"Pope Francis Digs at Vatican's Narcissistic Nature.."

[triumphguy]

See, this is where I think we disagree. Is the Church an “emergency ward?” Sure. But, it is also the regular clinic where you work on prevention and staying healthy. If you go to the regular clinic, and the doctor or practitioner doesn’t say “hey, you need to stop smoking because smoking leads to emphysema and lung cancer and you don’t want to be breathing out of your neck,” then they are doing a disservice to the patient. It is also the school, where the teachers let the students know about the dangers of smoking, drinking and poor nutrition. It is also our spiritual parents, giving us a smack on the back of the head every once in a while, to put us on the right path when we are being stupid. The Church is a lot of things, so don’t limit it to being an emergency ward.

We shouldn’t wait until someone comes to the emergency ward with serious, critical injuries to save them.

Because of the tenor of the Popes recent articles I’m talking about how the church presents itself to the world - not in a “triumphalist” fashion but welcoming and healing.

The Pope is talking to the world right now as much as he is talking to Catholics.

The Church as members of the Body of Christ is a different issue, a different role.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I think admitting that it’s not a word for word transcript is a pretty big deal considering this is the Pope we’re talking about.

I think, if it turns out true that the interview is inaccurate, we are seeing the first signs of the media creating a completely virtual Pope.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Because of the tenor of the Popes recent articles I’m talking about how the church presents itself to the world - not in a “triumphalist” fashion but welcoming and healing.

The Pope is talking to the world right now as much as he is talking to Catholics.

The Church as members of the Body of Christ is a different issue, a different role.

All of the other roles I mentioned are for the whole world, not just the Body of Christ. We don’t hold back preventive care and education from the unBaptized.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Because of the tenor of the Popes recent articles I’m talking about how the church presents itself to the world - not in a “triumphalist” fashion but welcoming and healing.

The Pope is talking to the world right now as much as he is talking to Catholics.

The Church as members of the Body of Christ is a different issue, a different role.

“Triumphalist” does not mean what you are speaking of here. To get some context, you should read what and where Pope Benedict XVI used that word. It was to describe an entirely different group of people who belittle the faithful (especially the poor) for their piety and devotions.

It has nothing to do with a feeling of “we know the truth and we must share it” mentality. That is something every Catholic should have.

 

[manualman]

There is also an ample amount of message of love. Yet we have more and more people who couldn’t care less until the Church changes her moral stance in North America. We have Africa where there is less of this emotional love business. It has a thriving Church.

Find an actual African and talk to him some time. The faith is alive and vibrant there because there is rampant suffering there and the gospel shines brightly in the darkness. The actual doctrinal education and orthodoxy of the average African catholic is no better than the average American. What they DO have in spades is precisely whole massive bunches of “emotional love business.” Hope is a joyful thing. Having it restored when you previously had none is pretty emotional.

The spiritual malaise in North America has more to do with us being materially spoiled than it does with bishops and priests not preaching orthodoxy hard enough (though I grant that a bit harder sometimes sure wouldn’t hurt…). We mask our lack of hope in gluttony, lust and sloth. It takes a while for people to realize that these things are a poor replacement for hope.

 

[manualman]

“Triumphalist” does not mean what you are speaking of here.

The man Jesus observed in the temple who thanked God that he wasn’t a sinner like that tax collector was a “triumphalist.” It is indeed a danger and a temptation for orthodox believers to attempt to appropriate the church as an extension of their own vanity. It’s good to remind ourselves that we’re forgiven sinners too (and I’m not suggesting that you think otherwise.).

 

[gracepoole]

You have evidence that a flock of people have flooded the Church, requesting baptism and denying basic Catholic teachings?

This question wasn’t answered but I think it’s a good one – people are fearful but are they fearful with good reason?

I don’t understand. If the Pope says things that dishearten us in our faith, make it harder for us to have faith in him, why shouldn’t we say so?

God Bless

Nothing he has said contradicts Church teaching. Why are you disheartened by him?

I understand a lot of the well meaning people here, but let us not decieve ourselves. The messages Pope Francis has been giving recently sound very similar to those of mega-churches or the emergent churches. Very little on sin, very little on Christ, the Incarnation, Heaven, Hell, etc. Deep important issues.

Of course we need to teach with love, but that cannot come at compromising Catholic values. Again, I know many of you will say, that he’s not changing or compromising anything. But the concern that many have is legitimate by those who have it. When Catholics start talking more like the world, and less like Christ, that is troublesome.

Remember Christ’s words, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”

And the people concerned by Francis’ words do not care about the less pomp and circumstance in the Vatican. Many of us, welcome that. We are concerned that his statements are showing us a dangerous pattern.

I would respectfully suggest that those of us who feel this way investigate our own hearts first. As to the portion in bold above, I believe Francis is speaking just as Christ did – I’m confused (to put it mildly) as to why you think differently?

How about we all go home tonight, read the gospel of Matthew and come back tomorrow and discuss when and where Jesus used words of welcome and invitation and when/where he used words of rebuke. Who received each sort of message? What came before and after that message?

My assertion is that you’ll find that Jesus did NOT use message of rebuke or condemnation for those mired in the common human vices until AFTER he made a personal connection with that person first. The only exceptions I can recall (I’m going to reread too) are for those who believed that their religious practices already placed them above reproach. They got called “broods of vipers.” Yikes.

Perhaps the logic of Francis goes like this (I’ll speak as him). I see three sorts of people out there:

1. The already converted. They’re far from perfect, but they already know and strive to conform their hearts to Christs in Grace. JPII and B16 gave them plenty to chew on for a while!
2. The obstinate sinners who refuse to even admit that they need forgiveness and healing. Pretty much nothing I can say or do will dent them. They need to encounter Christ in the form of believers in their own lives. I have to leave them to the troops.
3. The broken and hurting sinners who know something is wrong and just don’t know where to turn. I’ve worked with these my whole priesthood. I can help here. I’ll focus my energy in this direction. They need to know FIRST that Jesus still loves them. I will preach that message.

 

[triumphguy]

“Triumphalist” does not mean what you are speaking of here. To get some context, you should read what and where Pope Benedict XVI used that word. It was to describe an entirely different group of people who belittle the faithful (especially the poor) for their piety and devotions.

It has nothing to do with a feeling of “we know the truth and we must share it” mentality. That is something every Catholic should have.

I don’t think you are interpreting that correctly.

Pope Francis said this:

When we look at these Christians , with their many triumphalist attitudes , in their lives, in their speeches and in their pastoral theology, liturgy, so many things, it is because they do not believe deep down in the Risen One. He is the Winner, the Risen One. He won.

Fr. James Martin, SJ explained it this way:

Triumphalism is usually (in Catholic circles) taken to mean a particular approach to our understanding of the Catholic church. Rather than focusing on the “triumph” of the Resurrection, we instead focus on our own “triumph,” as in: “We Catholics are perfect. We are always right. We have all the answers. Everyone else is wrong, and they have nothing to offer us whatsoever, and we’re going to let them know it–often.” Basically, it is a focus on how great we are. In other words, triumphing in ourselves rather than in the Risen Christ.

It also implies assuming, seeking and enjoying a position of power, dominance and even ruthlessness, as well as forgetting the need to be humble, gentle, charitable and–as Jesus asked–a servant rather than a master. Triumphalism, again in Catholic circles, is usually taken to mean the opposite of humility in the presentation of our message–which is, paradoxically, about triumph, i.e., Jesus’s. It is related to the sin of pride.

catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=141084

 

[triumphguy]

All of the other roles I mentioned are for the whole world, not just the Body of Christ. We don’t hold back preventive care and education from the unBaptized.

Look we could go round and round analyzing each post of the other.

Let’s assume that you and I are orthodox in our faith and probably misunderstanding each other and leave it at that.

 

[manualman]

I’d quibble with Fr. Martin that an awful lot of catholics I’ve met along the way define “triumphalist” as “the attitude that Catholicism is true and that proposed principles diametrically opposed to it must be false.”

To boil that down even more, far too many people end up defining people as “triumphalist” if, in fact, they actually believe in the dogmas and doctrines of the catholic church. It’s a terribly abused word, that much must be admitted.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Find an actual African and talk to him some time. The faith is alive and vibrant there because there is rampant suffering there and the gospel shines brightly in the darkness. The actual doctrinal education and orthodoxy of the average African catholic is no better than the average American. What they DO have in spades is precisely whole massive bunches of “emotional love business.” Hope is a joyful thing. Having it restored when you previously had none is pretty emotional.

The spiritual malaise in North America has more to do with us being materially spoiled than it does with bishops and priests not preaching orthodoxy hard enough (though I grant that a bit harder sometimes sure wouldn’t hurt…). We mask our lack of hope in gluttony, lust and sloth. It takes a while for people to realize that these things are a poor replacement for hope.

I am afraid you are wrong here. The emotional love business does not exist as much as it does in North America. Yet the North American Church is collapsing while they are thriving.

Emotion does not help anyone or give good foundations. Reason that leads to faith is what does that.

 

[bilop]

What I am saying is that he is challenging us. He’s got a different style from those who came before him. The Pope is the Pope because the Holy Spirit guided the Cardinals to his election. If listening to him is disheartening people, I would argue that the problem is not with the pope, but with the people listening.

I don’t mean to put myself on a pedestal here! Lord knows there are parts of the church teaching that sometimes make me feel a little disheartened (What parts exactly are between the Lord and Myself, suffice to say I bow to the wisdom of the Church in those parts regardless) But I would conclude this is because of my own failings, not the failings of the church or those who watch over it.

And I have no problem with being challenged. Francis’ statements about the idolatry of money, and the sickness it causes in our society are spot on. So are his calls to do more for the poor.

The issue is that he seems bent on making sloppy statements that can be too easily misunderstood theologically.

There are “heart” Catholics, and “head” Catholics. I am firmly the latter. I returned to the practice of the faith because I became convinced the theology of the Church was true.

If Francis persists in this type of dialogue, I, and others like me are just going to tune him out. I’m almost there already. I’ll get my spiritual sustenance from more Theologically rigorous sources.

God Bless

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Its bad that fallen away Catholics are returning? Its bad that the secular world is listening to the Pope and maybe even learning from him? You dislike the Pope for spreading the Gospel and bringing back the lost sheep? You’re right, I don’t understand why you don’t like these things.

The fact is if he isn’t changing Church teachings, then while it is great people may be returning (we’ll see if statistics bear this out…), are they going to stay if the next Pope is more like Pope Emeritus Benedict? Anything to get people in the door is a good thing and an opportunity to open their eyes to the Church’s truth and beauty, but in the end, if they have rejected the Church in the past because of the messenger, they likely will again at some point in the future. The Catholics who felt at home under JPII and B16 haven;t given any indication they are suddenyl being turned away by Pope Francis. You have to be in love with Christ’s teachings, not the flawed men who are left to deliver them.

 

[Brendan_64]

Anything to get people in the door is a good thing and an opportunity to open their eyes to the Church’s truth and beauty, but in the end, if they have rejected the Church in the past because of the messenger, they likely will again at some point in the future.

So best just not to waste our time bothering with them? Just accept that these souls are damned to Hell and waste no more time on them? Just give them up as lost causes?

 

[shelby_sun]

But were we not told to go out to the world and spread the good news? How can we expect them to want to change if we do not provide them with reasons to change?

When we pray, we do so that God will open their minds and hearts to receive the good news that God gives them through us. We cannot just expect miraculous private revelations of the magnitude of St. Paul’s experience that God only grants to few and is not something we are to desire for ourselves or others.

Therefore I must respectfully state that what you said maybe contrary to Church teaching.

Really, are you for real? We are not all called to go preach The Word to non-believers anymore that we are all call to be priests or nuns. There are some, like yourself, that like to focus on those point in the Bible.

You and others who are well catechized and part of a religious order will know that. But the majority, which is the average Catholic will not understand that and cannot even be expected to grasp that. They see the Pope saying the same thing they have been telling the Church all these years. They see a Pope who is saying the Church is narcissistic, power hungry, full of emphasis on doctrine and dogma that overshadows the love and mercy of God, a Church that should just accept sinners (no mention of need for repentance in any of the interview) and other all sorts of things.

 

[gracepoole]

Hmm, you might have a point about my tendency to just “you are incorrect”. I will watch out for it and try to minimize it in the future. Thanks

I am afraid you are wrong here.

Just had to comment that I got a good chuckle from your rephrasing of the same comment.

So best just not to waste our time bothering with them? Just accept that these souls are damned to Hell and waste no more time on them? Just give them up as lost causes?

Indeed! Thankfully God does not wash His hands of anyone.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Just had to comment that I got a good chuckle from your rephrasing of the same comment.

I said I will minimize it. I obviously cannot completely avoid stating it, can I? As long as there are wrong statements in the world, sometimes it has to be said that “It is wrong”.

I think the sooner we grasp that the more open we will be to discussing things more fruitfully.

 

[Brendan_64]

There are “heart” Catholics, and “head” Catholics. I am firmly the latter. I returned to the practice of the faith because I became convinced the theology of the Church was true.

And then there are Catholics who have felt called to return, only to later understand the theology. When I was called back, God didn’t mention anything theological, he just asked me why I was running. That was enough for me.

It is not all about theology. Faith isn’t an intellectual pursuit. The message of Jesus is simple, simple enough to be understood by all regardless of age or intellectual ability. We are called to be like children, not scholars.

If Francis persists in this type of dialogue, I, and others like me are just going to tune him out. I’m almost there already.

So the Holy Father should base his style on what suits the likes of you?

The poor souls outside the Church have little chance. For a fisher of souls their souls are in more danger than yours. They are more of a priority as at least you’re already within the Church, you at least have a chance.

Pope Francis is taking exactly the right approach in an attempt to win more souls for Jesus.

 

[shelby_sun]

And I have no problem with being challenged. Francis’ statements about the idolatry of money, and the sickness it causes in our society are spot on. So are his calls to do more for the poor.

The issue is that he seems bent on making sloppy statements that can be too easily misunderstood theologically.

There are “heart” Catholics, and “head” Catholics. I am firmly the latter. I returned to the practice of the faith because I became convinced the theology of the Church was true.

If Francis persists in this type of dialogue, I, and others like me are just going to tune him out. I’m almost there already. I’ll get my spiritual sustenance from more Theologically rigorous sources.

God Bless

Well now it is your turn. Those of us raised by The Jesuits who have had to “tune out” other priests are thrilled with Pope Francis and understand where he is coming from. By the way, he is not being sloppy you are just choosing not to listen. You are truly missing out on a huge part of your faith if you are only a “head Catholic”.

 

[Gricken]

And I have no problem with being challenged. Francis’ statements about the idolatry of money, and the sickness it causes in our society are spot on. So are his calls to do more for the poor.

The issue is that he seems bent on making sloppy statements that can be too easily misunderstood theologically.

There are “heart” Catholics, and “head” Catholics. I am firmly the latter. I returned to the practice of the faith because I became convinced the theology of the Church was true.

If Francis persists in this type of dialogue, I, and others like me are just going to tune him out. I’m almost there already. I’ll get my spiritual sustenance from more Theologically rigorous sources.

God Bless

But why can’t one be a heart catholic and a head catholic? I don’t see how the two are mutually exclusive. And Pope Franics isn’t “sloppy”. He isn’t Benedict. Not every pope is going to act the same way he did. The difference is purely in style, not in substance.