Pope Francis' first moves hint at break with past

[Brendan_64]

Maybe he could explain why he chose to get rid of certain things that hold certain significance, such as martyrdom. I would think that most Catholics would be more open to changes such as these if we understood it. I get dressing simpler for humility’s sake, etc. I don’t get getting rid of the symbolism associated with the saints who have* died witnessing to their Catholic Faith*. Does he think that this is offensive to others? Or perhaps he plans on wearing something else that symbolizes the martyrs? The Pope should teach us, so if there is a teaching moment here I’d like to know what it is.

Symbols, including those used by the Church, are there to serve aid the mission of the Church. Symbols, no matter how cherished or how traditional, have no intrinsic value in themselves. Symbols are merely utilitarian tools that serve to illuminate messages and point the way. If they help the Church’s mission they have value, if they don’t help the Church’s mission at a particular period in time then they should be put aside.

The Holy Father knows what he is doing. The mission of the Church is to evangelise in order to save souls. If a certain external image of the Church (made up by symbols, structures, perceived opulence) is in any way acting as a hindrance towards this mission, then this external image ought to be changed. The Church is not well regarded by those outside the Catholic Church, quite the contrary, and this presents a very serious problem with regard to evangelisation. Perhaps Pope Francis is trying to present the caring, approachable, more humble nature of the Church to the wider humanity? Perhaps he feels that the red shoes might be perceived by the wider public as just another small part of a pompous Church that is over-obsessed with it’s own internal symbols? Perhaps he wants to signal to the public that the Church is renewing itself and returning to the core messages of a humble, caring Christ?

Either way, we should not get overly concerned about whether the Pope chooses to use certain symbols or not. Preserving symbols are not what the Church has been put on Earth for. It is here to evangelise and save souls. If our Pope (who is guided by the holy Spirit) feel;s that certain symbols don’t help us in this regard then why woryy if he doesn’t choose to use these tools?

The Holy Father knows what he is doing (far more than any of us on here do) so let’s just place our trust in what he does and in how he does it. He is a man chosen by, and guided by, the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Non-Catholics will not convert based on Pope Francis’ choice of wardrobe or whether a Cardinal is chauffeured around the streets of Rome.

Church liturgy should not be subject to local whims. When Catholics travel to Washington, DC, Nairobi, or Montreal, for example, the Mass should be fairly recognizable in all locations. For two centuries, the Catholic Mass was virtually universal in practice. Must we accommodate every form of Mass imaginable in the modern era?

 

[Tigg]

Brendan 64;10508564:

I think Pope Francis is right to adopt a simpler form of manners and dress.

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/i-am-thinking-about-those-red-shoes/

"Back when I resisted the liturgical kissing of my hand when being handed a chain, spoon or chalice, I had made the mistake of imagining myself to be more humble by that resistance. That was a mistake. Ironically, my resistance to those gestures turned the gestures into being about me. Submission to the gestures, on the other hand, erases the priest’s own person and helps him to be what he needs to be in that moment: priest, victim, alter Christus. The trappings, the rubrics, the gestures erase the priest’s poor person. Resisting these things runs the risk of making them all about the priest again.

It is the most natural thing in the human experience to treat with loving reverence the sacrifice to be offered to God. The sacrificial lambs were pampered and given the very best care, right up to the moment when the knife sliced their necks.

We must submit to the precious and sublime in recognition of the truth of what is going on. To pit the sublime and complex and precious and beautiful against the low, simple and humble is schizophrenic and not Catholic."

Jason – I have mostly stayed away from the new pope threads because I am becoming crazy with the way everyone, and especially the media, is twisting every single word and every gesture to confirm and conform to their own preference and interpretation. But I’m so glad I popped into this thread because I absolutely love what Fr. Z has said as emphasized. It is **profound **in terms of perception but how many will comprehend it? This has absolutely made my day!

 

[Lucky7]

Symbols, including those used by the Church, are there to serve aid the mission of the Church. Symbols, no matter how cherished or how traditional, have no intrinsic value in themselves. Symbols are merely utilitarian tools that serve to illuminate messages and point the way. If they help the Church’s mission they have value, if they don’t help the Church’s mission at a particular period in time then they should be put aside.

The Holy Father knows what he is doing. The mission of the Church is to evangelise in order to save souls. If a certain external image of the Church (made up by symbols, structures, perceived opulence) is in any way acting as a hindrance towards this mission, then this external image ought to be changed. The Church is not well regarded by those outside the Catholic Church, quite the contrary, and this presents a very serious problem with regard to evangelisation. Perhaps Pope Francis is trying to present the caring, approachable, more humble nature of the Church to the wider humanity? Perhaps he feels that the red shoes might be perceived by the wider public as just another small part of a pompous Church that is over-obsessed with it’s own internal symbols? Perhaps he wants to signal to the public that the Church is renewing itself and returning to the core messages of a humble, caring Christ?

Either way, we should not get overly concerned about whether the Pope chooses to use certain symbols or not. Preserving symbols are not what the Church has been put on Earth for. It is here to evangelise and save souls. If our Pope (who is guided by the holy Spirit) feel;s that certain symbols don’t help us in this regard then why woryy if he doesn’t choose to use these tools?

The Holy Father knows what he is doing (far more than any of us on here do) so let’s just place our trust in what he does and in how he does it. He is a man chosen by, and guided by, the Holy Spirit.

I’m sorry but, as a convert to the Catholic Faith, I find this absolutely insulting.

 

[Lucky7]

We must submit to the precious and sublime in recognition of the truth of what is going on. To pit the sublime and complex and precious and beautiful against the low, simple and humble is schizophrenic and not Catholic."

Jason – I have mostly stayed away from the new pope threads because I am becoming crazy with the way everyone, and especially the media, is twisting every single word and every gesture to confirm and conform to their own preference and interpretation. But I’m so glad I popped into this thread because I absolutely love what Fr. Z has said as emphasized. It is **profound **in terms of perception but how many will comprehend it? This has absolutely made my day!

Agreed! And Amen!

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m sorry but, as a convert to the Catholic Faith, I find this absolutely insulting.

What do you find insulting? Symbols are simply signs to point the way, they are utilitarian in nature. They are not part of the purpose of our Church, they are mere tools to be used to aid the Church in it’s aims to save souls (as many as possible). No soul was ever saved by a symbol. The Church has a whole myriad of symbols that have been chosen to be used (or not used) at various points in the Church’s history. Or is it the actions of Pope Francis, by not wearing red shoes, that you find insulting?

What is it exactly that you find insulting, because nothing I have said in my post is contrary to Church doctrine?

 

[Brendan_64]

Non-Catholics will not convert based on Pope Francis’ choice of wardrobe or whether a Cardinal is chauffeured around the streets of Rome.

Church liturgy should not be subject to local whims. When Catholics travel to Washington, DC, Nairobi, or Montreal, for example, the Mass should be fairly recognizable in all locations. For two centuries, the Catholic Mass was virtually universal in practice. Must we accommodate every form of Mass imaginable in the modern era?

What has Pope Francis’s decision not to wear red shoes, or his more informal style got to do with changing the Liturgy? I entirely agree with your point that the Liturgy ought to be the same worldwide, but this is an entirely different issue from a decision about whether or not to use optional symbols.

 

[TEPO]

Jason – I have mostly stayed away from the new pope threads because I am becoming crazy with the way everyone, and especially the media, is twisting every single word and every gesture to confirm and conform to their own preference and interpretation. But I’m so glad I popped into this thread because I absolutely love what Fr. Z has said as emphasized. It is **profound **in terms of perception but how many will comprehend it? This has absolutely made my day!

Amen to this.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

What do you find insulting? Symbols are simply signs to point the way, they are utilitarian in nature. They are not part of the purpose of our Church, they are mere tools to be used to aid the Church in it’s aims to save souls (as many as possible). No soul was ever saved by a symbol. The Church has a whole myriad of symbols that have been chosen to be used (or not used) at various points in the Church’s history. Or is it the actions of Pope Francis, by not wearing red shoes, that you find insulting?

What is it exactly that you find insulting, because nothing I have said in my post is contrary to Church doctrine?

Shall we remove the Crucifix from the altar? Though an intrinsic symbol of our faith, it is nevertheless a symbol. I think not. The Pope’s red shoes and Superman cape are another story. Either way, non-Catholics will not base their conversion on such trivial matters as red shoes, chauffeured Cardinals, etc.

 

[Lucky7]

What do you find insulting? Symbols are simply signs to point the way, they are utilitarian in nature. They are not part of the purpose of our Church, they are mere tools to be used to aid the Church in it’s aims to save souls (as many as possible). No soul was ever saved by a symbol. The Church has a whole myriad of symbols that have been chosen to be used (or not used) at various points in the Church’s history. Or is it the actions of Pope Francis, by not wearing red shoes, that you find insulting?

What is it exactly that you find insulting, because nothing I have said in my post is contrary to Church doctrine?

The mission of the Church is to evangelise in order to save souls. If a certain external image of the Church (made up by symbols, structures, perceived opulence) is in any way acting as a hindrance towards this mission, then this external image ought to be changed. The Church is not well regarded by those outside the Catholic Church, quite the contrary, and this presents a very serious problem with regard to evangelisation. Perhaps Pope Francis is trying to present the caring, approachable, more humble nature of the Church to the wider humanity? Perhaps he feels that the red shoes might be perceived by the wider public as just another small part of a pompous Church that is over-obsessed with it’s own internal symbols? Perhaps he wants to signal to the public that the Church is renewing itself and returning to the core messages of a humble, caring Christ?

Those who hear the Truth are not impeded/hindered by what *you consider *external, pompous or what-have-you images. To suggest otherwise is insulting.

 

[Brendan_64]

Either way, non-Catholics will not base their conversion on such trivial matters as red shoes, chauffeured Cardinals, etc.

Not specifically, but many individual signs of the trappings of power create a cumulative effect to help generate an impression of a materialistic, self-obsessed and corrupt Church. Whether we like it or not, whether it is true or not, the majority of people outside of our Church view our Church in a very poor light indeed. How others view our Church does matter, it matters a very great deal. If we are to evangelise to world we must present the Church as one that is not materialistic, self-obsessed or corrupt. Symbols do matter and as symbols contribute towards the overall image of our Church.

Our Church does not exist for its current members, our Church exists for all humanity. The image of our Church to those outside our Church is of extreme importance, and that image is mud at the moment.

I have complete faith that Pope Francis knows exactly what he is doing with regard to presenting a more humble, less opulent and less remote image of the Church to the wider world. I also have faith that, in time, he will instigate a much needed clean up of the Roman Curia.

 

[Brendan_64]

Those who hear the Truth are not impeded/hindered by what *you consider *external, pompous or what-have-you images. To suggest otherwise is insulting.

People simply do not hear the Truth and coming flocking to the Church, you first have to convince them to listen, and to do this you have to first remove the barriers that prevent them from being willing to listen in the first place. Symbols and the external appearance of the Church CAN be barriers that prevent people from being willing to listen. that’s not insulting, that’s just a fact of life.

Do you think then that Pope Francis has got it wrong then with his downplaying of certain symbols, and his adoption of a more informal style? No red shoes, standing to deliver his homily, his call for a ‘poorer’ Church. Has he got it all wrong then?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Not specifically, but many individual signs of the trappings of power create a cumulative effect to help generate an impression of a materialistic, self-obsessed and corrupt Church. Whether we like it or not, whether it is true or not, the majority of people outside of our Church view our Church in a very poor light indeed. How others view our Church does matter, it matters a very great deal. If we are to evangelise to world we must present the Church as one that is not materialistic, self-obsessed or corrupt. Symbols do matter and as symbols contribute towards the overall image of our Church.

Our Church does not exist for its current members, our Church exists for all humanity. The image of our Church to those outside our Church is of extreme importance, and that image is mud at the moment.

I have complete faith that Pope Francis knows exactly what he is doing with regard to presenting a more humble, less opulent and less remote image of the Church to the wider world. I also have faith that, in time, he will instigate a much needed clean up of the Roman Curia.

I’ll concede you the Pope’s handmade red shoes. The Church will persevere without them as the excessive trappings of a materialistic, self-absorbed, corrupt institution…

 

[Lucky7]

People simply do not hear the Truth and coming flocking to the Church, you first have to convince them to listen, and to do this you have to first remove the barriers that prevent them from being willing to listen in the first place. Symbols and the external appearance of the Church CAN be barriers that prevent people from being willing to listen. that’s not insulting, that’s just a fact of life.

Do you think then that Pope Francis has got it wrong then with his downplaying of certain symbols, and his adoption of a more informal style? No red shoes, standing to deliver his homily, his call for a ‘poorer’ Church. Has he got it all wrong then?

I’m not saying he got it all wrong. YOU are ascribing his actions to YOUR reasoning. Perhaps he is changing these things for other reasons…not because he’s worried about what others think of the Church…not because he thinks they are hindrances to hearing the Truth. There are far too many people who are not hindered by those things YOU think are wrong in the Church. I would argue that those who are hindered by these things really aren’t looking for the Truth above all things.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I continue to think that the shoes decision was made at a much more practical
level than we are discussing. One needed change shoes in order to put on a different cassock.

Not wearing the mozzetta is to my mind a more deliberate choice based on the Pope’s Ignatian spirituality.

What I think will be interesting is to see what happens when it comes time for Pope Francis to get new shoes. Will he wear a pair of red loafers that are already made or get another pair of whatever type of shoes he wears now?

On one of these threads someone said that JPII also didn’t wear the red loafers. Does anyone remember or have photo evidence? Perhaps neither of them like loafers.

 

[Brendan_64]

I would argue that those who are hindered by these things really aren’t looking for the Truth above all things.

And if they are not looking for Truth above all things then we need to do what we can to encourage and cajole them to look. If this means removing a few mere symbols that are obscuring their view then this is what we ought to do. One more saved soul is worth far more than all the symbols we have (no matter how traditional). Our Church was not put on this Earth to create exquisite symbols and preserve these in tradition.

 

[Lucky7]

And if they are not looking for Truth above all things then we need to do what we can to encourage and cajole them to look. If this means removing a few mere symbols that are obscuring their view then this is what we ought to do. One more saved soul is worth far more than all the symbols we have (no matter how traditional). Our Church was not put on this Earth to create exquisite symbols and preserve these in tradition.

And you continue to miss the point that you are ascribing removing symbols for your reasons.

If the red shoes are keeping someone from looking for Truth above all things, then there’s another issue there.

 

[Brendan_64]

If the red shoes are keeping someone from looking for Truth above all things, then there’s another issue there.

So are we only to present the Church to those who are actively looking for Truth? Do we disregard those who are not looking, or those who let things block their view and don’t try to look further? Should we just wrote these people off? No. These are the very people we need to convince and persuade. If there are barriers that can be removed in order to help these people come to us, then we should remove these barriers. It’s not those who can see that we need to be concerned with, it’s those who refuse to see that we should be going after and trying to convince them to look.

 

[Lucky7]

So are we only to present the Church to those who are actively looking for Truth? Do we disregard those who are not looking, or those who let things block their view and don’t try to look further? Should we just wrote these people off? No. These are the very people we need to convince and persuade. If there are barriers that can be removed in order to help these people come to us, then we should remove these barriers. It’s not those who can see that we need to be concerned with, it’s those who refuse to see that we should be going after and trying to convince them to look.

So now I’m convinced that you are avoiding my point that (I’ll say it again so you can have another opportunity to deny it) you are ascribing your own reasoning to the Pope’s actions.

For hundreds of years there were certain traditions. People converted left and right. Why is it all of a sudden a hindrance to folks?

Your’e so concerned about removing barriers but you still don’t care that your comments are insulting to those of us who have converted even with these apparently offensive traditions.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Symbols, including those used by the Church, are there to serve aid the mission of the Church. Symbols, no matter how cherished or how traditional, have no intrinsic value in themselves. Symbols are merely utilitarian tools that serve to illuminate messages and point the way. If they help the Church’s mission they have value, if they don’t help the Church’s mission at a particular period in time then they should be put aside.

The Holy Father knows what he is doing. The mission of the Church is to evangelise in order to save souls. If a certain external image of the Church (made up by symbols, structures, perceived opulence) is in any way acting as a hindrance towards this mission, then this external image ought to be changed. The Church is not well regarded by those outside the Catholic Church, quite the contrary, and this presents a very serious problem with regard to evangelisation. Perhaps Pope Francis is trying to present the caring, approachable, more humble nature of the Church to the wider humanity? Perhaps he feels that the red shoes might be perceived by the wider public as just another small part of a pompous Church that is over-obsessed with it’s own internal symbols? Perhaps he wants to signal to the public that the Church is renewing itself and returning to the core messages of a humble, caring Christ?

Either way, we should not get overly concerned about whether the Pope chooses to use certain symbols or not. Preserving symbols are not what the Church has been put on Earth for. It is here to evangelise and save souls. If our Pope (who is guided by the holy Spirit) feel;s that certain symbols don’t help us in this regard then why woryy if he doesn’t choose to use these tools?

The Holy Father knows what he is doing (far more than any of us on here do) so let’s just place our trust in what he does and in how he does it. He is a man chosen by, and guided by, the Holy Spirit.

You keep saying “he’s guided by the Holy Spirit” in a sense that Is NOT the understanding of the Church as regards the Petrine Ministry. I posted the following earlier just after one of your similar posts:

“I’m sorry, but the above is NOT Catholic teaching. It is, if anything, far closer to Mormonism, which believes that its President is the “prophet, seer, and revelator” for the Church. We do not believe any such thing about the Pope. We believe the CHURCH is guided by the Holy Spirit. We believe the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching error to the Church when he speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals, be we do not necessarily believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in all his decisions. If we did so, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio would be guilty before God for daring to criticize Pope Benedict’s speech at Regensburg, the one that so inflamed Moslem extremists that they torched churches and shot a nun. He criticized the Pope’s prudential wisdom in using that particular quote. In their prudential judgements, popes are as subject to error and mistep as the next person. Pope John Paul II appointed some really excellent and orthodox bishops. He also appointed some…well, one has only to read the newspapers.”