Pope Francis' first moves hint at break with past

[Lormar]

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.

Maybe he is referring to the fact that we owe him assent in all things as long as we are not being asked to do anything sinful?

That caught my eye too and, since I am not very diplomatic, I left it to more cordial posters to ask for clarification! :thumbsup:

 

[jwinch2]

…I left it to more cordial posters to ask for clarification! :thumbsup:

If you are referring to me, we are in trouble. With the way I have been acting on here as of late, cordial would probably not be the term I would use.

 

[Lormar]

If you are referring to me, we are in trouble. With the way I have been acting on here as of late, cordial would probably not be the term I would use.

 

[Lucky7]

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.

To the bolded: I did not say that. Do not put words in my mouth.

No scrap that, I don’t think I have said (or even implied) anything you have written.

As for matters not pertaining to faith and morals, no we are not required to submit to the Pope. We can disagree. Obviously we should do it charitably however.

 

[The_Scott]

I just found this. Who knows if it’s accurate (since it ultimately comes from an Italian blog)?

Mosetta back again

We’ll see tomorrow.

 

[Brendan_64]

As for matters not pertaining to faith and morals, no we are not required to submit to the Pope. We can disagree. Obviously we should do it charitably however.

Would that include the mechanics of the Liturgy?

If priests or laity thought that the Liturgy ought to be modernised in terms of its delivery and inclusivity, would they be OK to go ahead and ‘experiment’ with it?

Or was the Vatican overstepping the its authority when it admonished certain aspects of Liberation Theology?

 

[RaphaelJ]

Regarding his break with tradition, I would like to emphasize that this pope is known for being doctrinally conservative. Thus, rest assured, important matters won’t change. However, regarding vestments and liturgical things… These aid us in doing worship as embodied spirits. However, in essentials, these symbols are man-made. The Church created many of our symbols to help us pray and worship God. Thus, the Church can also change its liturgy. However, I see that the pope just likes to be simple. He seems to have great respect for the liturgy and he still dons proper attire albeit simpler.

 

[Marie5890]

If people want to learn how what we are seeing really ISNT a break from tradition, but rather tradition from a man who is a religious, I recommend heading over to the “Traditional Catholic” forum and read some of the post by Bro. JR.

He is giving some great catechesis on what we are seeing and showing why it isn’t a break with tradition, but rather tradition that we havent seen in over 100 years because we have had popes who have been secular and not regulars (religious)

Well worth the time and effort to read what he is explaining.

EVERYTHING we saw this morning, is definitately part of our Catholic tradition. We just havent been exposed to it, is all.

 

[Tobias22]

It’s clear that in terms of the vestments and mozetta, Pope Francis is going to be a less “regal” Pope. For lack of a better term. More simplicity in his role and in the liturgy.

This will,be a real break with the recent past but a return to more historic times and the early Popes.

In terms of structure I’d not be surprised to see a major break too. Towards a more horizontal and less vertical church. Maybe completing the vision of Vatican 2.

Some changes would be, like the Eastern Rite churches to which the Pope is close, the selection of bishops. In those churches the bishops nominate several candidates and the Pope selects from them. I could see this coming in the Roman Rite - bishops conferences selecting candidates for bishop and the Pope selecting from them.

Mandatory celibacy may be re-evaluated too.

I think this Pope will be more a first among equals in terms of his relationships to bishops. More of the Orthodox model which could lead to a reunion between East and West.

The focus on the poor and the environment are much needed. But it will turn off conservative secular elements some of which are beginning to openly worry about what the Pope might do. But that is a good thing.

Summed up - a more horizontal, inclusive church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Some changes would be, like the Eastern Rite churches to which the Pope is close, the selection of bishops. In those churches the bishops nominate several candidates and the Pope selects from them. I could see this coming in the Roman Rite - bishops conferences selecting candidates for bishop and the Pope selecting from them.

I certainly hope NOT. (Maybe the Eastern Rite has much less problem with heterodoxy among the episcopate than the Latin Rite does.)

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Some changes would be, like the Eastern Rite churches to which the Pope is close, the selection of bishops. In those churches the bishops nominate several candidates and the Pope selects from them. I could see this coming in the Roman Rite - bishops conferences selecting candidates for bishop and the Pope selecting from them.

The process isn’t much different today. The Nuncio does solicit suggestions and makes his own recommendations. The Pope can then select among those or ask for a different list. It’s not like the Pope knows everything there is to know about every priest and can decide without (name removed by moderator)ut from the bishops.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The process isn’t much different today. The Nuncio does solicit suggestions and makes his own recommendations. The Pope can then select among those or ask for a different list. It’s not like the Pope knows everything there is to know about every priest and can decide without (name removed by moderator)ut from the bishops.

Yes, good point. However, I do believe that Pope Francis will make every attempt to have his own recommendations in mind, as well as those of the Nuncio. He was a bishop’s bishop. Both JP2 and BXVI also thought it very important to be knowledgeable about candidates, with (name removed by moderator)ut from many sources, and the result was a much better crop of bishops than some of the ones who had been appointed pre-1978.

(My point was that until that trend toward fidelity to Church teachings is complete, I would not want the Pope to entrust episcopate selection to current bishops. Not yet, anyway.)

To Tobias:
No doubt the Eastern Rite has some features that might interest our new Pope, but I trust him to discern which ones. He’s the expert.

 

[irishpatrick]

Folks,

I rarely post here nowadays, but I read many posts on this thread and felt compelled.

Let us not have fear, or anxiety, or mistrust. Recall the the Divine Mercy Image, and the phrase printed on each: JESUS I TRUST IN YOU!

Pope Francis is a humble man who will not be a static stand-in. God provides us what we need, not always what we want. There are reasons this Pope has been elected, and if we truly trust in Jesus, than we should sit back, smile, and thank God that we have a new Holy Father.

Please, give our new Pope your prayers, give him your love and your trust. The world will find many reasons to not “like” our wonderful Holy Father, let us not play part in any of that!

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU!

 

[Frank_Drebin]

If people want to learn how what we are seeing really ISNT a break from tradition, but rather tradition from a man who is a religious, I recommend heading over to the “Traditional Catholic” forum and read some of the post by Bro. JR.

He is giving some great catechesis on what we are seeing and showing why it isn’t a break with tradition, but rather tradition that we havent seen in over 100 years because we have had popes who have been secular and not regulars (religious)

Well worth the time and effort to read what he is explaining.

EVERYTHING we saw this morning, is definitately part of our Catholic tradition. We just havent been exposed to it, is all.

I’d say most of what we have seen under Paul VI, JPII, and B16 was also part of our Catholic tradition too though, in fairness. They each had their uniqure take on it and how to embody it, but as any of them what the Church taught on a certain issue, and answer was always the same. The answer could only be the same. God simply doesn’t allow changing the fabric of history as though it is simply a change of vestments.

This Pope may choose to live differently than B16, who chose to live differently than JPII, and he may emphasize different things at different times, which is what gives each papacy its unqiue flavor, but look at his past statements and actions on core moral issues if you suddenly think he is going to take the Church into a more secular-progressive place. God would remove him as the head of the Church before He allowed that to happen.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

In terms of categories, the pope is only protected from error in matters of faith and morals (and then only under clearly delineated circumstances, ie, he is addressing the whole of the Church in his role as Successor to Peter, etc.). In the disciplines he proposes, he is, of course, as subject to error as anyone else, but even those disciplines enjoy a negative infallibility, insofar as the Church is incapable of legislating against Her own teaching. Nothing in what she imposes can, of itself, oppose Her. The disciplines of the Church may not be prudentially the best, but they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. Also, we owe the Supreme Pontiff our obedience.

That’s said, I’m a little concerned about the tone of some posters. There seems to be a notion that if we aren’t slavishly hanging off every gesture the Holy Father makes or every word that he says, we’re failing in our duties as Catholics. That isn’t true. It’s perfectly ok to believe (and to say) what one thinks (assuming we hew to charity in our speech) without being charged with a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit. One can cite several examples that have nothing to do with faith and morals: The pope’s views, which one assumes remain consistent, on the Falkland Islands is that it should be under Argentine sovereignity. Does one sin against the Holy Spirit when they assert that he’s wrong? If he actually made the remark to Monsignor Marini, regarding the mozetta, that is reported ("you put it on, Monsignor. Carnival is over’), do we sin against the Holy Spirit by observing that seems a bit brusque? A little rude? In light of the faithful service rendered by Msg. Marini as Master of Ceremonies to the Pontiff Emeritus in his attempted “reform of the reform” of the liturgy? In light of the many upright men who have worn the mozetta without demur that preceded him? I’m not a traditionalist by any means (I never attend the EF and have no particular longing for Latin), but do I sin against the Holy Spirit when I wonder why the Holy Father stood for the homily at his Mass (Popes traditionally sit to teach, as do/did bishops, that’s why we refer to the “seat of Saint Peter,” why we HAVE cathedrals, to house cathedras or bishop’s seats) or if he’s going to wear that same miter hereafter forever?

We owe the Holy Father our obedience where his writ runs, but he isn’t above charitable criticism.

 

[Lucky7]

In terms of categories, the pope is only protected from error in matters of faith and morals (and then only under clearly delineated circumstances, ie, he is addressing the whole of the Church in his role as Successor to Peter, etc.). In the disciplines he proposes, he is, of course, as subject to error as anyone else, but even those disciplines enjoy a negative infallibility, insofar as the Church is incapable of legislating against Her own teaching. Nothing in what she imposes can, of itself, oppose Her. The disciplines of the Church may not be prudentially the best, but they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. Also, we owe the Supreme Pontiff our obedience.

That’s said, I’m a little concerned about the tone of some posters. There seems to be a notion that if we aren’t slavishly hanging off every gesture the Holy Father makes or every word that he says, we’re failing in our duties as Catholics. That isn’t true. It’s perfectly ok to believe (and to say) what one thinks (assuming we hew to charity in our speech) without being charged with a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit. One can cite several examples that have nothing to do with faith and morals: The pope’s views, which one assumes remain consistent, on the Falkland Islands is that it should be under Argentine sovereignity. Does one sin against the Holy Spirit when they assert that he’s wrong? If he actually made the remark to Monsignor Marini, regarding the mozetta, that is reported ("you put it on, Monsignor. Carnival is over’), do we sin against the Holy Spirit by observing that seems a bit brusque? A little rude? In light of the faithful service rendered by Msg. Marini as Master of Ceremonies to the Pontiff Emeritus in his attempted “reform of the reform” of the liturgy? I’m not a traditionalist by any means (I never attend the EF and have no particular longing for Latin), but do I sin against the Holy Spirit when I wonder why the Holy Father stood for the homily at his Mass (Popes traditionally sit to teach, as do/did bishops, that’s why we refer to the “seat of Saint Peter,” why we HAVE cathedrals, to house cathedras or bishop’s seats) or if he’s going to wear that same miter hereafter forever?

We owe the Holy Father our obedience where his writ runs, but he isn’t above charitable criticism.

Thank you for this post.

And I did not know he stood for the homily.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We owe the Holy Father our obedience where his writ runs, but he isn’t above charitable criticism.

We also owe him, simply because he is another human being, the suspension of negative assumptions. The Gospels and Epistles both state it. Otherwise, we are engaging in idle gossip, which violates justice against the object of gossip or speculation.

The point is, we have no verification that he made such a remark. Further, we wouldn’t know (if that remark was made) whether this was some kind of inside joke which was understood in a particular way between those two men, or among several/all of them.

Charity requires first that we refrain from feeding unverified rumors.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We also owe him, simply because he is another human being, the suspension of negative assumptions. The Gospels and Epistles both state it. Otherwise, we are engaging in idle gossip, which violates justice against the object of gossip or speculation.

The point is, we have no verification that he made such a remark. Further, we wouldn’t know (if that remark was made) whether this was some kind of inside joke which was understood in a particular way between those two men, or among several/all of them.

Charity requires first that we refrain from feeding unverified rumors.

I absolutely agree…and have said so…and then it was reported by the organization Catholic Vote, like it was the greatest thing ever! I’ve treated it as ***theoretical. ***And I’ve made no negative assumptions.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

We owe the Holy Father our obedience where his writ runs, but he isn’t above charitable criticism.

I agree. My guess is that Pope Francis himself would welcome such criticism if fairly given. As for me, I’m neither excited or deflated by the election of Pope Francis. Considering that he assumed office days ago, I know very little of him, his record, or beliefs. Time will tell. I will certainly pray for Pope Francis. May God bless him.

 

[Brendan_64]

And I did not know he stood for the homily.

I thought it was quite significant that he stood for the homily.

Pope Francis is presenting himself as a priest, a simple man, an ordinary Christian. He is seeking to break down hierarchical barriers that may occur as a result of him setting himself above others. He stood for the same reason that he did not sit at a special place of honour when he dined with the Cardinals, but rather chose to sit amongst them as one of them.

In fact Pope Francis’s entire demeanour and the manner in which he deals with the People of God is that of a simple Parish Priest. Perhaps that is how he views himself? Perhaps to Pope Francis it is not his position that is relevant, but rather the message that God is preaching (through him as a channel) that matters?

This Pope is truly a simple, humble servant of God. Pope Francis will, in my opinion, prove to be one of the greatest Popes this Church has ever had.