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

[Megan7]

As an aside, Pope John XXII, had another error as a private theologian. He stated that the saints would not enjoy the Beatific vision until the General Judgment.
The lay people, and the Church responded and said he was wrong. He was rebuked for this, and set up something to test this undestanding.

He was taught a wrong understanding in his life. He later recanted on his death bed. The Pope after him corrected this error.

So, it seems that Pope Francis may have been brought up with errors in his Jesuit Order in South America. I do not see continuity between him and the two previous pontiffs as theologians. "God is not the Catholic God? " His governance is what one expects from the Office of Peter however.
I believe the holy spirit was guiding the Pontiff in reaction to Syria.

I cannot forget what Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II have stated as Pontiffs as TEACHERS against Moral Relativism, I am not bound to follow Pope’s interviews. And I believe if there is anything said that will grow to the level of egregious scandal. God or a future pope will repudiate them.

Let’s be quite honest, these interviews are no different than previous Popes in their humanness. Any amount to spin, is to muddy the waters, rather than to clean them up.

Any attempts to construct apologia rather than teach History and Clarify what Infallibility DOES or Doesn’t do, to lay people, is setting them up for greater scandal down the road. The only reason why a faithful Catholic would not shocked by these interviews is they would already have perspective of past popes mistakes.

---

Unfortunately Catholics who are unaware that there exists Supernatural Faith, as opposed to the way we come to the understanding of one God through reason alone (the same as the Muslim and the Jew), will sin more within the Church if they take these series interviews to heart. I know, because I know these Catholics.

Thank you for your posts, will read later on. God bless.

 

[triumphguy]

After a lot of discussions (close to 200 posts now), what I have realized is that most people here on CAF who tend to see nothing wrong with the interpretations of the interview already hold a very distorted view of Church teaching.

Here is a list

1. We should accept unrepentant sinners in to the Church (seems to think that God’s redemption is forcefully applied to all without the free-will to reject it)
2. The Church is anywhere Christ is which also means it must be a happy place. (God forbid it be a Cross with a mother crying watching her son Crucified. Or a voice in the wilderness crying out to repent. That certainly cannot be where Christ is)
3. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for being too obsessed with doctrine (forgetting that Jesus actually condemned their hypocrisy and refusal to repent of their actions. That would capture most of the unrepentant sinners today.)

The biggest slight of hand the devil has pulled seems to be to convince everyone that unrepentant sinners are not the Pharisees but its the Church that continuously chastises their lack of repentance that are the Pharisees.

Truth is that the Church is acting like Christ in the same way he chastised the Pharisees while the unrepentant sinners are acting like true Pharisees hardening their hearts against the Church.

Wow - you just continue to misinterpret peoples’ posts.

1. The Church is for sinners - get over it.
2. The Church is wherever Christ is - and usually that’s a place of pain, poverty (spiritual and material) loneliness, guilt, fear or marginalization.
3. Try talking to and especially listening to an “unrepentant” sinner before you start judging them.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Wow - you just continue to misinterpret peoples’ posts.

1. The Church is for sinners - get over it.

It is for repentant sinners. It is not for unrepentant sinners. Those like the Pharisees who cannot repent for their sinners cannot become part of the Church of Christ. That is how Jesus did and that is how the Church did it for 2000 years.

1. The Church is wherever Christ is - and usually that’s a place of pain, poverty (spiritual and material) loneliness, guilt, fear or marginalization.

Basically Christ is everywhere and Church is everywhere. So your definition of “Church” leaves much to be desired.

If you are right, then there is no need for us to be welcoming because everyone is already in the Church.

1. Try talking to and especially listening to an “unrepentant” sinner before you start judging them.

Why do you think I have not done that? Have you talked to Richard Dawkins? Christopher Hitchens? Sam Harris? Do you think their problem has anything to do with you not having a cup of coffee with them?

Either you are seriously deluded if you think the crisis today has to do with lack of communication or you just want to win this as an argument.

Anyone with eyes to see and has talked to people who are leading the fight against the Church can tell you that the problem has nothing to do with sharing a cup of coffee.

 

[Abba]

Yes, lets certainly do that. But lets not forget that we are not dealing with a Pagan world but a world that is post-Christian. The West is a place that has rejected Christianity, its own heritage. One could even say that we have a case where men and women have heard the gospel and rejected it.

Hello Jaberwocky,

Yes, you are right. Although additionally there are still non-believers, if you will, who may have heard of Jesus but do not clearly understand who He is. But, this also applies to many who may have a greater degree of understanding including many ex-Catholics or fallen away Catholics who really left what they thought to be the Church.

I understand that a lot of people who have diligently worked these past decades for pro-life feel that the Pope is just putting them aside and not appreciating their work. The Pope is not saying; well, done my good and faithful servants because the work is not finished. But, he sees that too much attention is being given to pro-life, homosexuality etc… and he sees other matters that have been neglected and are concerns of the Church. He wants to balance the scale. Imagine if abortion was not a problem, what work would the Church be doing? Well, if we focus too much on certain concerns it is to the neglect of others. Not to mention, that indirectly the issues he plans to address will have a positive affect on those others.

I don’t think that it is as simple as that the people the Pope wants to direct attention to are people that have rejected the faith. I think a lot of those people are just plain lost and the Pope want to bring Jesus to them and show them a way to the Church. I also think that a lot of people have left the Church due to a lack of preparation and experiencing a lack of community. Peter said that we should always be ready to give a defense for the faith that is in us. Yet, the preparation that the parishes have been offering have been insufficient to prepare the faithful to not only defend their faith but understand it better. Neither were people encouraged to learn on their own and this has left many communities vulnerable.

I think there are many groups and issues that need the attention of the Church that have not been getting it and if this Pope is able to provide them with some pastoral care - that will be great.

:twocents: duly deposited.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Hello Jaberwocky,

Yes, you are right. Although additionally there are still non-believers, if you will, who may have heard of Jesus but do not clearly understand who He is. But, this also applies to many who may have a greater degree of understanding including many ex-Catholics or fallen away Catholics who really left what they thought to be the Church.

I understand that a lot of people who have diligently worked these past decades for pro-life feel that the Pope is just putting them aside and not appreciating their work. The Pope is not saying; well, done my good and faithful servants because the work is not finished. But, he sees that too much attention is being given to pro-life, homosexuality etc… and he sees other matters that have been neglected and are concerns of the Church. He wants to balance the scale. Imagine if abortion was not a problem, what work would the Church be doing? Well, if we focus too much on certain concerns it is to the neglect of others.

I don’t think that it is as simple as that the people the Pope wants to direct attention to are people that have rejected the faith. I think a lot of those people are just plain lost and the Pope want to bring Jesus to them and show them a way to the Church. I also think that a lot of people have left the Church due to a lack of preparation and experiencing a lack of community. Peter said that we should always be ready to give a defense for the faith that is in us. Yet, the preparation that the parishes have been offering have been insufficient to prepare the faithful to not only defend their faith but understand it better. Neither were people encouraged to learn on their own and this has left many communities vulnerable.

I think there are many groups and issues that need the attention of the Church that have not been getting it and if this Pope is able to provide them with some pastoral care - that will be great.

:twocents: duly deposited.

Maybe some historical background is in order.

The Church was not always in to the whole “take a position against morals” stance all the time. The Church’s strategy was to enter a society and make it Christian. When the Church saw that there were Pagans who engaged in immorality, the Church gave them the gospel.

In recent times, the Church herself decided that the strategy is not going to work. People were no longer unaware of the gospel but they were rejecting it. Then the Church decided to take the “Natural Law” approach you see today. So the Church’s idea was that instead of appealing to morals based on religion, we will try to appeal based on natural law to get people to abandon their sinful ways.

Guess what, that is what you see today. The reason why there are tons of people in a pro-life rally but not so much engaged in evangelizing is because the dominant mindset in recent times was that

1. We do not try to convert others
2. Everyone will understand the natural law arguments
3. We can have different beliefs (or lack of belief) but still share the same moral ends

Now as you can see, this is where the fight evolved to naturally. You want to speak as if all of this was a slip-up and people have become more obsessed with abortion and homosexuality. These things are obsessed over because they are grave evils that call out to heaven for vengeance.

So it was a last ditch effort by the Catholic Church to somehow avoid having the society degrade in to a completely immoral one with the rejection of Christianity.

 

[Abba]

Maybe some historical background is in order.

The Church was not always in to the whole “take a position against morals” stance all the time. The Church’s strategy was to enter a society and make it Christian. When the Church saw that there were Pagans who engaged in immorality, the Church gave them the gospel.

In recent times, the Church herself decided that the strategy is not going to work. People were no longer unaware of the gospel but they were rejecting it. Then the Church decided to take the “Natural Law” approach you see today. So the Church’s idea was that instead of appealing to morals based on religion, we will try to appeal based on natural law to get people to abandon their sinful ways.

Guess what, that is what you see today. The reason why there are tons of people in a pro-life rally but not so much engaged in evangelizing is because the dominant mindset in recent times was that

1. We do not try to convert others
2. Everyone will understand the natural law arguments
3. We can have different beliefs (or lack of belief) but still share the same moral ends

Now as you can see, this is where the fight evolved to naturally. You want to speak as if all of this was a slip-up and people have become more obsessed with abortion and homosexuality. These things are obsessed over because they are grave evils that call out to heaven for vengeance.

So it was a last ditch effort by the Catholic Church to somehow avoid having the society degrade in to a completely immoral one with the rejection of Christianity.

I am sorry, I do not clearly understand what your argument or position is here. Are you holding to the position that you stated the fight evolved to naturally?

+++

Jesus said:
Mark 16:15

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation."

I think we need to continue to do this until the end of the world. Jesus did not say; Go and proclaim the gospel and once you have done so that’s it; continue to practice your faith until I return without sharing it any more. I don’t see how we could have one without the other until He comes again.

 

[triumphguy]

It is for repentant sinners. It is not for unrepentant sinners. Those like the Pharisees who cannot repent for their sinners cannot become part of the Church of Christ. That is how Jesus did and that is how the Church did it for 2000 years.

The Church is for sinners. That way they may repent. first comes the call, then comes the response. It was ever thus.

Basically Christ is everywhere and Church is everywhere. So your definition of “Church” leaves much to be desired.

If you are right, then there is no need for us to be welcoming because everyone is already in the Church.

The Church meets people at the margins. Read Matthew 25 again. the King doesn’t ask about how right your beliefs are, but whether you helped. Of course right beliefs are important… but first comes mercy and openness.

Why do you think I have not done that? Have you talked to Richard Dawkins? Christopher Hitchens? Sam Harris? Do you think their problem has anything to do with you not having a cup of coffee with them?

"Hawkins" et al are NOT “sinners” per se they are people following their conscience. Perhaps they are more sincere and moral than you or I.

Either you are seriously deluded if you think the crisis today has to do with lack of communication or you just want to win this as an argument.

Big sigh.

Anyone with eyes to see and has talked to people who are leading the fight against the Church can tell you that the problem has nothing to do with sharing a cup of coffee.

 

[rayne89]

Pain is caused due to lack of truth. To love is to tell the truth. You are once again pitting Truth against Love when one cannot truly love without telling the other person the complete truth.

How many on this forum were once fallen away Catholics? How many once used birth control or had “shacked up”. How many were once “cafeteria Catholics” sometimes not even purposefully but were poorly catechized? Pope Francis is making some of the faithful Catholics nervous? As if God isn’t in charge or the Holy Spirit can’t handle dissenters re-entering the church? This is our opportunity to reach them, to show them love and compassion, to let the Holy Spirit work on them. The Church is not some saintly club. How sad to read Catholics being upset about others returning to Church.

Pope Francis was perfect in saying that when there’s a severely wounded soldier you don’t start off by asking about his high cholesterol. These are souls that could be lost forever, no one should be sad Francis is getting their attention. We sound like the elder son in the prodigal son story. The prodigal son originally came back because he was hungry not because he had some great revelation of repentance. Yes he eventually said those words. But his initial thought was his father’s servants had better food than he did.

Why all the fear? God has promised the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Do we doubt God? Do we really think we are in charge? I think some of us are uncomfortable because Pope Francis is causing us to look at ourselves instead “those other sinful people”. Instead of feeling safe in our exclusive holiness club we are being challenged to be open to all of God’s children not just the ones we approve of. God can handle it. All this fear, confusion and doubt about Pope Francis? Really? What happened to the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the head of our church. Only when we like what he’s saying? And we have problems with dissenters? We only like “German Shepherds?” “God’s Rottweiler.” Very sad.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think some of us are uncomfortable because Pope Francis is causing us to look at ourselves instead “those other sinful people”. Instead of feeling safe in our exclusive holiness club we are being challenged to be open to all of God’s children not just the ones we approve of.

The Church exists for all sinners. The Church exists to help sinners repent. We don’t put a sign on the Church doors saying “Repent first, then enter”. The Church is a vehicle to help lead souls to Heaven.Those is gravest sin should be given a special place within our Church as they are in most need.

 

[The_Bucket]

Luke Ch. 15:

The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him, but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” So to them he addressed this parable:
What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it? And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, ‘Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.

So, so many Pharisees and scribes here and elsewhere grumbling that Francis welcomes sinners, eats and talks frankly with them.

Shut up and follow his example. Where do you see Francis condoning sin? Where do you see him saying “Remember how we say X, Y and Z are bad and A, B, C are good? Yeah,… forget that. Just do whatever you want and it’s all good!”

He is not. He is preaching the message of mercy and it’s the only message we can preach. Justice is for the Lord alone, yes? God is infinite mercy and infinite justice. We human beings, even the Vicar of Christ, are incapable of infinite justice. Therefore we should recognize that and simply be merciful. We are capable of great mercy. We humans are even capable of halfway decent justice.

But that’s not what God wants! He wants perfect mercy and perfect justice. So we must err on the side of mercy because if we err in our execution of justice, that means we have committed injustice.

This is Francis’ pastoral message: Err on the side of mercy. For if you show God’s mercy over and over again, perhaps those who have been shown that mercy will embrace the One who gives it. And once they enter into that relationship, they will see the Truth and understand that the doctrine of the Church comes from love.

Keep in mind that our Holy Father is a Jesuit and Jesuits sincerely believe that you cannot embrace the fullness of the Truth, the fullness of the Church’s doctrine unless you first enter into a relationship with Jesus. And honestly… I think that’s spot on. You can follow the doctrine without that relationship, but I don’t know how well you can embrace it and love it without first loving Christ on a personal level.

 

[Gricken]

Doctrine and Dogma form a major part of the Church. In fact, if you were to throw it all away, there is nothing other than an arbitrary “experience” you attribute to Jesus. You do not know what he is like, what he taught or what he demands of you.

Your reply also highlights the other major issue. You seem to think that chastising a persons wrongs is an act contrary to love. That is incorrect. To chastise and instruct the ignorant on their wrong ways is a spiritual act of charity which ranks high above an act of temporal charity like feeding the poor.

Therefore your post is a confirmation that many have indeed misunderstood the Pope to be saying that God’s mercy and love are contending with justice, dogma, doctrine etc.

Actually your post is a large misunderstanding of everything I said. You seem to think that I advocated throwing away dogma. Which is incorrect. I have never said that and never will.

This is also an incorrect view of what I said. You can always chastise with love. Problem is, it’s not done that way enough. You’ll also have to prove that instruction is “above charity”

I also never said God’s love and mercy are contending with Justice, dogma, or doctrine. I said that people have a habit of leaving one or the other behind.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I am very pleased that he is wanting to “dialogue” with non-believers; this is something that I haven’t seen in recent popes and it is certainly an important thing, provided that this end to this dialogue is evangelization and bringing non-believers to faith.

 

[bilop]

So, so many Pharisees and scribes here and elsewhere grumbling that Francis welcomes sinners, eats and talks frankly with them.

Shut up and follow his example. Where do you see Francis condoning sin? Where do you see him saying “Remember how we say X, Y and Z are bad and A, B, C are good? Yeah,… forget that. Just do whatever you want and it’s all good!”

He is not. He is preaching the message of mercy and it’s the only message we can preach. Justice is for the Lord alone, yes? God is infinite mercy and infinite justice. We human beings, even the Vicar of Christ, are incapable of infinite justice. Therefore we should recognize that and simply be merciful. We are capable of great mercy. We humans are even capable of halfway decent justice.

But that’s not what God wants! He wants perfect mercy and perfect justice. So we must err on the side of mercy because if we err in our execution of justice, that means we have committed injustice.

This is Francis’ pastoral message: Err on the side of mercy. For if you show God’s mercy over and over again, perhaps those who have been shown that mercy will embrace the One who gives it. And once they enter into that relationship, they will see the Truth and understand that the doctrine of the Church comes from love.

Keep in mind that our Holy Father is a Jesuit and Jesuits sincerely believe that you cannot embrace the fullness of the Truth, the fullness of the Church’s doctrine unless you first enter into a relationship with Jesus. And honestly… I think that’s spot on. You can follow the doctrine without that relationship, but I don’t know how well you can embrace it and love it without first loving Christ on a personal level.

The problem is, God’s mercy doesn’t make any sense without understanding his justice.

The problem in today’s society is not that people think God won’t forgive their sins, it’s that they believe they don’t sin at all. People aren’t avoiding the Church b/c they think that God won’t forgive them for adultery, abortion, fornication, homosexual acts, etc. They are avoiding the Church because they no longer believe those things to be wrong.

If you believe that you can construct your own morality, Christ’s Incarnation, death, and Resurrection and meaningless to you. If you don’t fear God’s judgement, His mercy has no meaning.

People don’t seek the mercy of God b/c they’ve been convinced either Heaven and Hell don’t exist, or that everyone goes to Heaven.

It does someone absolutely no good to return to the Church and the Sacraments if they don’t actually repent of their sins. The person who attends Mass and receives in a state of mortal sin is worth off then if they’d just stayed in bed.

The problem is much more foundational than issues of mercy. The problem is rejection of core dogmas like the nature of God, original sin, concupisence, and the need for the Incarnation.

God Bless

 

[shelby_sun]

I would love to hear what the Pope would say about the narcissistic nature of a few of the posters on this thread.

 

[The_Bucket]

The problem in today’s society is not that people think God won’t forgive their sins, it’s that they believe they don’t sin at all. People aren’t avoiding the Church b/c they think that God won’t forgive them for adultery, abortion, fornication, homosexual acts, etc. They are avoiding the Church because they no longer believe those things to be wrong.

No longer? I’ve got news for you man, denial about sin is pretty much the usual state of humanity. At various points in history we denied race-based slavery was a sin. We denied genocide was a sin. We denied eugenics was a sin. We denied pogroms against the Jews in Christian Europe was a sin. We denied massacring Muslims was a sin.

We’ve been very, very good at denying sin for a very, very long time. All that’s changed is that we’ve moved from one form of sin to another. People are generally in agreement that violence is bad now. In the past, folks thought violence was either acceptable or even a good thing if it killed off all those nasty non-believers.

And I don’t mean that this was in the doctrine. It wasn’t. But it was surely in the minds of the rank-and-file. Life was cheap in late antiquity and through the Renaissance.

The problem is much more foundational than issues of mercy. The problem is rejection of core dogmas like the nature of God, original sin, concupisence, and the need for the Incarnation.

Again I say that we’ve always rejected the need for God’s salvation. We are stubborn, prideful people. And by “we” I mean all of humanity. We reject the notion that God has to save us. We believe we can save ourselves or that we don’t even need saving in the first place. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity! We have been prideful from the start when we wanted to make ourselves like gods.

This is nothing new under the sun.

 

[bilop]

No longer? I’ve got news for you man, denial about sin is pretty much the usual state of humanity. At various points in history we denied race-based slavery was a sin. We denied genocide was a sin. We denied eugenics was a sin. We denied pogroms against the Jews in Christian Europe was a sin. We denied massacring Muslims was a sin.

We’ve been very, very good at denying sin for a very, very long time. All that’s changed is that we’ve moved from one form of sin to another. People are generally in agreement that violence is bad now. In the past, folks thought violence was either acceptable or even a good thing if it killed off all those nasty non-believers.

And I don’t mean that this was in the doctrine. It wasn’t. But it was surely in the minds of the rank-and-file. Life was cheap in late antiquity and through the Renaissance.

Again I say that we’ve always rejected the need for God’s salvation. We are stubborn, prideful people. And by “we” I mean all of humanity. We reject the notion that God has to save us. We believe we can save ourselves or that we don’t even need saving in the first place. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity! We have been prideful from the start when we wanted to make ourselves like gods.

This is nothing new under the sun.

I disagree. People in the past sinned like people always do, but they didn’t deny the sinful nature of their acts systematically.

God Bless

 

[triumphguy]

I disagree. People in the past sinned like people always do, but they didn’t deny the sinful nature of their acts systematically.

God Bless

People are people - just read the Old Testament: Genesis chapters 18 and 19.
Just read the New Testament - the Passion and Death of Jesus.
Or the writings of Paul to the Corinthians.

 

[Brendan_64]

I disagree. People in the past sinned like people always do, but they didn’t deny the sinful nature of their acts systematically.

God Bless

And what do you base this on?

People were not more moral in days gone by. Take Victorians as an example. Victorian London was rife with prostitution and depravity. It was a very depraved society. Booze, opium, prostitution, murder, abortion, new-born infants dumped and left to die on street corners. People were certainly not more moral then than they are now. The myth of ‘Victorian values’ is nothing more than a myth that idealises the past.

Similar myths are applied to other past eras. People always idealise the past and claim that things are far worse now than they ever were. However it’s simply not borne out by the facts.

 

[bilop]

And what do you base this on?

People were not more moral in days gone by. Take Victorians as an example. Victorian London was rife with prostitution and depravity. It was a very depraved society. Booze, opium, prostitution, murder, abortion, new-born infants dumped and left to die on street corners. People were certainly not more moral then than they are now. The myth of ‘Victorian values’ is nothing more than a myth that idealises the past.

Similar myths are applied to other past eras. People always idealise the past and claim that things are far worse now than they ever were. However it’s simply not borne out by the facts.

They were not more moral, but they would not have called sin good. Plenty of people committed adultery, but they didn’t claim it was AOK.

A medieval king who slept with dozens of women, if pressed, would have admitted it was sinful. Most of these people sought absolution before their deaths.

I think Luciano Pavarotti is a good example of this “old style immorality”. He abandoned his wife for a younger women, lived in adultery, but, in the end, reconciled with the Church, and sought confession and absolution. He sinned, but he knew he was sinning.

The modern mindset is to redefine sin to be the good.

God Bless

 

[Brendan_64]

They were not more moral, but they would not have called sin good. Plenty of people committed adultery, but they didn’t claim it was AOK.

And on what do you base this? There really is no basis to claim that people in the past were repentant, more so than people today. There was as much apathy towards morality in the past as there is today. Things really were not any better, that notion really is an idealised myth.