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

[Jaberwocky]

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

Knowing what is right also means you are responsible to helping others know what is wrong. That is Church teaching.

 

[triumphguy]

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

That’s 'cos I ride Triumph bikes.

And you never heard of God’s Harley being heard in the OT did you!

 

[triumphguy]

Knowing what is right also means you are responsible to helping others know what is wrong. That is Church teaching.

So do you shout at them from the front door, or do you invite them in have a cup of tea and talk about it?

Question: do you want to be RIGHT, or do you want to be HEARD?

 

[McCall1981]

For those wondering about what Francis said about proselytizing, this is from his homily yesterday, I think it answers some questions.

“Another spirit comes, that of that charity that suffers all, pardons all, that does not boast, that is humble, that doesn’t seek itself. Someone could say — and there are some philosophers that thing this way — that this is a humiliation of the majesty of man, of the greatness of man. This is sterile! The Church has wisely made this saint, humble, small, trusting in God, meek: she has made her the Patron of Missions.” …

“The Church, Benedict XVI told us, does not grow through proselytism, it grows through attraction, through witness. And when the people see this witness of humility, of meekness, of mildness, they feel the need that the Prophet Zachariah spoke of: ‘We want to come with you.’ The people feel that need in the face of the witness of charity, of this humble charity, without bullying, not sufficient, humble. Worship and serve!” …

“Today, here in the Vatican, begins the meeting with the Cardinal consulters, who are concelebrating the Mass. Let us ask the Lord that our work today will make us all more humble, more meek, more patient, more trusting in God, so that the Church can give a beautiful witness to the people, and seeing the People of God, seeing the Church, they might feel the desire to come with us.”

 

[Jaberwocky]

So do you shout at them from the front door, or do you invite them in have a cup of tea and talk about it?

Question: do you want to be RIGHT, or do you want to be HEARD?

Why do you have to create a false dichotomy? Everyone should want to be right in the sense of wanting to know the truth.

As for being heard, what does that have to do with this topic? We are talking about whether or not unrepentant sinners should be part of the Church community. The answer is NO and we do not need to go to these sort of analogies to settle that.

The matter was settled when St. Paul asked that the person who persisted in sexual immorality to be removed from the Church community at Corinth and chastised the community for its arrogance in allowing him to remain with them. So that matter is closed and yet you keep debating it as if something has changed?

 

[bilop]

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.

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.

Sure, and the Pope should be reaching out to both.

There is no need to run down the Church or the current faithful to attract the non-believers.

God Bless

 

[manualman]

I lived in the place for 17 years.

LOL, I believe the web phrase for that is that I “just got owned.” (Sometimes written pwned for reasons that escape me, honestly!).

Sounds like you might have some awesomely interesting stories to tell!

On another post, I’m not sure you’re understanding people right (me at least) if you are suggesting that we all want to see hordes enter the church and be baptized unrepentant. What we want is for people to encounter Christ in the Christians that they meet. Over time and repetition, that has a profund effect on people, even those hardened and cynical in their sin. Good thing too, since that often describes me!

 

[triumphguy]

Why do you have to create false dichotomy? Everyone should want to be right in the sense of wanting to know the truth.

As for being heard, what does that have to do with this topic? We are talking about whether or not unrepentant sinners should be part of the Church community. The answer is NO and we do not need to go to these sort of analogies to settle that.

The matter was settled when St. Paul asked that the person who persisted in sexual immorality to be removed from the Church community at Corinth and chastised the community for its arrogance in allowing him to remain with them. So that matter is closed and yet you keep debating it as if something has changed?

Of course everyone should want to know the truth since that desire is imprinted in our hearts.

What does being heard have to do with the Truth? Everything!

We can argue with pro-abortionists for example, but to win their hearts and minds we need to hear them first, and allow themselves to hear themselves, and only then will they hear us. We don’t need laws to change the horrific abortion rates of our various countries, we need a change of heart - from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh.

If you want to create hearts of stone tell people how right you/we are.

If you want to create hearts of flesh - listen.

BTW it worked for me as a prison chaplain.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Of course everyone should want to know the truth since that desire is imprinted in our hearts.

What does being heard have to do with the Truth? Everything!

We can argue with pro-abortionists for example, but to win their hearts and minds we need to hear them first, and allow themselves to hear themselves, and only then will they hear us. We don’t need laws to change the horrific abortion rates of our various countries, we need a change of heart - from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh.

If you want to create hearts of stone tell people how right you/we are.

If you want to create hearts of flesh - listen.

Nothing you say here even touches upon what I just told you. It’s like you replied to a completely different post.

You can listen to unrepentant sinners, play ball with them and do whatever you like. But to say they can be welcomed in to the Church community while they are persisting in their sin and even vocally supportive of it is a lie.

BTW it worked for me as a prison chaplain.

That’s because someone who had some sense put the criminals in prison rather than just invite them in to Church!!!

 

[Jaberwocky]

LOL, I believe the web phrase for that is that I “just got owned.” (Sometimes written pwned for reasons that escape me, honestly!).

Sounds like you might have some awesomely interesting stories to tell!

Lets just say, its certainly a veeery different world!

On another post, I’m not sure you’re understanding people right (me at least) if you are suggesting that we all want to see hordes enter the church and be baptized unrepentant. What we want is for people to encounter Christ in the Christians that they meet. Over time and repetition, that has a profund effect on people, even those hardened and cynical in their sin. Good thing too, since that often describes me!

Oh ok. I completely agree with what you say.

But it actually feels like some are advocating inviting everyone as if anyone who is vocally opposed to Church teaching be simply allowed in and treated gently.

 

[SaintAugustine]

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?

I was teasing…sheesh.

But, that said, by your analogy, the Church doesn’t have to act triumphantly because it is obvious to everyone that She is right. There is no need to demonstrate our superiority to the obviously inferior religions.

 

[triumphguy]

Nothing you say here even touches upon what I just told you. It’s like you replied to a completely different post.

You can listen to unrepentant sinners, play ball with them and do whatever you like. But to say they can be welcomed in to the Church community while they are persisting in their sin and even vocally supportive of it is a lie.

That’s because someone who had some sense put the criminals in prison rather than just invite them in to Church!!!

Maybe I’m not sure about what you mean by “in church.”

I’m talking about dialogue with people not yet in church.

Do I think we should have gay parishes? No.
Should we preach from the pulpit that all those in irregular relationships can pretend everything is hunky dory? No of course not.

Should we talk to the gay community, to abortionists, to the divorced, to teenage boys who use porn?

Of course.

Should we sit down and dialogue with sinners? Of course.

Do we give up on the sacraments? Of course not.

 

[SaintAugustine]

LOL, I believe the web phrase for that is that I “just got owned.” (Sometimes written pwned for reasons that escape me, honestly!).

Sounds like you might have some awesomely interesting stories to tell!

On another post, I’m not sure you’re understanding people right (me at least) if you are suggesting that we all want to see hordes enter the church and be baptized unrepentant. What we want is for people to encounter Christ in the Christians that they meet. Over time and repetition, that has a profund effect on people, even those hardened and cynical in their sin. Good thing too, since that often describes me!

Pwned comes from a typo. It was picked up in the gamer community and became the normal use.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Maybe I’m not sure about what you mean by “in church.”

I’m talking about dialogue with people not yet in church.

Do I think we should have gay parishes? No.
Should we preach from the pulpit that all those in irregular relationships can pretend everything is hunky dory? No of course not.

Should we talk to the gay community, to abortionists, to the divorced, to teenage boys who use porn?

Of course.

Should we sit down and dialogue with sinners? Of course.

Do we give up on the sacraments? Of course not.

But I thought you insisted that the Church become a welcoming place for all?

By Church, I mean the place where the community gets together to celebrate the Eucharist. So to me, if you want to make all people feel welcome, that would have to include not mentioning sins from the pulpit or at least toning it down very much. Depending on the type that is entering, even the sacraments and liturgy may suffer as we try to accommodate them in. In all this there will also be scandal as many others start to think that the sinful behavior is acceptable.

 

[triumphguy]

But I thought you insisted that the Church become a welcoming place for all?

By Church, I mean the place where the community gets together to celebrate the Eucharist. So to me, if you want to make all people feel welcome, that would have to include not mentioning sins from the pulpit or at least toning it down very much. Depending on the type that is entering, even the sacraments and liturgy may suffer as we try to accommodate them in. In all this there will also be scandal as many others start to think that the sinful behavior is acceptable.

Of course I insisted that.

And still do.

Church = Body of Christ - as I said in my first post in this thread, not just the parish building where we celebrate the Eucharist.

So a welcoming church could mean a solitary friar on the streets midnight talking to street people, or you in your job helping people feel more, well, human, when you feel like telling them to get stuffed.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Of course I insisted that.

And still do.

Church = Body of Christ - as I said in my first post in this thread, not just the parish building where we celebrate the Eucharist.

So a welcoming church could mean a solitary friar on the streets midnight talking to street people, or you in your job helping people feel more, well, human, when you feel like telling them to get stuffed.

Hmmm.

Well, I see what you are saying but I don’t know if you want to say “in to the Church”. Because you cannot welcome an unrepentant sinner in to the Body of Christ as well. One becomes a part of the body only through baptism. Sin separates the person from God till they repent.

But at least we agree on the idea you want to convey. You are essentially saying there must be dialogue. I think that is something we can all agree on as long as it is done prudently as well.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hmmm.

Well, I see what you are saying but I don’t know if you want to say “in to the Church”. Because you cannot welcome an unrepentant sinner in to the Body of Christ as well. One becomes a part of the body only through baptism. Sin separates the person from God till they repent.

But at least we agree on the idea you want to convey. You are essentially saying there must be dialogue. I think that is something we can all agree on as long as it is done prudently as well.

I’m not sure if we can now in the Western world in AD 2013 actually have dialogue. We might have done so even a couple of decades ago, but not now. Why? Because we no longer have a common language.

“X” means what I think or say it means. . .even if to another person X means something different, even something completely opposite.

If you say you love someone, you may mean that you love them with the kind of love that is looking out for the long term good, the kind of love that endures and is not ‘changed’ by circumstance, the kind of love that demands from both self-sacrifice, humility, and tenderness. That’s the Christian kind of love. For centuries it was if not the ‘only’ love, the kind of idealized love that people knew they should work toward even if they fell short.

But to so many today (tragically), love means a license to do what they choose and to be applauded for their choice; it means a kind of hot and fierce desire which everybody else must cater to, it means that once ‘feelings of love’ cease for that person that he or she is instantly free to ‘dump’ the loved one in favor of someone else. . .it’s the ultimate in narcissism. This kind of ‘love’ isn’t meant to last and it isn’t meant to share. . .it is meant to give the one demanding it everything that one desires, and to turn the one who gives it into an object. . .sought after while it provides the ‘love’, and thrown into the trash when no longer needed.

And that’s just the term ‘love’. Nearly every word or concept in the English language today has been taken over so that it means ‘what I choose’. You can’t talk to people about love, or service, or virtue, or evil. . .because what ‘one man’ sees as being an example is seen by another as being the antithesis, and neither party will budge. In a world where language is relative, the only ‘wrong’ is insisting that some word/concept is an absolute. . .and because Christianity rests in the absolute person of Christ Himself, we have to from the start reject the idea that there is ‘no such thing as an absolute’. The average nonChristian (and too many Christians) are so much part of the world and its education, its media, its ‘take’ that they don’t realize how they have come to accept the constant barrage of ‘right for me, but not for me’.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

With this latest interview which does reflect how our current Pope views the faith and freely chose to be interviewed by this person has certainly changed how some things are to be done in the future.

The most telling quote is the first paragraph:

Pope Francis told me: "The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. The old need care and companionship; the young need work and hope but have neither one nor the other, and the problem is they don’t even look for them any more. They have been crushed by the present. You tell me: can you live crushed under the weight of the present? Without a memory of the past and without the desire to look ahead to the future by building something, a future, a family? Can you go on like this? This, to me, is the most urgent problem that the Church is facing.

Certainly that is not an answer that most Catholics here would give. One would expect the most serious evil to be abortion, gay marriage, war…

It is my intention to critique the Pope here but simply to say that one can’t say he is saying the same thing that Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II have said.

We have a different Pope than his last 2 predecessor’s.

 

[triumphguy]

Hmmm.

Well, I see what you are saying but I don’t know if you want to say “in to the Church”. Because you cannot welcome an unrepentant sinner in to the Body of Christ as well. One becomes a part of the body only through baptism. Sin separates the person from God till they repent.

But at least we agree on the idea you want to convey. You are essentially saying there must be dialogue. I think that is something we can all agree on as long as it is done prudently as well.

Where there is Christ, there is the Church.

http://wpmedia.life.nationalpost.com/2013/07/pope-51.jpg?w=940&h=627

 

[Abba]

To come to these articles with the same mindset at the Holy Father, we have to let go of our tendency to be defensive, over protective, suspicious, over analytical. In a sense, we must be like St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis of Assisi. These were men who came to the table with no expectations, no agendas of their own, no intent to defend, justify or apologize for their faith. They came with one simple idea in mind. They wanted to hear the Church speak. They would store what they heard, knowing that it was often incomplete, because of the circumstances. In other words, they knew that what they were hearing was part of the whole, because popes, councils, cardinals, theologians and other could not address the whole in the amount of time that they had.

Ignatius and Francis were very wise. They took what they heard, used what they could, stored the rest in their hearts and minds and waited for the Holy Spirit to shed light. That light came through someone else who continued the discussion later. Sometimes it came through prayer. Sometimes it came through memory. They remembered something that they heard before and they connected the dots. Sometimes they were left with a mental file that they could not understand, but they lived and died believing that if they did not understand it, maybe it was not necessary for them. It might be necessary for someone else, but not for Ignatius or Francis. They left it alone. They never felt the need to connect all the dots or to have popes connect all the dots. They never felt the need to protect themselves from agendas. Trust me, there were plenty of agendas in those days.

It was a good thing for the people of the time that they didn’t have Internet. Just listen to the pope, keeping in mind that he is an intelligent man and entering the situation with the same mindset that he does. If we do this, we can get much out of what he says. For me, it’s enriching, because I’m not a Jesuit. Although we studied a great many Jesuit theologians in the seminary, we were not exposed to that many in real life. To hear one speak and speak from the Chair of Peter, is an experience that may not happen again for centuries. I’m not about to waste it in over analysis. I’m sitting back thinking, “Ahhh, now I understand why Jesuits say [insert idea].” Sometimes, the pope will say something and I will think about it and say, “Hmmm, interesting. He’s paraphrasing St. Francis of Assisi, but he’s using Jesuit language and it’s not working. But I know what he’s talking about. Fascinating” as Mr. Spock would say. More often than not, I just read these things and say, “This is good spirituality. I need to work on this myself.”

Br. JR, Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge and offer guidance. I for one appreciate your posts and although I am no theologian and am admittedly intellectually lazy I do understand what you write. I think most people with a third grade education can easily understand as you write with much clarity and precision.

If I could describe what you are saying with one word, I would say HUMILITY and if I get to pick a second word, I would say OBEDIENCE. Your point is well taken as far as I am concerned. It is also very true. There have been many times in my journey that I have encountered teachings that I did not understand and I put these things in the back burner or in my : Things I do not understand, file and have come to understand those things.

Perhaps, Pope Francis needs to address the narcissism of the laity as well.