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

[Gricken]

Exactly Brother. This is what I have concluded after contemplating (before confession today) on your posts to me from yesterday as well (I must thank you for it).

The way I have come to find peace is in understanding that I may indeed not understand what the Pope is saying in his interviews. I feel that is ok because its an interview and I should not even trouble myself to try and understand it. My time is better spent praying or reading an actual teaching work of the Church or the Catechism (as Pope Francis himself instructed).

It is part of my faith as a Catholic that the Pope will not change doctrine or dogma. It is part of my faith as a Catholic that the Pope will not adjust or evolve doctrine or dogma in a way that it contradicts the prior sense and meaning of it. Therefore I have nothing to fear and my time is best spent explaining to those who try to use the interviews as a launch pad for their own non-Catholic ideas that they are misinterpreting the Pope by quoting Church teaching.

Glad to hear. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over his church. There is no way we would have been given a pope who would change doctrine that way. Besides, these are all interviews, not theological discussions. There is much good in what Pope Francis says. Just as there was much good in what Benedict said. I see it more as two sides of the same coin, both men have spent their lives promoting the catholic church.

…Actually it would be really cool to have a coin with Pope Francis’s face on one side and Benedict’s on the others. One side standing for the Doctrine and Tradition of the Chruch, and the other standing for charity and mercy

Why isn’t this a thing yet.

 

[TMC]

Well, this is not the thread for Theological explanations of dissertations of historical documents. I would have to kindly ask you to go read some of the saints and see how they clearly write that we are to become slaves of Christ (in the case of Montfort, slaves of Christ by being a slave to Mary).

It is the 21st century pride in my opinion that has made this notion of becoming slaves to Christ unpalatable. (Perhaps the negative connotation of slavery associated with Racism has also played a role).

You can’t seriously believe that the fact that some people have used “slave” as an allegory for our devotion to Christ somehow justifies the actual enslavement of human beings. I’ve read your posts, and that kind of silliness is beneath you. If you have any doubt as to the Church’s teaching on slavery, go re-read Gaudium et Spes.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Glad to hear. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over his church. There is no way we would have been given a pope who would change doctrine that way. Besides, these are all interviews, not theological discussions. There is much good in what Pope Francis says. Just as there was much good in what Benedict said. I see it more as two sides of the same coin, both men have spent their lives promoting the catholic church.

…Actually it would be really cool to have a coin with Pope Francis’s face on one side and Benedict’s on the others. One side standing for the Doctrine and Tradition of the Chruch, and the other standing for charity and mercy

Why isn’t this a thing yet.

Well in a way, I think the coin will have to have them both on the same side because both of them do stand for the same things. It’s just that the media has swerved all discussions and interviews to make it seem like there Pope Francis is one sided toward mercy and love vs Benedict been one sided to some old tradition.

To me, the only difference with Pope Francis vs. Pope Benedict is the outgoing nature. Pope Francis has had a lot more lengthy interviews in the short time he was Pope compared to Benedict in his entire pontificate probably (hyperbole perhaps).

Is that a good thing? Considering the media wants to try and use his words to attack or discourage faithful Catholics (lets face it, that is the best line of attack), its probably risky. But the presence in the media does make it easier to start conversations with others (given that the start of the conversation will have to involve explaining why their understanding of the Pope from the media is wrong).

To put it concisely, I don’t think we can say for sure if the interviews are worth the risk or not. The Pope seems to have decided the risk is worth it. I feel that we can (and should) only follow his lead as children following the lead of the father. Otherwise there will be trouble inside the family.

 

[Gricken]

Well in a way, I think the coin will have to have them both on the same side because both of them do stand for the same things. It’s just that the media has swerved all discussions and interviews to make it seem like there Pope Francis is one sided toward mercy and love vs Benedict been one sided to some old tradition.

To me, the only difference with Pope Francis vs. Pope Benedict is the outgoing nature. Pope Francis has had a lot more lengthy interviews in the short time he was Pope compared to Benedict in his entire pontificate probably (hyperbole perhaps).

Is that a good thing? Considering the media wants to try and use his words to attack or discourage faithful Catholics (lets face it, that is the best line of attack), its probably risky. But the presence in the media does make it easier to start conversations with others (given that the start of the conversation will have to involve explaining why their understanding of the Pope from the media is wrong).

To put it concisely, I don’t think we can say for sure if the interviews are worth the risk or not. The Pope seems to have decided the risk is worth it. I feel that we can (and should) only follow his lead as children following the lead of the father. Otherwise there will be trouble inside the family.

The point is that even though both of them spoke in different ways and spoke mainly on different things, They both show exactly what the Church stands for.

Benedict was a scholar at heart. He reminded us of what the Church fights against in this world. Of the Truth we uphold, why we think the way we do, the Tradition we uphold, and why the Church is the only one who speaks the full truth.

Francis is a Jesuit through and through. He reminds us of what the Church fights for in this world. Of the Mercy of God, the love we must share, and the mission of the church to be the light.

These messages do not contradict, they go hand in hand. To have one without the other is to be incomplete.

 

[Jaberwocky]

The point is that even though both of them spoke in different ways and spoke mainly on different things, They both show exactly what the Church stands for.

Yes! Even when we cannot see it clearly due to distortions by the media, I think we have to hold that by faith.

 

[McCall1981]

Well in a way, I think the coin will have to have them both on the same side because both of them do stand for the same things. It’s just that the media has swerved all discussions and interviews to make it seem like there Pope Francis is one sided toward mercy and love vs Benedict been one sided to some old tradition.

To me, the only difference with Pope Francis vs. Pope Benedict is the outgoing nature. Pope Francis has had a lot more lengthy interviews in the short time he was Pope compared to Benedict in his entire pontificate probably (hyperbole perhaps).

**Is that a good thing? Considering the media wants to try and use his words to attack or discourage faithful Catholics (lets face it, that is the best line of attack), its probably risky. But the presence in the media does make it easier to start conversations with others (given that the start of the conversation will have to involve explaining why their understanding of the Pope from the media is wrong).

To put it concisely, I don’t think we can say for sure if the interviews are worth the risk or not. The Pope seems to have decided the risk is worth it. I feel that we can (and should) only follow his lead as children following the lead of the father. Otherwise there will be trouble inside the family**.

The issue for me is not so much whether the interviews and such are “worth the risk”. Rather, the issue (for me) is whether or not the media’s understanding of the Pope is correct.

A number of times now I have seen him say something, the mainstream media spins it one way, and Catholic media/apologists spin it a different way. I’m just not convinced that the mainstream media portrayal is necessarily wrong (though of course I want it to be wrong).

I think if I felt confident that the mainstream media’s portrayal actually is wrong, and the Catholic portrayal actually is correct, then I wouldn’t have too much difficulty in accepting the “risks” that these interviews bring.

In other words, the interviews and comments would be easier for me to accept and defend if I knew they were coming from orthodoxy, rather than just hoping that they do.

 

[triumphguy]

I disagree.

Prior to 1930, every Christian church in the world taught abortion was wrong, pre-marital sex was wrong, homosexual acts were wrong.

Today we have many sects that say they’re all AOK, and will even ordain ministers who practice these sins. There has been a shocking decline in public morality.

Hypocrisy has been called the tribute vice pays to virtue. Today’s sinners don’t even bother to pay that paltry tribute.

God Bless

Apparently even the Catholic Church took along time to understand that an unborn fetus was a child from the moment of conception. There were all kinds of formulas as to when the unborn were en-souled.

 

[shelby_sun]

Again Bro. thank you for your wisdom. The Jesuits I work with think I am crazy for coming on this site because, as you stated, The Jesuits don’t usually repeat themselves, which is often needed here to get others to open their minds. I am so glad that Pope Francis has a strong connection to St. Francis because I think that gives him more patience than The Jesuits sometimes have. I am sure you know what I mean.

 

[Jaberwocky]

The issue for me is not so much whether the interviews and such are “worth the risk”. Rather, the issue (for me) is whether or not the media’s understanding of the Pope is correct.

A number of times now I have seen him say something, the mainstream media spins it one way, and Catholic media/apologists spin it a different way. I’m just not convinced that the mainstream media portrayal is necessarily wrong (though of course I want it to be wrong).

I think if I felt confident that the mainstream media’s portrayal actually is wrong, and the Catholic portrayal actually is correct, then I wouldn’t have too much difficulty in accepting the “risks” that these interviews bring.

In other words, the interviews and comments would be easier for me to accept and defend if I knew they were coming from orthodoxy, rather than just hoping that they do.

Yes, that is what always bugged me as well. What I came to realize is that there is no point worrying if the underlying message is unorthodox. Because as Catholics, we do hold that though the Pope is not infallible all the time, he cannot and should not teach something unorthodox in his interviews and private matters.

So we can presume the closest Orthodox teaching to it and move on without worrying if it agrees with the overall context or sense of the interview. I think the CCC teaching on Rash Judgement suggests that we do that as well. (though I might be wrong) Someone might say is it not good to know he has expressed an erroneous theological claim? I think “no”, because its not even an encyclical. It’s not even a book written by him. It’s just an interview.

To analyze what the Pope said in the interview to learn something is pretty useless considering

1. he cannot teach something new in an interview.
2. the same teaching is probably more clearly available in the actual teaching documents of the Church.

So for all purposes of not missing out on any wealth of info from interviews, its probably enough to just read the interview, see what topics he is talking about and then go and read the corresponding Church teaching (actual Church documents or CCC) on it.

 

[gracepoole]

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.

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

– Ignatius of Antioch

Slavery is not intrinsically immoral and we are in fact called to be slaves of Christ.

Slavery is only immoral if the person is treated in a less than human way. A good slave master does not treat his slaves that way and neither will Christ.

A willing choice to be a slave is not the same as being truly enslaved. And there is a psychological toll wrought by slavery and a psychological boost via the knowledge of one’s own freedom. I’m familiar with St. Louis de Montfort and I think even he would acknowledge the fundamental difference between these uses of the term.

 

[Jaberwocky]

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

– Ignatius of Antioch

A willing choice to be a slave is not the same as being truly enslaved. And there is a psychological toll wrought by slavery and a psychological boost via the knowledge of one’s own freedom. I’m familiar with St. Louis de Montfort and I think even he would acknowledge the fundamental difference between these uses of the term.

’One becomes free to give that freedom away for something’ – Fulton Sheen (World’s First Love)

 

[triumphguy]

Romans 5:10 (NRSVCE)

10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

St. Paul eh!

 

[platofan1983]

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

Thank you so much for this as it is dead on right.

I know many of the people here were saying that people have always sinned, but the point you made about people don’t even think they sin anymore is exactly right. Right and wrong existed. Now, with post-modernism, people will say their really is no such thing as right and wrong.

I come from the Millieliuals generation. And they (we) simply do not think they are wrong on anything. Girls and guys can sleep with multiple partners, having even one night stands every weekend, and their is no condemnation. There is no shame. I don’t want to stop loving people despite their sins, but in the past people did acknowledge right and wrong.

I know the argument can be made that “oh people have always been bad” but like you later point out, they don’t even say it’s bad anymore. It’s not like, I sleep around, but I know I shouldn’t. Sin almost has become a badge of honor. If you hold to things like waiting until you are married to have sex, you are seen as un-cool.

I’d like to tell a lot of the people on here to be very wary of the younger generation as I am one and I am very concerned for the future. Their parents just didn’t have any basis for their faith, if they even had one. It was done out of obligation and tradition. Without understanding the basics behind it, they didn’t teach us. And so they just outright reject it.

My generation is very vain. I look at the pictures of my friends on FB and even in snapshots they don’t just want to look good, they want to look like models. None of their actions have consequences. Hook up (fornication) culture is commonplace. Girls go to bars, drink with the boys, and go home to sleep with them. I don’t think (for sure) that happened 50 years ago.

Of course morals ebb and flow, but let us not deceive ourselves. This is a generation without love (except love of self) and becoming increasingly pagan.

 

[JReducation]

The point is that even though both of them spoke in different ways and spoke mainly on different things, They both show exactly what the Church stands for.

Benedict was a scholar at heart. He reminded us of what the Church fights against in this world. Of the Truth we uphold, why we think the way we do, the Tradition we uphold, and why the Church is the only one who speaks the full truth.

Francis is a Jesuit through and through. He reminds us of what the Church fights for in this world. Of the Mercy of God, the love we must share, and the mission of the church to be the light.

These messages do not contradict, they go hand in hand. To have one without the other is to be incomplete.

Definitely, these men all compliment each other. They should never be compared that way. We can compare and say things like Pope Benedict was a teaching pope and Pope Francis is a preaching pope. That kind of comparison is not about quality but about differences.

Again Bro. thank you for your wisdom. The Jesuits I work with think I am crazy for coming on this site because, as you stated, The Jesuits don’t usually repeat themselves, which is often needed here to get others to open their minds. I am so glad that Pope Francis has a strong connection to St. Francis because I think that gives him more patience than The Jesuits sometimes have. I am sure you know what I mean.

Franciscan men wouldn’t be caught dead on CAF either. I’m the only one that I know who makes this his apostolate. Other Franciscan men have online apostolates, but they are blogs or programs where they don’t have to repeat themselves or put up with rotten tomatoes thrown at them.

I’ll be seeing a psychiatrist about this condition as soon as I can get medical insurance.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Romans 5:10 (NRSVCE)

St. Paul eh!

This is nothing new my friend. The Church has always taught that Redemption is offered to all but not many will accept it.

The likes of St. Thomas, St. Augustine (among many other saints) and many documents of the Ordinary Magesterium of the Church do state that many will simply reject this redemption and be damned.

That is why we evangelize and that is why we ourselves persevere in fear and trembling, as St. Paul himself indicates.

So at times its good to see what the Church has to say about Scripture and how she reconciles seeming difficulties.

 

[Brendan_64]

I know the argument can be made that “oh people have always been bad” but like you later point out, they don’t even say it’s bad anymore. It’s not like, I sleep around, but I know I shouldn’t. Sin almost has become a badge of honor. If you hold to things like waiting until you are married to have sex, you are seen as un-cool.

That’s nothing new. I’m about to turn 50 and it was exactly like that when I was young. Young people didn’t think it was bad back then either. We thought the Church was boring, stuffy, irrelevant and out of touch. We thought we knew best and we thought that if it felt good then it was good. Someone wanting to hang onto their virginity was looked at as a wierdo. Each young generation thinks that it simply wasn’t the same when their parents were young. Things haven’t really changed that much.

 

[Brendan_64]

Way to miss the point my friend. Way to miss the point. Carry on.

So let me get this straight when you say that

Even Nazi Germany’s idea of Eugenics was rejected by big parts of the world (otherwise we wouldn’t have had a war).

are you saying that rejection of Hitler’s eugenics programme by large parts of the world was or was not part of the reason for the Second World War? Because if you are not, then you are contradicting your own statement, andif you are implying that countries declared war on Hitler because they were opposed to his eugenics programme, or indeed any other part of his political ideology, then you are very much mistaken.

So you are either contradicting your own statement, or you are very wrong about why nations went to war against Hitler.

World War II was not a war waged by nations that wanted to defeat his facist ideology (or his views on euigenics). That was nothing more than a by-product of the war. We did not go to war against Hitler because we disagreed with his ideology. Hitler’s facist ideology, his eugenics programme, or his persecution of the Jews had absolutely notrhing to do with us going to war against him, absolutely nothing. We went to war with him, because he started sending his tanks into other European nations and it became clear that France, Britain etc. were next on his list.

I think that you miss the point of what caused WWII. It is very easy to look back on WWII as a noble struggle against an evil ideology, but the reality is that it was nothing of the sort.

 

[sisblessed]

A couple of points conservative Catholics (and conservative Christians at large) are troubled by.

1. **Why didn’t Benedict have these problems? ** No one had to make excuses for him, which I feel what is going on here. It’s a very apologist sort of mindset with Francis. “He really didn’t mean it that way.” “The translation was wrong.” “It is the media’s spin on it.” “He’s really not changing anything the church is teaching or taught.” Okay. But this has happened three or four times in the past six months? I think the concern is that it is a pattern, for me at least.
2. We’re not troubled by the outreach to the world at all. It’s what Christ commanded. We are concerned at the manner it is being said and done. I grew up Catholic, and my wife Baptist, while they are still very conservative, many mainline Protestant churches are not. Because of this watered down Gospel they preach (I’m not saying that’s what Francis is preaching either), they have become irrelevant. When you appeal too much to how the world looks and too much to what the world likes, the world takes a look at you and says “You’re no different than me, what’s the point of following you?” It brings nothing to the table.

And there is a sort of attraction of saying you have to meet sinners where they are. And that is true. But we must remember after Christ had forgiven the woman at the well, he said, “Go and sin no more.”

1. We’re also not concerned with the removal of the pomp of the Vatican. Some old-timers might be, but I think the conservatives really just want the truth preached with clarity. Benedict did this with absolute beauty. Francis, seems to be muddying the waters. Benedict’s theme against a dictatorship of relativism was an awesome message for this age. And yet when I read Francis’ interviews, it seems like he is slowly flirting with that relativism Benedict fought so hard to prevent.
2. Much of what Francis is saying sounds so much like what the Protestant mega-churches preach. We must remember Christ had some stern words. Consider, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple” Now be warned! I’m not trying to take these versus out of contexts because Christ preaches also on love (although I’m sure some will say I am) but the very message of Christ is a divisive one. When Paul said. “But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” To non-believers, it is utter foolishness. We must be aware of that fact.

This is not to say we should be hermits or retreat or not preach. God forbid! We need to evangelize more, even as the New Evangelize calls us to. But in the context of Christ.

1. I’m personally concerned that some of my most radical Catholic friends (who do not have a problem with abortion, women in the Priesthood, etc. (don’t ask me why they still remain Catholic)) like him as do a lot of secularists. And they aren’t liking him for preaching Christ is a new way either. I suspect they like him because they hope he is going to liberalize the church. These were some of the same people who hated the Catholic Church under Benedict. Now suddenly, poof! It’s a great place. If it’s not in the context of bringing people to Christ, this is not good. And we’re not against modernity either. Change in and of itself just is. So I’m not against change, but rather, change away from truth.

We also aren’t really judging either. Or want to like Benedict more and Francis less. Why did we as conservatives (and I don’t think there are mainly liberals on this Forum) love Benedict for his intelligence and clarity. I think he was preaching a deep truth in a very intellectual way. I know it’s not a either or of Benedict or Francis, I just think we’re very concerned about how Francis is “muddying the waters.” And the fact that he has to have apologists say to the most conservative Catholics “you really don’t get what he is saying” is bothersome because it’s happening more and more. We shouldn’t have to defend the Pope to other Catholics, we should have to defend Christ against the world. He has told us this much.

Thank you!!!

 

[gilliam]

A couple of points conservative Catholics (and conservative Christians at large) are troubled by.

1. **Why didn’t Benedict have these problems? **.

I’ll stop there and respond with my ideas.

Pope Benedict is a scholar. He approached the Church in his care as a scholar. He had ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS WITH ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE mainly because they thought he acted like, well a scholar.

Pope Francis is not a scholar. He is a Pastor. He approaches his care of the Church as a Pastor.

They are different people.

Some people at CAF like the approach Benedict had. Some people at CAF like the approach Francis has.

Personally I like both of them for different reasons; and, honestly, I think we need someone like Pope Francis at the helm right now. I thank God every day for him.

Pope Francis challenges a lot of us in our comfort zone. (e.g., reciting the Catechism and interpreting it as a Canon Lawyer would, instead of looking in the eyes and hearts of our fellow Catholics and trying to help them help us up the path towards God.) I think it is a good thing he is challenging us. I would not want it any other way.

 

[JReducation]

I’ll stop there and respond with my ideas.

Pope Benedict is a scholar. He approached the Church in his care as a scholar. He had ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS WITH ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE mainly because they thought he acted like, well a scholar.

Pope Francis is not a scholar. He is a Pastor. He approaches his care of the Church as a Pastor.

They are different people.

Some people at CAF like the approach Benedict had. Some people at CAF like the approach Francis has.

Personally I like both of them for different reasons; and, honestly, I think we need someone like Pope Francis at the helm right now. I thank God every day for him.

Pope Francis challenges a lot of us in our comfort zone. (e.g., reciting the Catechism and interpreting it as a Canon Lawyer would, instead of looking in the eyes and hearts of our fellow Catholics and trying to help them help us up the path towards God.) I think it is a good thing he is challenging us. I would not want it any other way.

I’ll piggy back here. Pope Benedict had many many problems, but most of them never made it to the eyes and ears of the laity, because most of them were either very academic problems or very legal problems, which the laity is not particularly interested in so the media didn’t bother reporting them. Every pope has problems. You can’t run a Church with people on every continent, made up of 23 sui iuris Churches with different cultures and histories, and an infrastructure that has fallen behind the times, such as the curia and not have problems.

Having said this, we must remember that every pope brings different gifts to the table. The Holy Spirit does not point his finger to the candidate who should be elected. However, he does inspire the cardinals by helping the form an image of the kind of man that is needed at the moment. They look around the room and elect him. The pope brings to the table the qualities that the Holy Spirit revealed to the cardinals.

The Holy Spirit does not micromanage those qualities. The individual remains his own person. He uses those qualities according to his personality and his discernment.

Why is Pope Francis making some people nervous? There can be many reasons. I think the most obvious one is the one that very few people want to touch. I’m not sure why not.

He’s a religious pope. We have not had a religious pope since the early 1800s. I believe he was Gregory XVI. I remember that he was a Camaldolese Monk. He was not a bishop when he was elected. He was an abbot. They hard to ordain him bishop so he could be pope. The people of that time wanted to hang him. Why??? The Papal States still existed. He governed the papal states as if they were an abbey and its tenant farms. The man even refused to have the railroad go through the papal states. Railroads do not cross monastic lands, at least not then. I don’t know about today.

In any case, this is a Jesuit. Jesuits are trained to speak in an open ended manner. They are expected to stir things up. St. Ignatius demands this of them. They don’t do anything without discernment. So they don’t play by rules, but by inspiration. They’re called to be mystics in action.

When a person is in a constant state of discernment, he will also be in a constant state of change. He’ll see new things that need his attention and the attention of the Church. He’ll see Christ pointing in directions that the other person may not see. It doesn’t make him better or worse. It just makes him different from the majority.

If they had elected Cardinal Sean, we would have a pope who dresses as a brother, does not chant the mass, does not wear an amice, wears sandal with socks (tacky), would probably not live in the papal apartments either, and would be doing a lot of preaching and teaching about the immigrant poor, the rural poor, the military conflicts around the world and the economy. Poverty, immigration and peace are core concerns of the Franciscan family, because the friars identify with people in these situations.

It will take time, but we will get used to having a Jesuit. We should take advantage of the gifts that he brings to the table. The Holy Spirit does not do this every week. The next pope will bring different gifts.