Pope Francis' first moves hint at break with past

[Tobias22]

I was disappointed by a blog post of Fr. Z which is indirectly critical of the new Pope on liturgical issues.

The Church is not about a perfect liturgy, crossing every T. Beautiful vestments and such. It is about Jesus and preaching Jesus.

The evengelicals have plain services and simple churches and they are the ones experiencing massive growth in Catholic countries. They preach Jesus.

It’s seems clear the Pope is not a traditionalist but that is not bad.

I think over this pontificate there will be an ending of some of the more regal trappings of the Papacy in favor of simplicity. But that started with Paul VI and was accelerated by JP2Pope Francis is just carrying it forward IMO.

I think the promise of V2 of a truly conciliar church where bishops have real say, along with the Pope, in key matters will emerge front and center.

Terms like democratic are not good but sort of all we have - so IMO Pope francis will bring about a more democratic, lay driven chucrh. If what he did as archbishop is any indication.

He seems to be re-asserting a strong option for the poor and, listening to sonservativwe radio some, that seems to have a lot on the right politically worried about the Pope and his economic views. But Jesus was not a capitalist even though a lot of conservative Christians seem to think that.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Vestments do not concern me, but liturgical changes give me cause for concern. However, I have yet to see evidence that Pope Francis will change or simplify the liturgy from it’s existent form. So I am not in panic mode. Either way, I have no desire to assume the rituals or appearance of Protestant churches.

 

[CatholicCid]

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.

Actually, the Gospels do record the ‘entourage’ carrying weapons and there are occasional ceremonial entrances (Just a little fun devil’s advocate to go along with LiyM’s )

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. (John 18:10)

The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the *** and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. The very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: “Hosanna* to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” (Matthew 21:6-9)

 

[Ridgerunner]

At this point, the only thing he did that troubled me was when he went out into the crowd before St. Peter’s. I can understand why he did it, but one worries about potential assassinations.

 

[GaryTaylor]

At this point, the only thing he did that troubled me was when he went out into the crowd before St. Peter’s. I can understand why he did it, but one worries about potential assassinations.

I thought the same thing. You think his past work and thinking in this area will continue to surface?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, the Gospels do record the ‘entourage’ carrying weapons and there are occasional ceremonial entrances (Just a little fun devil’s advocate to go along with LiyM’s )

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. (John 18:10)

Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii.

When Christ was arrested, weren’t they coming from the Paschal meal, that became the Last Supper?

The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the *** and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. The very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: “Hosanna* to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” (Matthew 21:6-9)

The ceremonial entrance was on a borrowed colt.

We can speculate on exactly what Pope Francis meant, but if we wait, I believe he will show us.

 

[fix]

Source please!

See post #28. That is just as much evidence as the unsupported claim from the OP piece.

 

[mercytruth]

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.

Yes, St. Peter had zero trappings. St.Peter even referred to himself as a co-presbyter when addressing the presbyters of the churches of the diaspora (1 Peter 5:1).

Since the Mozetta is an ecclesiastical vestment, and not a liturgical vestment, Pope/Bishop/Shepherd Francis is exhibiting the same spirit of St. Peter by not being overly attached to ecclesiastical vestments representing authority or titles. He is being more traditional than anyone in this regard.

newadvent.org/cathen/10624b.htm

The peace of God be with you

 

[Tobias22]

it’s going to be a simpler church. Which is good. The promise is what Pope francis will do to reform the Curia and what he might do about priestly celibacy, expanding the role of deacons, allowing female deacons and maybe a more nuanced teaching on contraception. Benedict hinted at that in his famous book interview a few years back.

Also, the types of bishops he will appoint and will he allow local (name removed by moderator)ut from priests and laypeople in the naming of bishops.

After Mass yesterday out front of the church the priest and many who stayed behind to talk were all excited about the possibilities of this Pontificate.

 

[ringil]

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.

Infallible? positive decision? I don’t see where you are going.

He is the Pope he teaches us. Do you feel you are in a place to question the decisions of the Holy Father? That’s crazy! Humble yourself!

I may not be ecstatic about everything a pope has said but they are the pope. It is this odd, upside down questioning of the laity that led to the SSPX, then the SSPV, and now the new and improved SSPX-SO.

Those called to a traditional spirituality have no more right to question the Pope than do uber-liberal Catholics. It’s haughty and unbecoming of a layman.

It’s not your place.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually, the Gospels do record the ‘entourage’ carrying weapons and there are occasional ceremonial entrances (Just a little fun devil’s advocate to go along with LiyM’s )

Read Prodigan Son’s response below yours regarding the ambiguity of the sword. In addition, the context of the time would not define such a sword as being the kind of lethal diisplay reserved for the entourage of later European monarchs. Rather, possibly a sword brought for the occasion, or a smaller “sword” used in Peter’s trade, etc. And naturally Jesus rebuked the use of that sword in both Mt and Jn.

To assume that the brief mention of weapons among Jesus’ entourage was anything like the clear display of power (and intimidating reasons for that display – reasons connected with earthly understandings of power) is in accordance with Jesus’ disarmed message is just a wrong read of the Gospels. He had a counter-cultural message vs. the imperial power of the time.

 

[Brendan_64]

Just because he is the Pope does not automatically make that an infallible, unquestionable, positive decision.

It doesn’t make him infallible in all things, but as our Pope I will follow his lead and accept whatever direction he takes us in. I did so with Pope Benedict, and I will do so with Pope Francis.

Do you really think that as a lay person you are in a better position that our Pope to judge what is the correct direction for our Church to take? Fallible or not, our pope is far, far better placed to judge what is right for our Church than we are.

 

[ringil]

Do you really think that as a lay person you are in a better position that our Pope to judge what is the correct direction for our Church to take? Fallible or not, our pope is far, far better placed to judge what is right for our Church than we are.

Ya’ think???

 

[Elizabeth502]

mburn,

I’d like to play Devil’s Advocate to my own reasoning, and look at the other side of it, which might be where you’re coming from.

Eschatology points to a moment in which God does indeed display power, in fact over all the earth. There will be no question, we are taught, as to who’s in charge when God’s final reign is ushered in. He will dominate, and all earthly power will be reduced to insignificance. The concepts of kingship (God as Father and King in the OT; Jesus’ kingship and the notion of Kingdom in the NT), the concepts of sovereignty, of majesty are all explicitly referred to, with accompanying images, in both the OT and NT (the latter especially in Revelation). It is also part of Catholic teaching, and abundantly in Christian song – the idea of power and hierarchies of power, as well as God’s “Court,” so to speak: those who, in a monarchical sense, sit at his feet, worship Him, submit to Him, etc.

The imagery itself is not incorrect, so I apologize if I seemed indifferent to that imagery. However, that is “insider understanding.” Frankly, not even a majority of modern Catholics relate to that, or at least understand the important meaning of those symbols in context. It’s just a different premise I think we come from, you and I, which assumes that the static continuation of external images will have any effect on the two audiences the Church has to be concerned about: How the World sees the Church, and the Papacy as part of that; and How Catholics respond to the authority of the Church. It ain’t working.

There are lots of reasons for that – some of it has been the gradual, effective march of secularism & atheism; much of it relates to the counter–cultural-revolution of the mid-1960’s, which affected all of society, but particularly the powerful First World which tends to control the message, globally; some of it has to do with the major image problem of the Church, respective to the clergy abuse scandal which has hit many countries. In sum, both the world in general and Catholics in particular are tending to view the external stuff (trappings, ceremony) as part of the same irrelevancy to the modern world.

None of us knows where Pope Francis will go with this; it may be minor (that’s what my guess is); it may be major. But he may very well conclude that trappings encourage the distancing, and confirm the illusion of “irrelevancy.” Given his own pastoral experience, I trust him to make prudent decisions in this regard. He has lots and lots of pastoral experience and did not behave as an aloof adminstrator when he was a bishop: he identified with and interracted with his flock. That identification, then and now, is what excites people more than robes and swords in the 21st century. You know what the robes and swords signify, and so do I, but we’re not in the majority, and we’re not the greatest need in terms of messaging and reach.

The people in the Piazza were excited when he spoke, and they seem to have cared less about a cape. They were ebullient when he came out to the crowd yesterday after either the Mass or the Angelus (I forget).

Before the conclave, the Cardinals who were speaking about what they thought would be priorities in election issues, spoke about the primacy of pastoral experience. One went so far as to say that he didn’t know how any Pope could be elected who did not have rich and recent pastoral experience. (I’m paraphrasing.)

I hope I’ve made some sense here. Tell me if not.

 

[Lochias]

I have a picture that comes to mind every time I think of St. Francis, and he’s not dressed elaborately.

St. Francis also never once lambasted any Pope for wearing traditional garments. You’d figure, if it was so important, that he might have said something, but he treated the Popes only with the greatest trust, reverence and respect, finery and all.

Maybe we should adopt St. Francis’ attitudes towards Popes in general, and also his trust in Church tradition and the office of the Papacy?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

St. Francis also never once lambasted any Pope for wearing traditional garments. You’d figure, if it was so important, that he might have said something, but he treated the Popes only with the greatest trust, reverence and respect, finery and all.

Maybe we should adopt St. Francis’ attitudes towards Popes in general, and also his trust in Church tradition and the office of the Papacy?

Did he lambast them for not dressing up?

My statement was not an intentional ‘lambasting’ of any Pope. Thanks for showing me it could be spun that way so I could clarify.

I support the Popes, especially those directly over me.

 

[Lucky7]

It doesn’t make him infallible in all things, but as our Pope I will follow his lead and accept whatever direction he takes us in. I did so with Pope Benedict, and I will do so with Pope Francis.

Do you really think that as a lay person you are in a better position that our Pope to judge what is the correct direction for our Church to take? Fallible or not,** our pope is far, far better placed to judge what is right for our Church than we are.**

Not all popes knew what was right for the Church. In fact, if I’m not mistaken there were a number of popes that made some pretty bad decisions for/related to the Church.

I’m not saying that this Pope falls into this category, but I can’t get on board with such a blanket statement when referring to matters not related to faith and morals.

 

[LilyM]

Not all popes knew what was right for the Church. In fact, if I’m not mistaken there were a number of popes that made some pretty bad decisions for/related to the Church.

I’m not saying that this Pope falls into this category, but I can’t get on board with such a blanket statement when referring to matters not related to faith and morals.

As Brendan said a few posts back, we can certainly trust that he knows at least as much as you do about what is necessary for the Church.

 

[Brendan_64]

Not all popes knew what was right for the Church. In fact, if I’m not mistaken there were a number of popes that made some pretty bad decisions for/related to the Church.

I’m not saying that this Pope falls into this category, but I can’t get on board with such a blanket statement when referring to matters not related to faith and morals.

You only follow the direction of Popes with regards to faith and morals then? So you would rather trust your own personal feelings on issues that you have a tendency to disagree with, rather that the Supreme Pontif.

We are Catholics, we bow to the Supreme Pontif and follow his direction regardless of our own personal prejudices and inclinations. We fully accept and submit to his authority. It is of course the very slight possibility that he may be wrong on occasion, but he is far more likely to be right than we as individuals are.

What I find really quite disturbing is the fact that this Pope has only been in the role for 5 days now and hasn’t made any major pronouncements, yet there are those (who generally consider themselves to be ‘conservative’) who are sticking the boot in, implying that he is a bad choice for Pope, that he will lead the Church in the ‘wrong’ direction etc.

The ‘conservative’ laity knows best do they? They know better than the cardinals, who chose him just under a** 90%** majority. To have obtained such a majority, Pope Francis is most certainly the choice of the Holy Spirit.

As Catholics we are required to submit to the Supreme Pontif, pure and simple. Refusal to submit to the Pope, is a schismatic act (for individuals as well as groups of individuals).We are not free to chose only to the Pope if the Pope is ‘conservative’ in nature and acts in the way we wish him to. We do not choose to accept his authority on certain issues, but not on others. We are not at liberty to only accept his authority on infallible issues of faith and morals, but not accept his authority on teachings that are not infallible.

 

[jwinch2]

You only follow the direction of Popes with regards to faith and morals then?..

…We are not at liberty to only accept his authority on infallible issues of faith and morals, but not accept his authority on teachings that are not infallible.

I’m not quite sure what you are suggesting here. Please name an issue other than faith and morals in which the pope is protected from error.