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

[_Abyssinia]

Is Pope Francis about to “rip up” the Vatican constitution? 12 things to know and share

 

[shelby_sun]

Actually I avoided talking more about it because I felt it was pointless.

Even the interpretation by Fr. James does not help her position. Fr. James is speaking of a very real problem. But she was trying to imply that the opposite of Fr. James is a openly welcoming place for everyone. That is not correct.

The Church does not openly welcome unrepentant sinners in to the faith. It is not the Church actually but Christ himself. One cannot become baptized or get a confession and enter in the life of the Church unless they renounce their evil ways and try to amend their lives.

The very insistence on this thread by many that it is not the case leads me to think that most of you do hold the view from the interviews as God’s moral laws and God’s love and mercy as something in contention with each other.

BTW I hold a Jesuits view of my faith which you might want to get used to seeing that our Pope is a Jesuit with a strong connection with the Franciscans, neither of which live their faith as you seem to do.

Seeing as you are very new, you would miss out on a great deal of knowledge by not truly listening to Bro. and all his learning and wisdom. I think he has a better understanding of our faith.

 

[gracepoole]

As for Pope Francis, to claim if he is the right man or not is beyond my expertise.

But not beyond the expertise of the Holy Spirit. Deo gratias!

 

[shelby_sun]

Thank you for the nudge but you have to admit its better to discuss the matter than discuss the nature of those in attendance.

I meant no disrespect toward the Brother. I was merely suggesting that what he said seems wrong and I am sure he will clarify what he meant in the future. But even if he did not, that is ok because he is not infallible.

As for Pope Francis, to claim if he is the right man or not is beyond my expertise.

I have never know Bro. to be unclear on this site. He takes his time and explains everything quite well. Maybe you should consider for just a second that you need to be a little more open to others knowledge.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Well I could be wrong, which I am sure you will tell me I am, but I do not believe God would turn away even a unrepentant sinners, but rather have patience and understanding as He tries to show them the light.

You seem to be one of those posters that know everything, but knowing is not faith. Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven and you seem to need to prove something. I am sure you are very knowledgeable in what the Catholic Church teaches, but no one knows what God’s true plan is in the future, not even the Catholic Church. Most priest will even admit that. Just because Pope Francis does not come across as arrogant as to proclaim what exactly God will do, does mean he goes against the church.

If one persists in ones sins without repentance, then they will be abandoned by God in to the fires of hell. That is something taught by the Church and required to be believed through faith by all Catholics.

Therefore our job is to go out and spread the good news and instruct the ignorant as much as we can. The world, as Vatican II informs us, is full of people who have deceived themselves for a lie and have fallen in the trap of the Devil. For some of us, our job is to pray that God will open their hearts and minds to receive the good news. For others, the job is to go out and give the good news.

The good news does include saying “this way of life you are living is wrong in the sight of Christ”. It most certainly includes saying “repent and renounce your ways and accept the redemption Christ offers you and be saved”.

So in this way, God’s moral laws cannot be hidden to bring someone in to the Church. It has to be made known to them so that they can repent. There is no fight for dominance between God’s love and Moral Laws and Doctrine. To love God is to do his will and the doctrine and moral laws reveal to us what his will happens to be.

A Man is truly free when he works within these laws and teachings of the Church. The man becomes who truly God wants him to be without becoming a slave of the devil and sin.

That is what we are suppossed to communicate.

But it seems to me, at least in every thread I have participated in CAF that ever since the interview with the Pope, most people have actually misinterpreted him as saying there is a fight between God’s love and God’s mercy. That is a misinterpretation because the Pope cannot say such a thing considering its contrary to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Jaberwocky]

BTW I hold a Jesuits view of my faith which you might want to get used to seeing that our Pope is a Jesuit with a strong connection with the Franciscans, neither of which live their faith as you seem to do.

Seeing as you are very new, you would miss out on a great deal of knowledge by not truly listening to Bro. and all his learning and wisdom. I think he has a better understanding of our faith.

Why is it that everyone wants to discuss the people in attendance and not the arguments or the topic of discussion?

This is not a debate between me and the Brother. We are having a discussion. At some stages of the discussion parties will disagree and then they will naturally ask the other side to clarify if possible. It can very well turn out that we are both saying the same thing and it is just a different way of expressing things or that the Brother was speaking of something else entirely to which I would agree as well.

The problem here is that all of you seem very hostile to any indication of disagreement and take it as a hostility. That is not good. This is a discussion and the Brother and I can certainly disagree as we discuss. To just say “Brother is never wrong” does not help the discussion.

 

[gracepoole]

Why is it that everyone wants to discuss the people in attendance and not the arguments or the topic of discussion?

This is not a debate between me and the Brother. We are having a discussion. At some stages of the discussion parties will disagree and then they will naturally ask the other side to clarify if possible. It can very well turn out that we are both saying the same thing and it is just a different way of expressing things or that the Brother was speaking of something else entirely to which I would agree as well.

The problem here is that all of you seem very hostile to any indication of disagreement and take it as a hostility. That is not good. This is a discussion and the Brother and I can certainly disagree as we discuss. To just say “Brother is never wrong” does not help the discussion.

No one has claimed that any of us is infallible. We’ve merely stated that disagreeing and asking for clarification is different than repeatedly announcing that people are wrong. Do as you wish – Brother is more than capable of speaking for himself. I think, however, that folks are simply attempting to offer some kind guidance from their own experience.

 

[Jaberwocky]

No one has claimed that any of us is infallible. We’ve merely stated that disagreeing and asking for clarification is different than repeatedly announcing that people are wrong. Do as you wish – Brother is more than capable of speaking for himself. I think, however, that folks are simply attempting to offer some kind guidance from their own experience.

Your advise is noted!

As I said, lets not crowd a thread by offering advise on how to discuss. That should be offered in a different thread under an appropriate title (“How to discuss effectively” perhaps?).

While we are discussing in this thread, stick to the topic of discussion rather than discussing the attendees.

 

[triumphguy]

This is just opinion of James Martin vs. Pope Benedict XVI vs. someone else’s. All that it proves is that you should probably not be making claims based on that particular term because there are multiple interpretations of it.

OK I’ll say it bluntly and in my on words: You are wrong. The way the Pope used the word triumphalist DID NOT mean looking down on poor pious people.

It meant an attitude akin to arrogance, that “we” (no matter what particular liberal or conservative subset we inhabit) believe that we are right and non-believers are wrong.

 

[triumphguy]

Your advise is noted!

As I said, lets not crowd a thread by offering advise on how to discuss. That should be offered in a different thread under an appropriate title (“How to discuss effectively” perhaps?).

While we are discussing in this thread, stick to the topic of discussion rather than discussing the attendees.

Well - you take up a lot of time telling other people they are wrong, so that makes the veracity of your posts fair game too.

 

[Jaberwocky]

OK I’ll say it bluntly and in my on words: You are wrong. The way the Pope used the word triumphalist DID NOT mean looking down on poor pious people.

It meant an attitude akin to arrogance, that “we” (no matter what particular liberal or conservative subset we inhabit) believe that we are right and non-believers are wrong.

Ok, lets work with the definition you prefer. It still does not save your original argument.

You presume that the opposite of the definition of Fr. James is your view of an all welcoming Church. That is contrary to Church teaching.

Only those who are repentant, baptized or confessed their sins are welcome in to the Church community. You cannot just call a person who feels they have no sin and nothing to repent while engaged in sins in to the Church. That is equivalent to having a Hypocrite Pharisee as an Apostles of Christ.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Well - you take up a lot of time telling other people they are wrong, so that makes the veracity of your posts fair game too.

To say “you are wrong” does not discuss the attendees. It discusses the point/argument/premise/proposition you have presented and its truth value.

If you think its “fair game”, you might want to re-read what I said.

 

[Jaberwocky]

So after thinking about my posts today, I feel that I may have indeed come across as a bit too prideful.

For that I do apologize.

 

[triumphguy]

Ok, lets work with the definition you prefer. It still does not save your original argument.

You presume that the opposite of the definition of Fr. James is your view of an all welcoming Church. That is contrary to Church teaching.
I think you read me wrong.

Only those who are repentant, baptized or confessed their sins are welcome in to the Church community. You cannot just call a person who feels they have no sin and nothing to repent while engaged in sins in to the Church. That is equivalent to having a Hypocrite Pharisee as an Apostles of Christ.

John Paull II REDEMPTORIS MISSIO: On the permanent validity of the Church’s missionary mandate

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html

The kingdom of God is meant for all mankind, and all people are called to become members of it. To emphasize this fact, Jesus drew especially near to those on the margins of society, and showed them special favor in announcing the Good News. At the beginning of his ministry he proclaimed that he was “anointed…to preach good news to the poor” (Lk 4:18). To all who are victims of rejection and contempt Jesus declares: “Blessed are you poor” (Lk 6:20). What is more, he enables such individuals to experience liberation even now, by being close to them, going to eat in their homes (cf. Lk 5:30; 15:2), treating them as equals and friends (cf. Lk 7:34), and making them feel loved by God, thus revealing his tender care for the needy and for sinners (cf. Lk 15:1-32).

BTW on a number of occasions Jesus healed and forgave sins before being asked.

Also:
1 John 2:1-2
2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[SaintAugustine]

It meant an attitude akin to arrogance, that “we” (no matter what particular liberal or conservative subset we inhabit) believe that we are right and non-believers are wrong.

Does that mean the Pope is going to end with a “well this is what we think, but we may be wrong” at the end of each doctrinal statement?

 

[Jaberwocky]

John Paull II REDEMPTORIS MISSIO: On the permanent validity of the Church’s missionary mandate

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html

BTW on a number of occasions Jesus healed and forgave sins before being asked.

Can you explain to us these occasions where Jesus forgave sins before the person was repentant and how you came to know that the person was not yet repentant?

As for your quote from REDEMPTORIS MISSIO, which part of it mentions that unrepentant sinners should be welcomed in to the Church community?

The Church reaches out to unrepentant sinners by telling them about Christ and how their life is displeasing in the sight of the Lord. Then if the person remains unrepentant, he cannot be invited in forcefully. He has to be left out for the sake of the good of the rest till he decides to come back.

1 John 2:1-2
2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Redemption cannot be infused by force. A sinner who is unrepentant will be damned if he does not repent at any point in his life. The passage above only explains how a repentant sinner is forgiven.

EDIT: For all the mentions of triumphalism, I just realized your name tag contains the word “triumph” in a triumphant manner

 

[Jaberwocky]

Does that mean the Pope is going to end with a “well this is what we think, but we may be wrong” at the end of each doctrinal statement?

Yes. It seems to me like some are using the words of the Pope to justify dissent against claiming absolute truth.

 

[triumphguy]

Does that mean the Pope is going to end with a “well this is what we think, but we may be wrong” at the end of each doctrinal statement?

No - let me use an analogy - you like my analogies. It means when you are a 6 foot tall male teacher (for instance) and you are teaching grade 6 boys, you don’t need to prove to them how big and strong you are, but how caring and compassionate you are.

What kind of insecure teacher would need to prove his manhood to little boys?

 

[triumphguy]

Yes. It seems to me like some are using the words of the Pope to justify dissent against claiming absolute truth.

Nope - just sometimes you don’t need to prove how right you are… especially if you are right.

 

[Jaberwocky]

No - let me use an analogy - you like my analogies. It means when you are a 6 foot tall male teacher (for instance) and you are teaching grade 6 boys, you don’t need to prove to them how big and strong you are, but how caring and compassionate you are.

What kind of insecure teacher would need to prove his manhood to little boys?

Actually, your analogy doesn’t match what you are saying. It should go more like

A 6 foot tall teacher Grade 6 teacher should be more concerned about care and compassion than teaching the kids the actual material or marking their answers wrong in an exam.

And as you can see, its absurd.