything the Holy Father says or does is Catholicism.There is a term for “people aligned with Pope Francis”. That term is “Catholics”.
The dictator says, “no whining.”To be fair, this is one step away from saying that everything the Holy Father says or does is Catholicism.
I think the issue is more complicated than treating the Papacy as if it’s the throne of a dictator.
The Magisterium is reliable enough to make - and retain, even today - a specific canon of New Testament. That suggests the Magisterium is reliable to interpret its own canon. Or, if the Magisterium is “rash” in interpreting its canon, why should we be tied to the Magisterium’s canon, at all?I personally believe the Church’s first and foremost goal is the salvation of souls, and that rules and regulations are of secondary concern.
I also believe that Pope Benedict did something far worst than offering communion to remarried and repenting couples when he re-wrote John 12:25 without any regard for using references that agree with his reinterpretation (and there are several passages of scripture that supported John 12:25 as it’s taken literally). How can anybody reinterpret the Word of Christ so rashly? If there are perceived errors in the bible, why should we believe any of the parts that we disagree with?
Could you please give a reference about Pope Benedicts rewriting of John 12:25?I personally believe the Church’s first and foremost goal is the salvation of souls, and that rules and regulations are of secondary concern.
I also believe that Pope Benedict did something far worst than offering communion to remarried and repenting couples when he re-wrote John 12:25 without any regard for using references that agree with his reinterpretation (and there are several passages of scripture that supported John 12:25 as it’s taken literally). How can anybody reinterpret the Word of Christ so rashly? If there are perceived errors in the bible, why should we believe any of the parts that we disagree with?
“What the Lord says of himself here in this Christological parable is applied to us in two other verses: “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (v. 25). I think that when we first hear this we do not like it. We would like to say to the Lord: “But what are you telling us, Lord? Must we even hate our life? Isn’t our life a gift of God? Haven’t we been created in his image and likeness? Shouldn’t we be grateful and glad that he has given us life?”. However, Jesus’ words have another meaning. Of course the Lord has given us life and we are grateful for this. Gratitude and joy are fundamental attitudes of Christian life. Yes, we can be happy because we know that each of our lives comes from God. It is not a chance without meaning. I am wanted and loved. When Jesus says we must hate our life he means quite the opposite. He is thinking here of two fundamental attitudes. One is the attitude of wanting to keep my life selfishly, which is why I consider my life as my own property; I consider myself as my own property, which is why I want to make the very most of this life so as to live a full life, living for myself. Whoever does this, whoever lives for himself and thinks of and desires only himself, does not find himself but is lost. What the Lord tells us is precisely the opposite: not seizing life but giving it. And it is not that in seizing life for ourselves that we receive it, but in giving it, in going beyond ourselves not in looking at ourselves but rather in giving ourselves to the other in the humility of love, giving our life to him and to others. Thus we become rich, distancing ourselves from ourselves, freeing ourselves from ourselves. It is by giving, and not by seizing life that we truly receive life.”Could you please give a reference about Pope Benedicts rewriting of John 12:25?
And this upsets you - or you reject it - why?“What the Lord says of himself here in this Christological parable is applied to us in two other verses: “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (v. 25). I think that when we first hear this we do not like it. We would like to say to the Lord: “But what are you telling us, Lord? Must we even hate our life? Isn’t our life a gift of God? Haven’t we been created in his image and likeness? Shouldn’t we be grateful and glad that he has given us life?”. However, Jesus’ words have another meaning. Of course the Lord has given us life and we are grateful for this. Gratitude and joy are fundamental attitudes of Christian life. Yes, we can be happy because we know that each of our lives comes from God. It is not a chance without meaning. I am wanted and loved. When Jesus says we must hate our life he means quite the opposite. He is thinking here of two fundamental attitudes. One is the attitude of wanting to keep my life selfishly, which is why I consider my life as my own property; I consider myself as my own property, which is why I want to make the very most of this life so as to live a full life, living for myself. Whoever does this, whoever lives for himself and thinks of and desires only himself, does not find himself but is lost. What the Lord tells us is precisely the opposite: not seizing life but giving it. And it is not that in seizing life for ourselves that we receive it, but in giving it, in going beyond ourselves not in looking at ourselves but rather in giving ourselves to the other in the humility of love, giving our life to him and to others. Thus we become rich, distancing ourselves from ourselves, freeing ourselves from ourselves. It is by giving, and not by seizing life that we truly receive life.”
~ Pope Benedict XVI
w2.vatican.va/content/benedic…tuskirche.html
That is my question too.And this upsets you - or you reject it - why?
Well, this is interesting…I think Francis sees people like his sister who is divorced and remarried and who are faithful and good people and finds it difficult for the church’s position to be that they are living in a state of serious sin. The same for people like his nephew who is co-habituating with his girlfriend. Francis believes the church should be merciful to such people and I agree with him. But I think Church ideology and philosophy has developed over a long time and for good reason. I think if the pope wishes for people like his immediate family to receive communion then it has to be done in a way that is consistent with the church’s revealed ideas of sin and grace.
For the pope to undermine the Synod of the family by changing the agreed position of the Synod to be closer to his own thoughts, and to refuse to discuss the conflicts of his thoughts with the greater understanding of the church, looks like (forgive me) weak leadership.
This to me reflects what has gone wrong more generally in the west where each issue becomes an emotional one rather than a logical one. People who disagree are scared, or angry or rigid etc. instead of having valid points that need to be answered.
It is in many ways a concentration on emotional examples such as his divorced sister not being in good standing instead of a logical and systematic idea which reflect the coherence of Christian thought.
So if people who divorce are suddenly in good standing with the church then apart from contradicting the words of Jesus, what is to stop a husband dumping his wife and children for a younger new wife and to expect to be in good standing with the church and not be in serious sin. What does the church tell the abandoned wife and kids? Do they say that the church has no problems with the husbands/fathers actions?
Benedict took a passage of scripture that a lot of people have trouble with and twisted it to mean just the opposite of what Christ actually said. Nowhere in the NT is there a reference that we should love our lives in this world! However, there are other references that we should not love this world:And this upsets you - or you reject it - why?
It can’t.Nice to know that Catholic teaching can easily be changed according to the personal views and opinions of a pope.
Love your neighbor as yourself.Benedict took a passage of scripture that a lot of people have trouble with and twisted it to mean just the opposite of what Christ actually said. Nowhere in the NT is there a reference that we should love our lives in this world!
It’s not infallible and is thus reformable. An official interpretation has not been given yet - which is what the Dubia has asked for. It can be interpreted so narrowly as to have no meaning or impact.According to Catholic Culture, even Francis wondered if he was right and had to ask Cardinal Schönborn for reassurance, but what’s done is done. His apostolic exhortation carries the weight of his magisterium and is now part of Catholic teaching.
Benedict’s explanation sounded fine to me.Benedict took a passage of scripture that a lot of people have trouble with and twisted it to mean just the opposite of what Christ actually said.
To be *really *fair, we have to be aware of the times in which we live, which includes rampant anti-religious authority. We always assume secular bias - or “the World” - is something that only influences other people.To be fair, this is one step away from saying that everything the Holy Father says or does is Catholicism.
I think the issue is more complicated than treating the Papacy as if it’s the throne of a dictator.
True though that may be, I feel fully entitled to evaluate to words and actions of those you mention.To be *really *fair, we have to be aware of the times in which we live, which includes rampant anti-religious authority. We always assume secular bias - or “the World” - is something that only influences other people.
Most of the people whose judgement is distorted, or weakened, by the current anti-religious authority bias would be on the Left. But in recent years there’s a whole media industry developed on the Right, with websites competing to entice you to evaluate rather than obey the pastor, the bishop, and the pope. (They never suggest you evaluate the website).
Pope Benedict’s interpretation is orthodox and in line with Catholic teaching.Benedict took a passage of scripture that a lot of people have trouble with and twisted it to mean just the opposite of what Christ actually said. Nowhere in the NT is there a reference that we should love our lives in this world! However, there are other references that we should not love this world:
“Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man loves the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.”
-1 John 2:15
Whenever reinterpreting something that Bible writers claim Christ said, some kind of convincing rationale needs to be provided. If John 12:25 needs reinterpreting because it upsets people, how many other passages need to also mean the opposite of what Christ intended?
This might be a good article to read.Benedict took a passage of scripture that a lot of people have trouble with and twisted it to mean just the opposite of what Christ actually said. Nowhere in the NT is there a reference that we should love our lives in this world! However, there are other references that we should not love this world:
“Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man loves the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.”
-1 John 2:15
Whenever reinterpreting something that Bible writers claim Christ said, some kind of convincing rationale needs to be provided. If John 12:25 needs reinterpreting because it upsets people, how many other passages need to also mean the opposite of what Christ intended?
That sounds like a personal opinion without a clear rationale. Pope Benedict did the same thing.Pope Benedict’s interpretation is orthodox and in line with Catholic teaching.