Pope discusses women in the church, divorce, his own spirituality

[onmyknees]

I totally agree with you regarding the lack of men in the Church.

God knew that we needed men to be the leaders of their families. It just makes me so sad to see so few men at church. There definitely needs to be something that can get the men back.

I do like that there are many holy women helping in the church.

I just think that when feminism caught on some women just went crazy, wanting to do everything that the men do.

We are different not the same and this woman likes being different and just volunteers for one or two things behind the scenes.

 

[kag1982]

A) I am not sure you can pick and choose who the Pope is speaking to at any given time, unless he says who he is directing his comments to. Thus far, he had been speaking to all Catholics, and frankly, his job is to speak to the world.

Well, Benedict spent eight years catering to traditional Catholics rather than speaking to all Catholics. So isn’t Benedict guilty of picking and choosing as well? Many people felt alienated by Benedict’s insistence with bringing the Church back to the 1950s and undoing Vatican II. And it was much more difficult to follow Benedict’s dense theological pronouncements than Francis’. Traditionalists might not like the message, but Francis isn’t vague or confusing about it. Nothing he has said is against Church teachings.

B)The small group of faithful Catholics is likely not as small as you think.

It is smaller than the 99 sheep.

C) If, as we are told on here, that nothing he says is new or different than what the Church has always taught, you are basically saying you like how he says things and find that more attractive than the teaching itself. What happens when he dies and a new Pope says the same teachings in a different way?

Francis has proven so popular that lots of the Franciscan innovations will be staying after he dies… both in the way he discusses things and the gestures. Unless of course the man in question wants to get pilloried in the press.

D) No one denies women occupy a high place. The issue is definitive statements thrown out in an attempt to assuage an offended group or soothe the marginalized. We certainly could not have had Christ without the incredible example of womanhood that is Mary. Likewise, we would have no church without the Apostles, and Jesus’s teachings would have ended with him. There would be no Catholic Church, few if any gospels, no Eucharist, and no Baptisms en masse. But setting aside “who is more important”, which I find to be immaterial when dealing with such extraordinary, incredibly holy people, he said more specifically that women are more important than Priests or Bishops. What was the point of that? Without these Priests and Bishops (of which he is one), there would be no Mass, no Eucharist, no Papacy, no sacraments, and the Church would have never existed period. It just comes off as hyperbolic and divisive to start ranking people in terms of importance. So if we keep score, we have

1. Mary
2. Apostles
3. other women
4. Priests and Bishops

One assumes other random men fall somewhere at 5 or below. Again, what is the point of this sort of declarative statement?

You have admitted you have a beef with the view that women are for baby-making and sandwich making. But that has never been Catholic teaching under any Pope. If the Pope was as clear as is claimed, there would not be endless chatter about what he meant, both on here, and on other media outlets, and the Vatican would not be clarifying his statements over and over again.

1. Francis doesn’t consider priests and bishops to be more important than the laity. He basically said so in his last General Audience before the summer break.
2. Well, that is the view of some Catholics on this board. Certain Catholic men seem to think that this is all women are for. In fact, some traditionalist Catholic women only wear skirts (aka Little House on the Prairie or Duggarwear.) Francis actually went out of his way in his answer to mention that the Church should consider women as more than just home makers.
3. Father Rosica, whose main job is running Salt and Light TV and is only loosely connected to the Vatican press office, issued one explanation about the Pope’s remarks on atheists because people got confused by redemption vs. salvation. Father Lombardi hasn’t ever clarified Francis’ remarks on gays. In every piece I’ve seen on the gay comments, the pieces mentioned the shift in tone (more loving and pastoral) but mentioned that none of the policies have changed. Francis says exactly what Francis means. He has a very direct style of speaking, which is typical in Latin America.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Well, Benedict spent eight years catering to traditional Catholics rather than speaking to all Catholics. So isn’t Benedict guilty of picking and choosing as well? Many people felt alienated by Benedict’s insistence with bringing the Church back to the 1950s and undoing Vatican II. And it was much more difficult to follow Benedict’s dense theological pronouncements than Francis’. Traditionalists might not like the message, but Francis isn’t vague or confusing about it. Nothing he has said is against Church teachings.
.

How insulting to our previous Pope! Just because you didn’t like what Benedict had to say doesn’t mean he was catering to traditionalists. What parts of Vatican II did he undo? How did he bring the Church back to the 1950s? It is obvious you don’t like orthodox, or more traditional Catholics, but you really seem to infer a lot more into who is walking whom, what a certain Pope is trying to do, and railing against Church teachings that don’t even exist.

You contradict yourself by saying you like what Francis has to say more than Benedict, but yet neither said anything that contradicts Church teaching? That means they are essentially saying the same thing.

There is this feeling from some on here that they are salivating to toss away Benedict’s Pontificate and move on, as though it was in err or a diversion for 8 years.

It is smaller than the 99 sheep.

.

Sadly, it is. You are welcome to join the group, of course, since God wants everyone there.

Francis has proven so popular that lots of the Franciscan innovations will be staying after he dies… both in the way he discusses things and the gestures. Unless of course the man in question wants to get pilloried in the press.

What? He’s been Pope for about 4 months. How has he proven Franciscan innovations will be staying after he dies? What innovations? Each Pope has their own Pontificate. They aren’t going to do things in a way they don’t feel led because of bad press. They need to be effective political and spiritual leaders for the Vatican and Church. B16 issued Summorum Pontificum for the TLM. Frances could undo that certainly, as it is his Papacy, but generally, the Popes simply deemphasize certain things rather than outright discard them.

Again, not sure how you can say he has proven anything, since by definition, that won’t be born out until he dies…

1. Francis doesn’t consider priests and bishops to be more important than the laity. He basically said so in his last General Audience before the summer break.

That is fine. I disagree, as does every theologian I have ever read. When the laity starts confecting the Eucharist, let me know. Since that is closest we ever get to tasting Heaven on Earth, I’d say that is pretty important.

Besides, he specifically said women are more important than Priests and Bishops. Not the laity or lay men, but women. So again, what is the point he trying to make by ranking genders of lay people over Priests and Bishops? Where does this leave nuns and religious sisters?

1. Well, that is the view of some Catholics on this board. Certain Catholic men seem to think that this is all women are for. In fact, some traditionalist Catholic women only wear skirts (aka Little House on the Prairie or Duggarwear.) Francis actually went out of his way in his answer to mention that the Church should consider women as more than just home makers.

So what. They can certainly believe that if they want to. As long as you don’t marry that person, why should you care? There is nothing wrong with those beliefs per se, but there is nothing that says you must adopt them either.

I realize these more conservative (yet still faithful) Catholics bother you, but there are lots of things on the internet I find ridiculous. Focus on what the Church actually teaches and not on some random message board. If the attitudes on CA bother you, ignore them or avoid them. Many, many Catholics like the idea of a woman who stays home and raises children. It has been prevalent for many thousands of years and in many areas of the world. That does not mean you have to be insulted or cannot work if that is your calling. I disagree with some attitudes on here, but so what? I know what I believe, how my wife and I view our roles (which is accordance with Catholic teaching), so why would I care or look for support? If you are living in accordance with Catholic teaching, why would you care what random posters on a message board think?

1. Father Rosica, whose main job is running Salt and Light TV and is only loosely connected to the Vatican press office, issued one explanation about the Pope’s remarks on atheists because people got confused by redemption vs. salvation. Father Lombardi hasn’t ever clarified Francis’ remarks on gays. In every piece I’ve seen on the gay comments, the pieces mentioned the shift in tone (more loving and pastoral) but mentioned that none of the policies have changed. Francis says exactly what Francis means. He has a very direct style of speaking, which is typical in Latin America.

He is direct, but isn’t always entirely clear. If he was, there wouldn’t be pages of topics asking if he meant “this or that”. Even Benedict had to be more direct and clarify when he spoke on the issue of using a condom while carrying a disease, as what he was saying was lost on a great many, especially those who yearned for a break with Catholic theology.

I look forward to Francis’s first encyclical so he can expound on his theology and guide and enrich us as Catholic rather than answer deep theological questions with quick answers that do not do the question justice.

 

[irishpatrick]

Regarding the thought that trying to restore some traditional aspects of the faith is somehow wrong, let me pose this question:

Was the faith practiced by more Catholics before Vatican II (when Mass attendance was 75% and higher and confession lines were sometimes hours long), or is the faith practiced by more Catholics today (when we see 25% Mass attendance and confession once a week with maybe ten-twenty people attending)?

The Pope is the Pope, and I suspect his early message is one of stressing God’s Divine Mercy. I believe the Pope is trying to lay the groundwork to let all people know that they can avail themselves of God’s Mercy–now, and do not wait. Our Holy Father has a different approach, and His message is one of spreading the message of Divine Mercy and Love, yet the Pope is Catholic. It is entirely too soon in the Holy Father’s Pontificate to know where he, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will lead the Church–yet, I sense the Pope is very concerned about the loss of souls.

 

[agnes_therese]

Many people felt alienated by Benedict’s insistence with bringing the Church back to the 1950s and undoing Vatican II.

What parts of Vatican II did Pope Benedict “undo”?

 

[april32010]

 

[Ridgerunner]

I totally agree with you regarding the lack of men in the Church.

God knew that we needed men to be the leaders of their families. It just makes me so sad to see so few men at church. There definitely needs to be something that can get the men back.

I do like that there are many holy women helping in the church.

I just think that when feminism caught on some women just went crazy, wanting to do everything that the men do.

We are different not the same and this woman likes being different and just volunteers for one or two things behind the scenes.

As to the men, it is my belief that it absolutely has to start with the boys. It doesn’t work to suddenly think we must go after the adult men. Unfortunately, a misguided form of feminism that does not respect women either, has persuaded many that there should be no gender-specific programs or roles. Boys, being much more mentally diffuse and immature at any young age than girls, and therefore needing roles and disciplines peculiar to them, are just left to imitate the girls or be on the outside looking in, if they care to look in. Not particularly wanting to follow a model they perceive as feminine, the boys just wander off.

If one wants to know why male church attendance in some places is low, one ought to first count the teenage girls and teenage boys. You’ll see the same ratio as with the adults, or lower on the part of the boys. The opportunity has already been largely missed by the teen years.

 

[irishpatrick]

As to the men, it is my belief that it absolutely has to start with the boys. It doesn’t work to suddenly think we must go after the adult men. Unfortunately, a misguided form of feminism that does not respect women either, has persuaded many that there should be no gender-specific programs or roles. Boys, being much more mentally diffuse and immature at any young age than girls, and therefore needing roles and disciplines peculiar to them, are just left to imitate the girls or be on the outside looking in, if they care to look in. Not particularly wanting to follow a model they perceive as feminine, the boys just wander off.

If one wants to know why male church attendance in some places is low, one ought to first count the teenage girls and teenage boys. You’ll see the same ratio as with the adults, or lower on the part of the boys. The opportunity has already been largely missed by the teen years.

I think a good place to start is to bring back all male schools. Let boys learn from other boys, and men. Most schools today lean heavily toward girls, with boys seen often as a problem because they do not always act like girls do. I also think, and here I can feel the slams coming my way, that the Church should return the altar server role to boys/men only. Boys tend to want to involve themselves in male activities, and they tend to want to involve themselves in things that they feel they can make a difference in, and the altar server role has always been a means to expose boys and young men to the Priesthood. A large percentage of Priests were altar boys/servers…that is not proof of the need for change, yet it sure does point the way. If we want boys to grow to be involved men, then we need to have them in unique roles and treat them in unique ways in order to foster their growth.

If we want better men, we need to treat men and boys differently than girls and women. It is a simple formula, yet I have my doubts as to whether or not we have the will to make real changes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think a good place to start is to bring back all male schools. Let boys learn from other boys, and men. Most schools today lean heavily toward girls, with boys seen often as a problem because they do not always act like girls do. I also think, and here I can feel the slams coming my way, that the Church should return the altar server role to boys/men only. Boys tend to want to involve themselves in male activities, and they tend to want to involve themselves in things that they feel they can make a difference in, and the altar server role has always been a means to expose boys and young men to the Priesthood. A large percentage of Priests were altar boys/servers…that is not proof of the need for change, yet it sure does point the way. If we want boys to grow to be involved men, then we need to have them in unique roles and treat them in unique ways in order to foster their growth.

If we want better men, we need to treat men and boys differently than girls and women. It is a simple formula, yet I have my doubts as to whether or not we have the will to make real changes.

I agree entirely.

There would be incredible resistance against doing away with “altar girls”. But at very least, their dress could be different. I’ll not forget when my own son, who never missed an opportunity to serve previously, stopped doing it when the androgenous outfit was imposed. As he put it, he “didn’t want to dress like a girl.” Nothing I could say would shake him from that position. Nearly all the boys dropped out of serving in our parish at about the same time.

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree entirely.

There would be incredible resistance against doing away with “altar girls”. But at very least, their dress could be different. I’ll not forget when my own son, who never missed an opportunity to serve previously, stopped doing it when the androgenous outfit was imposed. As he put it, he “didn’t want to dress like a girl.” Nothing I could say would shake him from that position. Nearly all the boys dropped out of serving in our parish at about the same time.

It will take courage and leadership to make real changes. I agree there would be resistance, I suppose I am just not sure why.

 

[JackyB]

I think a good place to start is to bring back all male schools. Let boys learn from other boys, and men. Most schools today lean heavily toward girls, with boys seen often as a problem because they do not always act like girls do. I also think, and here I can feel the slams coming my way, that the Church should return the altar server role to boys/men only. Boys tend to want to involve themselves in male activities, and they tend to want to involve themselves in things that they feel they can make a difference in, and the altar server role has always been a means to expose boys and young men to the Priesthood. A large percentage of Priests were altar boys/servers…that is not proof of the need for change, yet it sure does point the way. If we want boys to grow to be involved men, then we need to have them in unique roles and treat them in unique ways in order to foster their growth.

If we want better men, we need to treat men and boys differently than girls and women. It is a simple formula, yet I have my doubts as to whether or not we have the will to make real changes.

As a catholic woman, mother and wife with a daughter and two sons I couldn’t agree with you more. I have never been afraid, as so many women appear to be these days, of behaving and rejoicing in being a woman.

 

[irishpatrick]

As a catholic woman, mother and wife with a daughter and two sons I couldn’t agree with you more. I have never been afraid, as so many women appear to be these days, of behaving and rejoicing in being a woman.

Awesome–thank you for that.

 

[kag1982]

How insulting to our previous Pope! Just because you didn’t like what Benedict had to say doesn’t mean he was catering to traditionalists. What parts of Vatican II did he undo? How did he bring the Church back to the 1950s? It is obvious you don’t like orthodox, or more traditional Catholics, but you really seem to infer a lot more into who is walking whom, what a certain Pope is trying to do, and railing against Church teachings that don’t even exist.

Umm… And weren’t you being as insulting to our current Holy Father by whining that he isn’t catering to more conservative Catholics. And no, I really don’t think that Benedict cared about me or millions of disaffected Catholics who were personally hurt by supposedly good Catholics. In fact, I think that he really enabled the type of people who really hurt me when I was in Catholic school… You know what was nice to hear from Francis during WYD… An apology to those hurt by the Church. (And there are lots…).

And he did want to undo the Vatican II changes in the Mass and thus alienate even more people.

. You contradict yourself by saying you like what Francis has to say more than Benedict, but yet neither said anything that contradicts Church teaching? That means they are essentially saying the same thing.

There is this feeling from some on here that they are salivating to toss away Benedict’s Pontificate and move on, as though it as in err or a diversion for 8 years.

I really didn’t get any sense of pastoral warmth or concern from Benedict at all like I do from Francis. Benedict seemed very remote and made the office seem even remoter through his actions. I did admire him for resigning but he didn’t seem approachable at all and it felt like he was always condemning people.

Sadly, it is. You are welcome to join the group, of course, since God wants everyone there.

And He also cares more for the lost sheep.

What? He’s been Pope for about 4 onths. How has he proven Franciscan innovations will be staying after he dies? What innovations? Each Pope has their own Pontificate. They aren’t going to do things in a way they don’t feel led because of bad press. They need to be effective political and spiritual leaders for the Vatican and Church. B16
issued Summorum Pontificum for the TLM. Frances could undo that certainly, as it is his
Papacy, but generally, the Popes simply deemphasize certain things rather than outright
discard them.

.

I really don’t think that the ornate vestments are coming back and I think Francis’ simpler lifestyle choices (like the Ford Focus) are staying. I also think that the press is going to criticize an successor who isn’t as approachable as Francis. I heard an analyst suggest that Francis has taken the papacy from the House of Windsor to a Scandanavian style monarchy in a hundred days. And Francis isn’t going to contradict Benedict on anything.

That is fine. I disagree, as does every theologian I have ever read. When the laity starts confecting the Eucharist, let me know. Since that is closest we ever get to tasting Heaven on Earth, I’d say that is pretty important.

And priests give up their right to raise a family which is highly important. A lot of the bowing and scraping among priests comes from medieval feudalism where the “peasants” were considered lesser than the clergy. We now live in a democratic world where everyone is considered equal. Time to get rid of class distinctions in the Church, especially since by placing the clergy above the laity, you are saying that women, who cannot be priests, are not equal to men. The only way to change that perception outside of female ordination is by putting the laity on equal footing with the clergy.

…Besides, he specifically said women are more important than Priests and Bishops. Not the laity or lay men, but women. So again, what is the point he trying to make by ranking genders of lay people over Priests and Bishops? Where does this leave nuns and religious sisters?

.

He said that Mary is more important than the Apostles, which she is.

So what. They can certainly believe that if they want to. As long as you don’t marry that person, why should you care? There is nothing wrong with those beliefs per se, but there is nothing that says you must adopt them either.

I really don’t like being judged and lectured by people seeking to impose their beliefs or condemn others. Such people display similar attitudes in parishes, etc.

He is direct, but isn’t always entirely clear. If he was, there wouldn’t be pages of topics asking if he meant “this or that”. Even Benedict had to be more direct and clarify
when he spoke on the issue of using a condom while carrying a disease, as what he was saying was lost on a great many, especially those who yearned for a break with Catholic theology.
I look forward to Francis’s first encyclical so he can expound on his theology and guide and enrich us as Catholic rather than answer deep theological questions with quick answers that do not do the question justice.

Gosh… Benedict was always getting into trouble… like causing riots in the Middle East. When he spoke at Aparecida, Benedict seemed to endorse colonialism. This wasn’t intended but was the result. I think that Francis is much clearer and more understandable. His homilies are similar to a parish priest’s rather than dense theological tomes. I thought the Aparecida document is incredibly readable. It is clear where Francis is going. I just think that more conservative Catholics are disquieted by Francis’ exploration of the more liberal areas of Catholic teachings and are going through loops to fit him into their worldview.

 

[irishpatrick]

.

Please stop! Pope Benedict XVI was a very holy and wonderful Pope. Now, Pope Francis has started with a different approach, and not surprisingly he also appears to be a wonderful and holy Pope. They both have/had different calls.

BTW, just a point of clarification, PB16 did not want to change anything about Vatican II, and neither have any of the so-called traditionalists. Rather, when people complain about Vatican II, they are really complaining about the many uncalled for changes that were instituted after the council. For example (and there are many, many more), nowhere in the documents did it call for the removal of altar rails, yet almost Churches yanked them out and called it the spirit of Vatican II. So, there has been a call to actually follow what the council said, and not what people wanted the council to say. I politely challenge you to read all the documents (if you have not), to see for yourself.

Finally, ask yourself an important question: was the faith practiced by more Catholics before or after Vatican II?

Before Vatican II Mass attendance was 75% and higher, today Mass attendance is 25%, a huge drop. Before Vatican II, lines for confession were sometimes hours long, today lines for confession happens at most once a week and often have a scant 10-20 people attending. Before Vatican II, divorce rates were far lower, and Catholic marriages remained intact at far higher rates than today. Before Vatican II, fornication and living together were at much lower rates. Before Vatican II, legal abortion did not exist, and contraception was rarely ever used by Catholic women…the list can go on.

An honest person will admit that Vatican II (by itself) did not bring about those negative changes, yet the mis-interpretation and implementation of Vatican II sure did not help, and yes many so-called traditonalists wanted to see an adherance to the actual Vatican II documents, and not to the mis-interpretations of that council–I am not sure why that is so terrible.

 

[irishpatrick]

kag1982,

Please stop! Pope Benedict XVI was a very holy and wonderful Pope. Now, Pope Francis has started with a different approach, and not surprisingly he also appears to be a wonderful and holy Pope. They both have/had different calls.

BTW, just a point of clarification, PB16 did not want to change anything about Vatican II, and neither have any of the so-called traditionalists. Rather, when people complain about Vatican II, they are really complaining about the many uncalled for changes that were instituted after the council. For example (and there are many, many more), nowhere in the documents did it call for the removal of altar rails, yet almost Churches yanked them out and called it the spirit of Vatican II. So, there has been a call to actually follow what the council said, and not what people wanted the council to say. I politely challenge you to read all the documents (if you have not), to see for yourself.

Finally, ask yourself an important question: was the faith practiced by more Catholics before or after Vatican II?

Before Vatican II Mass attendance was 75% and higher, today Mass attendance is 25%, a huge drop. Before Vatican II, lines for confession were sometimes hours long, today lines for confession happens at most once a week and often have a scant 10-20 people attending. Before Vatican II, divorce rates were far lower, and Catholic marriages remained intact at far higher rates than today. Before Vatican II, fornication and living together were at much lower rates. Before Vatican II, legal abortion did not exist, and contraception was rarely ever used by Catholic women…the list can go on.

An honest person will admit that Vatican II (by itself) did not bring about those negative changes, yet the mis-interpretation and implementation of Vatican II sure did not help, and yes many so-called traditonalists wanted to see an adherance to the actual Vatican II documents, and not to the mis-interpretations of that council–I am not sure why that is so terrible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

[Finally, ask yourself an important question: was the faith practiced by more Catholics before or after Vatican II?

Before Vatican II Mass attendance was 75% and higher, today Mass attendance is 25%, a huge drop. Before Vatican II, lines for confession were sometimes hours long, today lines for confession happens at most once a week and often have a scant 10-20 people attending. Before Vatican II, divorce rates were far lower, and Catholic marriages remained intact at far higher rates than today. Before Vatican II, fornication and living together were at much lower rates. Before Vatican II, legal abortion did not exist, and contraception was rarely ever used by Catholic women…the list can go on.

An honest person will admit that Vatican II (by itself) did not bring about those negative changes, yet the mis-interpretation and implementation of Vatican II sure did not help, and yes many so-called traditonalists wanted to see an adherance to the actual Vatican II documents, and not to the mis-interpretations of that council–I am not sure why that is so terrible.

This brings up an interesting thought. Granted, VII was greatly misinterpreted. But one has to at least wonder about a lot of the churchmen prior to it. Why were misinterpretations so widely accepted by so many of them? Why did so many priests and religious go “over the hill” shortly after VII?

Yes, many were just confused or misled. It seems inescapable, however, that there was no small amount of rot at the core of some of them, as a significant number of leaders of orders welcomed and led the rebellions. In some others, misleaders arose from the ranks and took over the institutions.
[/quote]

 

[Tomdstone]

Many people felt alienated by Benedict’s insistence with bringing the Church back to the 1950s and undoing Vatican II.

How was the Catholic Church brought back to the 50’s ?

 

[irishpatrick]

This brings up an interesting thought. Granted, VII was greatly misinterpreted. But one has to at least wonder about a lot of the churchmen prior to it. Why were misinterpretations so widely accepted by so many of them? Why did so many priests and religious go “over the hill” shortly after VII?

Yes, many were just confused or misled. It seems inescapable, however, that there was no small amount of rot at the core of some of them, as a significant number of leaders of orders welcomed and led the rebellions. In some others, misleaders arose from the ranks and took over the institutions.

It seems to me that a great deal of evil influence hit the Church around that same time–it was at that same time that the abuse crisis (60s, 70s, 80s) was it its worse, along with all the personal parish level interpretations of Vatican II. That council actually brought many wonderful, and needed, refinements to the faith–yet it did not change one teaching, none.

I think the 60s, 70s, and part of the 80s, was a time of enormous cultural upheaval, and sadly the Church in the USA/west allowed itself to follow, rather than lead the culture. IMO

 

[kag1982]

How was the Catholic Church brought back to the 50’s ?

I think that Benedict or at least those around him wanted to get rid of the new liturgy. The mangling of the English translation was the first step.

@ irishpatrick. I’m just pointing out that many disaffected and more mainstream Catholics like myself didn’t really like Benedict and found his speeches confusing. I didn’t understand what he was saying. There are two sides of the coin. You really don’t have to personally like the Pope, you can ignore him. I generally ignored Benedict for eight years. I think that Francis is a moderate in the vein of a Bernadin or the Jesuit example, Pedro Arrupe. It is clear he has much different priorities than the last two popes. So I think that more traditional Catholics are just going to have to come to that realization.

As for Vatican II, it is difficult for me to believe your statement because the next sentence you extol the 1950s. If you’ve ever seen an episode of Mad Men, you will know that the 1950s weren’t all that great. All the vices that existed today existed back then. Abortion and birth control were around, but underground. Teens still had hormones and got in trouble. It is just that everything was swept under the rug and hidden.

 

[irishpatrick]

I think that Benedict or at least those around him wanted to get rid of the new liturgy. The mangling of the English translation was the first step.

@ irishpatrick. I’m just pointing out that many disaffected and more mainstream Catholics like myself didn’t really like Benedict and found his speeches confusing. I didn’t understand what he was saying. There are two sides of the coin. You really don’t have to personally like the Pope, you can ignore him. I generally ignored Benedict for eight years. I think that Francis is a moderate in the vein of a Bernadin or the Jesuit example, Pedro Arrupe. It is clear he has much different priorities than the last two popes. So I think that more traditional Catholics are just going to have to come to that realization.

As for Vatican II, it is difficult for me to believe your statement because the next sentence you extol the 1950s. If you’ve ever seen an episode of Mad Men, you will know that the 1950s weren’t all that great. All the vices that existed today existed back then. Abortion and birth control were around, but underground. Teens still had hormones and got in trouble. It is just that everything was swept under the rug and hidden.

Again, Pope Benedict XVI was a loved and holy Pope (maybe you did not love him, but hundreds of millions did). Pope Francis, viewing him from this early stage, also appears to be a much loved (even more so at this early stage than Pope B16) and holy Pope. The Holy Spirit directs the Cardinals in their choice, and the Holy Spirit knows, in each age and time, what the Church and the world needs most in a Pope. So, Pope Francis is what we need today, while Pope Benedict XVI was what we needed while he remained actively Pope. So, imo, your personal dislike for PB16 is misplaced, it betrays a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit.

As for the 1950s, and Vatican II–please do not stretch my words into something I did not say. I never implied the 50s were somehow a Utopian era…far from it, the 50s also had its problems. My point is that if you view the faith with an honest and open mind, you have to concede that Catholics practiced and followed the faith in vastly larger numbers before Vatican II. So, it is natural to ask what went wrong after that council…because 75% Mass dropping to 25% Mass attendance is a huge and sad problem.

No one (not even so-called traditionalists) want to bring the world or the Church back to the 50s–what they want is the Church to follow Vatican II as it was intended, and not as so many have mis-interpreted. Again, there was no call to tear down Churches and build the ugly half-round edifices we now call Churches, there was no call to remove altar rails, and many, many other inventions that were not part of the council.

The very term, “mainstream Catholic,” is deeply troubling to me, just as I do not like the term, “traditionalist Catholics,” nor do I like imputing political titles on Catholics, like “Liberal Catholics,” and “Conservative Catholics.” In truth, we are all Catholics, called to faithfully follow all that Christ gave the Church and the world–no group is above the other, we are all Catholics.

Please, read the Vatican II documents…all of them.

I am of the firm belief that Pope Francis has entered the office of the Papacy at the most unique time in history. He enters in the midst of a huge apostasy from the faith (some might even call it the Great Apostasy), and his language and mission appears to be to take the message of Divine Mercy to all people so that many more can be saved. The day of Divine Mercy (day means a period of time in this context) has a finite time, and it will come to a close, and following the age of Divine Mercy will be the age of Divine Justice. It seems to me that the Pope is well, well aware of this and that he is trying to attract millions towards Christ so that more can be saved. IMO

Remember, every Pope has a slightly different approach based on what is needed at the that time–yet, no Pope will ever change any formal teachings, doctrines, or dogmas.

Recall too, that Pope Benedict XVI once said the Church would face hard times and that it would become smaller, and poorer…Pope Francis seems to be preparing Catholics for that time (by preaching a need to simplify and get more frugal, smaller). Go here for more:

lifeondoverbeach.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/benedict-xvi-the-church-will-become-small/

So, if we pay very close attention, we can see the impact of the Holy Spirit’s guidance across the recent Popes…they all played amazing and critical roles in the Church’s role to bring souls to Christ.