Pope Francis' first moves hint at break with past

[Brendan_64]

I heard he was a compromise between the conservative and liberal cardinals.

I doubt whether the Holy Spirit works in that way. I also doubt whether the Cardinals view themselves as being in ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ camps.

Also, all the talk, especially farther down on this thread, about him being more liberal on social justice issues and economics. It’s just kinda worrisome. It might not be true but I don’t want to see him stray to the left side of issues.

Why is that worrying? Are you more concerned that the Holy Father and his actions should align themselves with a particular branch of secular politics? Perhaps we should place our trust in the Church and the Holy Spirit (acting through the Pope) and align our own particular views of secular politics with that? What is more important, our own secular political views, or that we support and align ourselves (and our political views) with the direction the Holy Spirit guides our Church? Who do we serve, God or mammon?

He is our Pope and we are duty bound to obey him. We should unconditionally accept him, embrace him and fully support him in whatever direction he takes our Church. He is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not think in terms of ‘left’ and ‘right’. We should not let our own corrupt secular political views be a barrier to us following where the one true Church leads us.

 

[Marie5890]

I must confess my main fear:

All this humility, change in liturgical vestments, informality in greeting people, speaking only to the Diocese of Rome (in only Italian) and not the world. That’s all fine by themselves, and commendable. However, I believe, as humans, we naturally compare how Pope Francis is to his predecessor. We naturally do a “before/after” analysis.

I don’t want people to forget about Benedict, or think of him as a worse pope than Francis. I don’t want people to say “Oh, Francis is great! He’s just like John Paul II! Benedict was just, you know, there for eight years. But Francis is so much different from Benedict!”

We shouldn’t forget about Benedict, and his strengths.

I do hear what you are saying, and there is legitimate concern for that considering how we humans tend to “play and pick” favorites.

But in the end, God is the only judge. Benedict is wonderful man and fulfilled his Petrine ministry with great love, dedication and humility. We should take a page out of his humble book and as he pledged is full support and even obedience to his successor, so should we.

If Benedict and do that, so can we.

 

[Marie5890]

I doubt whether the Holy Spirit works in that way. I also doubt whether the Cardinals view themselves as being in ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ camps.

Why is that worrying? Are you more concerned that the Holy Father and his actions should align themselves with a particular branch of secular politics? Perhaps we should place our trust in the Church and the Holy Spirit (acting through the Pope) and align our own particular views of secular politics with that? What is more important, our own secular political views, or that we support and align ourselves (and our political views) with the direction the Holy Spirit guides our Church? Who do we serve, God or mammon?

He is our Pope and we are duty bound to obey him. We should unconditionally accept him, embrace him and fully support him in whatever direction he takes our Church. He is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not think in terms of ‘left’ and ‘right’. We should not let our own corrupt secular political views be a barrier to us following where the one true Church leads us.

You bring up something that should have us all examining our conscience. The secular idea of “liberal vs conservative”

Does anyone really doubt that Pope Francis is a holy man? A man who seeks after the will of God and not his own will? That he doesnt strive for authentic discipleship?

Do we seek after the will of God and not our own will? Or own biases?
It’s not an easy feat, to pray “Thy will be done” yet that is exactly how Christ Himself taught us to pray.

 

[tradcathconvert]

I think this is also a good analysis of Pope Francis and what we may expect:

nationalreview.com/blogs/print/342964

Thank you for the interesting link. I have put it in my favorites to reread more thoughtfully in the next few days.

 

[spartan_cop]

I don’t see it as mocking our faith. If he truly sees changes needed, he has the authority to make those changes. I would think he would be more wrong to go along with something he viewed as wrong just for political correctness.

Because anything that looks expensive is not good right? Let’s just be like everyone else and just do the minimum because we have to be like everyone else. All the pomp and show has no place in our new church.

 

[spartan_cop]

Catholic answers was not there the time the church was built, not cars or tweeter or television. You are making the common mistake of thinking that because something wasn’t there at the Church’s origin, that it is an innovation and needless. And yes, the garments of a pope or priest actually would correspond to the Jewish religion. The apostles would have understood vestments and capes better than you or I.

Everything in our faith is important, some things more important that others. If you don’t understand or appreciate the meaning of clerical garb, that is your issue.

Very good point! Neither was the bible!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because anything that looks expensive is not good right? Let’s just be like everyone else and just do the minimum because we have to be like everyone else. All the pomp and show has no place in our new church.

I haven’t said that, and am sorry it’s being received that way. I am giving to his authority, and was trying to say he shouldn’t be held to ‘political correctness,’ if it’s not what he truly believes. As for his teaching on the Church being poor, and for the poor, I prefer to wait and let him explain it. When he does, I will support it.

 

[PJD1987]

Not sure if this has been linked yet…

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/03/is-pope-francis-a-liturgical-liberal.html

 

[marycatherine11]

Amen J!
A few thoughts as I read these posts…

1. It seems many people forgot what the OP was actually concerned with. Not what the pope is wearing, but whether or not he spoke in a joking, however seemingly uncharitable way toward popes who honored particular traditions in dress. This of course would be the opposite of humble,which is why it would be concerning.
2. We do need to be careful of how we try to define our new Holy Father. He is who he is, and as he hasn’t done much writing and none in any language besides Spanish, most of the world just doesn’t know him yet.
3. His preferring to forego seeming luxuries offered to him is more a sign of personality than a condemning of past popes actions and moving the church in another direction. Perhps is a really social or feels subway or bus is more relaxing. or perhaps he is setting an example of frugality and a different way of stewarding church resources. As an aside,I personally like to cook for myself because I like my own food better. It would be more humbling for me to allow someone to cook for me! Humility and pride look different in all of us. That being said, I have encountered bishops ( my husband was a director of a dept within local diocese) who obviously thought bishop was synonymous with king, and used way more resources than necessary. However, with the schedule I hear popes have, I am more than happy to take care of our Holy Father as much as will make him comfortable!

I was absolutely smitten with Pope Benedict xvi ( and his way of making the complex simple and beautiful) and believe that though he didn’t want to be Pope, with the Lords help he gave us all he could. I’m sure the same will be true of Pope Francis.

I posted this quote above, but you may have missed it. Humility is not simply an external thing. In fact, much of the time it should not be external at all. We have, in recent times in the Church, created an understanding of what it means to be truly humble that isn’t always consistent with how it was thought of earlier in the Church. It isn’t about the external trappings, or lack thereof, it is about interior conversion and denial of self. People keep talking about how humble Pope Francis is because he took the bus instead of a limo, cooked for himself, etc. That’s fine, I guess I can see that. Of course, I can also see keeping the driver and the cook so that they could retain their job and just driving a cheaper car and eating simpler food without making a fuss about it. To me, and this is just my opinion, that seems more in line with what the Church has traditionaly taught regarding humility. Perhaps I am wrong.

In the book The Screwtape Letters, there is a point at which one demon is trying to help his apprentice understand how to really trap someone with the sin of pride. The key, as he notes, isn’t to make them afraid of pride, but rather to help them become humble, and then make them take pride in their humility. When that happens, they are trapped. They cannot give up the humble appearances and external trappings without feeling that they are becoming ostentatious and they cannot keep them because they take too much pride in them. Catch 22 at its finest.

Please understand, I am not accusing Pope Francis of being in this situation. But I am suggesting that our common understanding of some things may not be accurate. And, when I say “our” I am definitely including myself, because much of this was definitely news to me when I first came across it.

 

[mburn16]

The Pope is, of course, entitled to his own style. But he needs to be mindful that his personal style choices could end up creating an effect on future Popes. Would Paul VI have given up his Tiara if he had known it would not return half a century later? Its debatable.

If this Pope is simply uncomfortable with some of the more ceremonial splendor, and chooses to forego it for the next Pope to restore, thats on thing. But if he introduces casualness into the Vatican, and thus contributes to an extra half century of giving God (and God’s Church) every glory that we can muster, than he will have done a great disservice.

I want to be optimistic, I want to like our Pope…but I cannot overcome the nerves that have roiled my stomach since he stepped out onto the balcony without the mozzetta and stole on. The Pope should be humble, but the Papacy? I’m far less convinced of that. I’ll be watching closely over the next couple of weeks to see just how far this Jesuit humility goes. If he restores the Tiara to the coat of arms or is soon seen walking around in traditional Papal garb, I’ll be sufficiently mollified. If not, well, I suppose he’s still more likely than not to appoint traditionalist cardinals, and many of those will probably want to return to the trappings in the future.

I’ve been trying to put my fear into what could happen into more specific words, and I think I found it: I’m afraid he’ll bring the “stuck-in-the-70s” Latin American Catholicism to the vatican…a place that has more or less managed to avoid it, minus the abandonment of the Tiara. I want a Pope comfortable with, and unafraid of executing, the full power/duty/authority of his office.

I’m doing my best to give him a chance, but I may not be able to hold a firm viewpoint for weeks, months, or even years.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m afraid he’ll bring the “stuck-in-the-70s” Latin American Catholicism to the vatican…a place that has more or less managed to avoid it, minus the abandonment of the Tiara.

I don’t see what evidence there is of that, so far.

I want a Pope comfortable with, and unafraid of executing, the full power/duty/authority of his office.

Please be careful of equating the (traditional and external) symbols of power and authority with authority itself. Please, for example, examine Jesus in the Gospels. It was the way He spoke which attracted attention. He spoke, it was said “with authority,” yet without miters, elegant robes, and an entourage. When one is individually convinced and convicted, the truth that person speaks is undeniable. it doesn’t need to be “displayed” regally for that power and that truth to be awesome. Remember, many people were afraid of Jesus, and of His words, yet He was not described as protecting Himself with and decorating Himself, so to speak. No pomp and circumstance.

By contrast, earthly kings have always done that. The need the trappings of power, the externals, because show and display communicate when the context is a competitive secular society (such as, the Middle Ages, such as, The Renaissance. Monarchy would have been ridiculed for wearing peasant clothing, because power and status were measured by many externals.

 

[LilyM]

The Pope is, of course, entitled to his own style. But he needs to be mindful that his personal style choices could end up creating an effect on future Popes. Would Paul VI have given up his Tiara if he had known it would not return half a century later? Its debatable.

If this Pope is simply uncomfortable with some of the more ceremonial splendor, and chooses to forego it for the next Pope to restore, thats on thing. But if he introduces casualness into the Vatican, and thus contributes to an extra half century of giving God (and God’s Church) every glory that we can muster, than he will have done a great disservice.

I want to be optimistic, I want to like our Pope…but I cannot overcome the nerves that have roiled my stomach since he stepped out onto the balcony without the mozzetta and stole on. The Pope should be humble, but the Papacy? I’m far less convinced of that. I’ll be watching closely over the next couple of weeks to see just how far this Jesuit humility goes. If he restores the Tiara to the coat of arms or is soon seen walking around in traditional Papal garb, I’ll be sufficiently mollified. If not, well, I suppose he’s still more likely than not to appoint traditionalist cardinals, and many of those will probably want to return to the trappings in the future.

I’ve been trying to put my fear into what could happen into more specific words, and I think I found it: I’m afraid he’ll bring the “stuck-in-the-70s” Latin American Catholicism to the vatican…a place that has more or less managed to avoid it, minus the abandonment of the Tiara. I want a Pope comfortable with, and unafraid of executing, the full power/duty/authority of his office.

I’m doing my best to give him a chance, but I may not be able to hold a firm viewpoint for weeks, months, or even years.

I cannot answer for Paul VI - possibly he would not have, as you say. On the other hand it’s just as possible that he did it precisely hoping that it would never be revived.

And equally, maybe the first Pope who chose to wear a tiara would have flung the thing into the Tiber in disgust if he could have foreseen the bellyaching it is now causing among us - as well as the target it has given in the past for criticism among opponents of the Church as a symbol of its supposed wealth and obsession with earthly power at the expense of spiritual leadership.

Look, there is an extremely limited extent to which Popes can even hope to bind future Popes on such matters. And an even less limited extent to which they can be responsible for the impression their actions create on others either during their reigns or in posterity. All they can do is act according to their lights and trust that what is good and worthwhile will be remembered and if appropriate preserved.

 

[mburn16]

I don’t see what evidence there is of that, so far.

Please be careful of equating the (traditional and external) symbols of power and authority with authority itself. Please, for example, examine Jesus in the Gospels. It was the way He spoke which attracted attention. He spoke, it was said “with authority,” yet without miters, elegant robes, and an entourage. When one is individually convinced and convicted, the truth that person speaks is undeniable. it doesn’t need to be “displayed” regally for that power and that truth to be awesome. Remember, many people were afraid of Jesus, and of His words, yet He was not described as protecting Himself with and decorating Himself, so to speak. No pomp and circumstance.

By contrast, earthly kings have always done that. The need the trappings of power, the externals, because show and display communicate when the context is a competitive secular society (such as, the Middle Ages, such as, The Renaissance. Monarchy would have been ridiculed for wearing peasant clothing, because power and status were measured by many externals.

Not much evidence of it, yet, but there could be the slightest hint in his decision not to use the Mozzetta or stole immediately. This could be a simply personal choice, it could be a one-time thing, or it could be something more. We don’t know yet.

And…Christ had a dignity and an authority all his own, one no Pope could match in any level of trimmings or trappings. He was the son of God, fully man and fully God. He had the abilities of seeing and knowing that no man does. He was, simply put, divine. Popes…aren’t, even though we accept that they are prevented from propagating corrupt doctrine by the Holy Spirit. And here, on this Earth, the symbols of authority are important to the authority itself. The Pope is the highest spiritual authority we have access to, he is the Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter, the shepherd of the Universal Church. As I’ve said before, I think giving glory to the Church is to give Glory to God. I want a humble Pope, because the Pope like all of us is a man with his own sins and flaws and shortcomings. But how humble do we want the Papacy?

 

[LilyM]

I don’t see what evidence there is of that, so far.

Nor, not having lived in Latin America in the 70s, what evidence that being stuck in LA in the 70s would be any worse than any of the other places or times where previous Popes might be said to have been stuck. It is a fact that people are influenced, for good and bad, by when and where they were raised. Future Popes will have been formed in different contexts in any event, so nothing indicates that they will follow Francis’ lead in that respect.

Please be careful of equating the (traditional and external) symbols of power and authority with authority itself. Please, for example, examine Jesus in the Gospels. It was the way He spoke which attracted attention. He spoke, it was said “with authority,” yet without miters, elegant robes, and an entourage. When one is individually convinced and convicted, the truth that person speaks is undeniable. it doesn’t need to be “displayed” regally for that power and that truth to be awesome. Remember, many people were afraid of Jesus, and of His words, yet He was not described as protecting Himself with and decorating Himself, so to speak. No pomp and circumstance.

By contrast, earthly kings have always done that. The need the trappings of power, the externals, because show and display communicate when the context is a competitive secular society (such as, the Middle Ages, such as, The Renaissance. Monarchy would have been ridiculed for wearing peasant clothing, because power and status were measured by many externals.

Hmm - it must be pointed out that He DID have the entourage of at least 12, probably more. Otherwise an excellent point.

 

[LilyM]

Not much evidence of it, yet, but there could be the slightest hint in his decision not to use the Mozzetta or stole immediately. This could be a simply personal choice, it could be a one-time thing, or it could be something more. We don’t know yet.

And…Christ had a dignity and an authority all his own, one no Pope could match in any level of trimmings or trappings. He was the son of God, fully man and fully God. He had the abilities of seeing and knowing that no man does. He was, simply put, divine. Popes…aren’t, even though we accept that they are prevented from propagating corrupt doctrine by the Holy Spirit. And here, on this Earth, the symbols of authority are important to the authority itself. The Pope is the highest spiritual authority we have access to, he is the Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter, the shepherd of the Universal Church. As I’ve said before, I think giving glory to the Church is to give Glory to God. I want a humble Pope, because the Pope like all of us is a man with his own sins and flaws and shortcomings. But how humble do we want the Papacy?

St Peter had zero trappings, and his authority was not one iota the less for lack of them. It was generations before any trappings of significance became attached to the faith at all - St Peter’s successors during those generations also had no less authority for lack of them. I think I said earlier that it is the office that gives dignity to the trappings and not the other way around.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hmm - it must be pointed out that He DID have the entourage of at least 12, probably more. Otherwise an excellent point.

Yes, indeed, he had an entourage. However, that entourage was unlike that accompanying most esteemed monarchs of Europe, for example, throughout the history of monarchies. (No mention of carrying any weapons, no mention of aristocratic attire, no ceremonial flourishes/entrances.)

I guess I need to qualify everything I say.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, indeed, he had an entourage. However, that entourage was unlike that accompanying most esteemed monarchs of Europe, for example, throughout the history of monarchies. (No mention of carrying any weapons, no mention of aristocratic attire, no ceremonial flourishes/entrances.)

I guess I need to qualify everything I say.

Yes, everything

Sorry to annoy you, I was playing devil’s advocate back there.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And…Christ had a dignity and an authority all his own, one no Pope could match in any level of trimmings or trappings. He was the son of God, fully man and fully God. He had the abilities of seeing and knowing that no man does. He was, simply put, divine. Popes…aren’t, even though we accept that they are prevented from propagating corrupt doctrine by the Holy Spirit.

I’m not meaning to imply at all that the Pope = Christ. What I am saying is that Jesus modeled something: that God Himself is Truth, Power, and Authority. The fact that for Him, those attributes were synonymous with His Being does not prevent us from deriving lessons from how he modeled that authority, how He communicated it. When we are confident that God speaks with us (assuming we are faithful to His Word and in communion with Him, as I’m sure Pope Francis is), the truth that emanates from a person carries a power that is not dependent on external trappings. The trappings do not detract (necessarily) from truth, but neither do they by themselves add to it.

And here, on this Earth, the symbols of authority are important to the authority itself.

Not substantially, they aren’t. That is, authority is not dependent on symbols. I think that the Church would not agree with that philosophical premise. Rather, she would say that authority has intrinsic value: it is substance, not accidents.

Now, I will grant you that there is an emotional reaction to symbols that can help those not in authority recognize that authority, relate to that authority (possibly). For example, most Catholics typically have their confessions heard by a priest wearing clerics, but if the only priest around who can hear a deathbed confession happens to be wearing khakis and a shirt, few will have a doubt that the confession is just as valid.

I do not think that Pope Francis will do away with whatever symbols he considers essential – again, for ceremonial occasions especially. We won’t be seeing photos of him in jeans and t-shirts

I am hopeful that he will use creative ways to deliver his messages, lead, and evangelize. For example, I think what he may take from his experience in Latin America is not what you may assume. I think he will apply to the New Evangelization needed inside the Church the commitment and obedience that he may have witnessed in Latin America, among those truly faithful. We do not have commitment and obedience now, among First World Catholics, as a whole (U.S. , Europe, Canada especially). We have rebellion, independence, pride, secularism, infidelity to the Church, pseudo-intellectualism which is really just a pretentious form of secularism, feel-good religion, occasional (not daily) fidelity, and lack of respect for authority in general, including the authority of priests, bishops, and the hierarchy. Easily half of all First World Catholics speak as if they have equal authority with the Magisterium.

JReducation said on one of these threads that he thinks that Pope Francis will blend the best of JP2 and BXVI into a new direction. That would be ideal. I would never want a Pope who is only about charisma and passion, but does not encourage understanding & knowledge. I think, however, listening to some of the Cardinals, post-conclave, the thrust is going to be on moving from commitment to knowledge, versus the other way around. That’s just my guess, but I conclude it from the commentary of those who know the man and who have attended more than one conclave. I think the hope is that fired-up Catholics may be (finally) interested in actually learning their faith, including learning the Church’s doctrine, history, & spirituality, and that without this commitment, the motivation to learn the faith has been absent.

Just my .02. As far as I’m concerned, my guess is just a stab in the dark. It just lacks your pessimism, I believe

 

[Brendan_64]

Does anyone really doubt that Pope Francis is a holy man? A man who seeks after the will of God and not his own will? That he doesnt strive for authentic discipleship?

And that should be enough. Let’s get over our hang-ups and petty worries over what garments the Pope chooses to wear, whether he has a formal or informal style, whether he travels by bus or chaffeur driven car with full cavalcade, uses enough incense etc. Let’s stop judging our Pope based on whether or not his actions fit with our own personal stances on secular politics.

Francis is our Pope and has been chosen under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I think that perhaps the Holy Spirit is better placed to decide on the nature of our Pope and the direction he (under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit) will take our Church.

As followers of Christ our role is to fully support our Pope in whatever direction he leads us. If our own secular political views, or our own personal views on correct ceremony and protocol, conflict with this then we should ditch our own political or personal views and align ourselves fully with whatever direction Pope Francis is guided to take us.

 

[mburn16]

As followers of Christ our role is to fully support our Pope in whatever direction he leads us. If our own secular political views, or our own personal views on correct ceremony and protocol, conflict with this then we should ditch our own political or personal views and align ourselves fully with whatever direction Pope Francis is guided to take us.

It is our role to obey church teachings and be subject to the proper authorities, trusting that God will not allow us to be led astray in terms of doctrine. But do you honestly believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope against every manner of error or mistake, even in personal decisions? I don’t, and neither did Pope Benedict. For that matter, there is plenty of evidence of, as others have called them, “utterly depraved” Bishops of Rome who erred personally in matters far more serious than garment choices.

The Pope has elected to do away with elements of ceremony and splendor. Just because he is the Pope does not automatically make that an infallible, unquestionable, positive decision.