Pope Francis' first moves hint at break with past

[Elizabeth502]

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.

I didn’t think you necessarily had. But I have read it elsewhere on this forum, and I find it regrettable, that’s all.

 

[Lucky7]

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.

I don’t mean to be argumentative with you, so please don’t take this following comment as such:

I just hope others don’t start viewing him as just a simple parish priest.

 

[Theophorus]

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.

You are right, every successor of Peter is different, and this can be very good for the Church, I was reading St. Augustine recently and came across a passage which seems appropriate in this context.
St. Augustine:

There was no controversy between those two mentioned in the Gospel, Zacchæus and the Centurion; nor did either of them think himself better than the other, though, whereas the former received the Lord joyfully into his house, (Lk 19:6) the latter said, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof, (Mt 8:8) — both honouring the Saviour, though in ways diverse and, as it were, mutually opposed; both miserable through sin, and both obtaining the mercy they required.

Every Successor of Peter, just as every baptised Christian follows the Lord in the way appropriate to living out the Gifts God has given them, if we become followers of Francis, followers of Benedict or followers of Appolos(cf 1 Cor 3:1-9) before we are followers of Christ then we are missing the point.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are right, every successor of Peter is different, and this can be very good for the Church, I was reading St. Augustine recently and came across a passage which seems appropriate in this context.
Every Successor of Peter, just as every baptised Christian follows the Lord in the way appropriate to living out the Gifts God has given them, if we become followers of Francis, followers of Benedict or followers of Appolos(cf 1 Cor 3:1-9) before we are followers of Christ then we are missing the point.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thank you for this post.

And I did not know he stood for the homily.

Please do not mistake me, it’s perfectly okay for him to have stood to do so. It’s perfectly okay for him to decline the mozetta. He wants to wear black shoes? Good on him! That’s great.

I guess part of what I’m struggling with is also the secular media’s fault. “Pope FRANCIS wears plain black shoes. Pope Benedict had to have those fancy RED ones!” (which they insisted until almost the end were by Prada, despite the Vatican press offices assertion to the contrary, then about ten days ago, Christine Amanpour comes on and says, “Ya know those red shoes Pope Benedict wears? The ones by Prada? Well, turn out they’re NOT!”), the mozetta. “Pope Francis declined to wear the mozetta, which Pope Benedict simply couldn’t do without!” (neglecting to mention that our popes have worn it back to who knows when). “No silk and lace for Pope Francis, unlike Pope BENEDICT!” It seems like, in their view, it’s all a back-handed slap at Pope Benedict. And I genuinely hope it’s not, but in light of the alleged remark (reported not simply by the secular news, but also by at least one Catholic orgainzation), well, one might naturally start to wonder otherwise, one’s own tendency to give the Pontiff the benefit of the doubt at all costs notwitstanding. One would think that any pontiff would be very cautious in how they were seen to do things intially, if only out of respect to their immediate predecessor and the sensibilities of the faithful. I would not be upset by the shoe-thing or the mozetta thing et al, if not for how it SEEMS.

I have always held Blessed John Paul the Great in the highest regard. I believed his pontificate was, well, pretty great. The longer, however, that our gentle Pope Benedict ruled, the more I realized how much HE had contributed to and been responsible for the greatness of Pope John Paul’s rule and magisterium. I believe that he will someday be seen to have done all he could humanly do in the face of the scandals and will be recognized as a brilliant and cultured teaching pope, perhaps more valued in that time than in his own. I can just about barely stand the fact that he is misunderstood and maligned by the secular press, it would seem even worse if (as I’m struggling to assume is not the case) his successor seemed to make light of him, as though he were only red shoes and silk capes and fancy miters, and all the faithful fell over themselves in their eagerness to agree with him.

 

[Lucky7]

Please do not mistake me, it’s perfectly okay for him to have stood to do so. It’s perfectly okay for him to decline the mozetta. He wants to wear black shoes? Good on him! That’s great.

I guess part of what I’m struggling with is also the secular media’s fault. “Pope FRANCIS wears plain black shoes. Pope Benedict had to have those fancy RED ones!” (which they insisted until almost the end were by Prada, despite the Vatican press offices assertion to the contrary, then about ten days ago, Christine Amanpour comes on and says, “Ya know those red shoes Pope Benedict wears? The ones by Prada? Well, turn out they’re NOT!”), the mozetta. “Pope Francis declined to wear the mozetta, which Pope Benedict simply couldn’t do without!” (neglecting to mention that our popes have worn it back to who knows when). “No silk and lace for Pope Francis, unlike Pope BENEDICT!” It seems like, in their view, it’s all a back-handed slap at Pope Benedict. And I genuinely hope it’s not, but in light of the alleged remark (reported not simply by the secular news, but also by at least one Catholic orgainzation), well, one might naturally start to wonder otherwise, one’s own tendency to give the Pontiff the benefit of the doubt at all costs notwitstanding. One would think that any pontiff would be very cautious in how they were seen to do things intially, if only out of respect to their immediate predecessor and the sensibilities of the faithful. I would not be upset by the shoe-thing or the mozetta thing et al, if not for how it SEEMS.

I have always held Blessed John Paul the Great in the highest regard. I believed his pontificate was, well, pretty great. The longer, however, that our gentle Pope Benedict ruled, the more I realized how much HE had contributed to and been responsible for the greatness of Pope John Paul’s rule and magisterium. I believe that he will someday be seen to have done all he could humanly do in the face of the scandals and will be recognized as a brilliant and cultured teaching pope, perhaps more valued in that time than in his own. I can just about barely stand the fact that he is misunderstood and maligned by the secular press, it would seem even worse if (as I’m struggling to assume is not the case) his successor seemed to make light of him, as though he were only red shoes and silk capes and fancy miters, and all the faithful fell over themselves in their eagerness to agree with him.

I understand what you are saying as well as your struggles. How would it look if he wasn’t the Pope? If a new CEO came on board and did so much the opposite of his predecessor, I wonder what the employees would think. I wonder what the former CEO would think.

It’s interesting because typically (a tleast in my experience, the new guy in business, etc doesn’t change much at all* at first*. Then he goes haywire…lol.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I understand what you are saying as well as your struggles. How would it look if he wasn’t the Pope? If a new CEO came on board and did so much the opposite of his predecessor, I wonder what the employees would think. I wonder what the former CEO would think.

It’s interesting because typically (a tleast in my experience, the new guy in business, etc doesn’t change much at all* at first*. Then he goes haywire…lol.

And there DOES need to be change. Pope Benedict realized that and resigned because he didn’t have the physical wherewithal to accomplish it, God bless him and grant him a well-deserved rest.

 

[jwinch2]

Please do not mistake me, it’s perfectly okay for him to have stood to do so. It’s perfectly okay for him to decline the mozetta. He wants to wear black shoes? Good on him! That’s great.

I guess part of what I’m struggling with is also the secular media’s fault. “Pope FRANCIS wears plain black shoes. Pope Benedict had to have those fancy RED ones!” (which they insisted until almost the end were by Prada, despite the Vatican press offices assertion to the contrary, then about ten days ago, Christine Amanpour comes on and says, “Ya know those red shoes Pope Benedict wears? The ones by Prada? Well, turn out they’re NOT!”),

The red shoes have important significance. They are a constant reminder to the Holy Father every time he puts them on, or to the faithful who see them (assuming they can be bothered to learn their significance before commenting on them) that the Church is built on blood of the martyrs who have died for the Faith throughout the ages.

The Church has long known that symbolism is important and it is for this reason that I believe Pope Francis should be, in humility to the tradition of the Church, wearing the red shoes. If the thinks they are too rich and not humble enough, get the cheapest most ill fitting shoes you can find and you will be good to go.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Church has long known that symbolism is important and it is for this reason that Pope Francis should be wearing the red shoes.

Maybe you should write to the Holy Father and tell him this.

Symbolism is of no intrinsic value in itself. Symbols are simply tools to facilitate the imparting of a message. Symbolism comes in many different forms. A simpler attire is also a form of symbolism. I suspect that it is this form of symbolism that Pope Francis feels will help him more in his mission impart his message to humanity.

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

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Maybe you should write to the Holy Father and tell him this.

Symbolism is of no intrinsic value in itself. Symbols are simply tools to facilitate the imparting of a message. Symbolism comes in many different forms. A simpler attire is also a form of symbolism. I suspect that it is this form of symbolism that Pope Francis feels will help him more in his mission impart his message to humanity.

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

Jason and Brendan,

I am a pretty big traditionalist, but I’ve always thought that the red shoes and the red “cowboy hat”* were, don’t know the right word, odd maybe?

*I mean no disrepect by the term: I just do not know what it is called

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe you should write to the Holy Father and tell him this.

Symbolism is of no intrinsic value in itself. Symbols are simply tools to facilitate the imparting of a message. Symbolism comes in many different forms. A simpler attire is also a form of symbolism. I suspect that it is this form of symbolism that Pope Francis feels will help him more in his mission impart his message to humanity.

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

Look at the symbolism Protestants hold the Eucharist to be.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The red shoes have important significance. They are a constant reminder to the Holy Father every time he puts them on, or to the faithful who see them (assuming they can be bothered to learn their significance before commenting on them) that the Church is built on blood of the martyrs who have died for the Faith throughout the ages.

The Church has long known that symbolism is important and it is for this reason that I believe Pope Francis should be, in humility to the tradition of the Church, wearing the red shoes. If the thinks they are too rich and not humble enough, get the cheapest most ill fitting shoes you can find and you will be good to go.

I know! And the hang-up over them even with the symbolism misunderstood! They kept going on and on and on about the shoes! They were a pair of simple red loafers!

 

[Lucky7]

The red shoes have important significance. They are a constant reminder to the Holy Father every time he puts them on, or to the faithful who see them (assuming they can be bothered to learn their significance before commenting on them) that the Church is built on blood of the martyrs who have died for the Faith throughout the ages.

The Church has long known that symbolism is important and it is for this reason that I believe Pope Francis should be, in humility to the tradition of the Church, wearing the red shoes. If the thinks they are too rich and not humble enough, get the cheapest most ill fitting shoes you can find and you will be good to go.

I did not know that that was the significance of the red shoes. Knowing that, I would have to agree with you.

 

[Lucky7]

Maybe you should write to the Holy Father and tell him this.

Symbolism is of no intrinsic value in itself. Symbols are simply tools to facilitate the imparting of a message. Symbolism comes in many different forms. A simpler attire is also a form of symbolism. I suspect that it is this form of symbolism that Pope Francis feels will help him more in his mission impart his message to humanity.

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

You left out the part where jason mentioned wearing a simpler shoe. I think his concern was leaving out the “red” and its significance.

Correct me if I’m wrong jason.

 

[St_Francis]

Any thoughts on this? I was actually quite sad and disappointed…I felt it was rather untactile…

"Minutes after the election result was declared in the Sistine Chapel, a Vatican official called the Master of Ceremonies offered to the new Pope the traditional papal red cape trimmed with ermine that his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI gladly wore on ceremonial occasions.

“No thank you, Monsignore,” Pope Francis is reported to have replied. “You put it on instead. Carnival time is over!”

m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21813874

Whoa! It seems that no one has pointed out that Carnival is what we call Mardi Gras: the period before Lent when we eat up all the meat and other non-Lenten foods (not the bacchanalia Mardi Gras and Carnival have become), and that it *is *Lent, a time of penance rather than of great feasting…

So I would say a humorous comment reminding others of the more important things that are happening: the focus of the season is not the Pope but the Passion of Our Lord and Savior.

In addition to the allusion to Brother JR’s comments, in which he indicated that as a member of a religious order, His Holiness may choose *for himself as a religious rather than secular (diocesan) priest, *to do things somewhat differently.

 

[jwinch2]

You left out the part where jason mentioned wearing a simpler shoe. I think his concern was leaving out the “red” and its significance.

Correct me if I’m wrong jason.

You are correct.

 

[jwinch2]

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

I am thinking about the infamous red shoes. I am thinking about the non-wearing of the mozzetta. I am thinking about the growing juxtaposition in some conversations of simple liturgy versus lofty liturgy.

Some people are saying, “O how wonderful it is to get rid of all the symbols of office and power and be humble like the poor.”

When I first learned to say the older form of the Mass of the Roman Rite, that is to say, when I first learned how to say Mass, because there has never been a single of day of my priesthood when I couldn’t say it, I admit that I was deeply uncomfortable with some of the gestures prescribed by the rubrics. I even resisted them. For example, the kissing of the objects to be given to the priest, and the priest and the kissing of the priest’s hands… that gave me the willies.

I resisted those solita oscula because I had fallen into the trap of thinking that they made me look too important.

The fact is that none of those gestures were about me at all. They are about the priest insofar as he is alter Christus, not insofar as he is “John”. For “John” all of that would be ridiculous. For Father, alter Christus, saying Mass, it is barely enough…

…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.

The Catholic priest is simultaneously the victim offered on the altar. All the older, traditional ceremonies of the Roman Rite underscore this foundational dimension of the Mass. If we don’t see that relationship of priest, altar, and victim in every Holy Mass, then the way Mass has been celebrated has failed. If we don’t look for that relationship, then we are not really Catholic. Mass is Calvary.

The use of beautiful marble in the church building, precious fabrics and metals for vestments and vessels, music that requires true art and skill to perform, ritual gestures which to worldly eyes seem to be the stuff of bygone eras of royals and the like, all underscore the fact that step by step during Holy Mass the priest is being readied for the sacrifice, which – mysteriously – he himself performs.

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.

In a sense, I had made the objection of Judas about the precious nard which the woman brought to the Lord. Jesus responded that the precious stuff should be kept for His Body, which was to be sacrificed. People who object that we should have only poor liturgy are falling into the argument of Judas. 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.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ya’ know, I don’t want to disabuse anyone of any adamant assumption that Pope Francis will “break with the past,” but except for style (which I agree can be very important) and symbols (also can be important) I wouldn’t get my hopes up too much – those who are looking for “radical change.”

You want to know the content of an interview with him (as Cardinal) aired recently by EWTN? It was all about traditional Catholic spirituality, about getting back to Faith, Hope, Charity, dependence on God, understanding the difference between inner (true) beauty and cosmetic beauty, setting aside prayer time to include praise and adoration, as well as thanks and petition.

Wait: I guess to some people, who define spirituality as merely social justice, such a message is “radical” indeed.

 

[Brendan_64]

You left out the part where jason mentioned wearing a simpler shoe. I think his concern was leaving out the “red” and its significance.

Correct me if I’m wrong jason.

I was referring to red shoes. I’m sure that the Holy Father is at least as much aware about the symbolism of the red shoes as are certain posters on CAF, aren’t you?

The Pope choosing to omit wearing the red shoes is in itself a form of symbolism. The Holy father is guided by the Holy Spirit, let the Holy Father choose the style of dress and behaviour that he thinks best fits with the symbolism that he feels appropriate to the direction the Holy Spirit is guiding him to lead the Church in. A simpler, less remote, less institutional Church perhaps? A poorer Church in terms of it’s material nature? Less of an institutional nature, more a communion of the faithful perhaps?

I’m sure that the Holy Father knows exactly what he’s doing in terms of the symbolism he chooses to use. Why not have some trust in his actions and accept that perhaps he knows better than we do in this regard.

 

[centurionguard]

I was referring to red shoes. I’m sure that the Holy Father is at least as much aware about the symbolism of the red shoes as are certain posters on CAF, aren’t you?

The Pope choosing to omit wearing the red shoes is in itself a form of symbolism. The Holy father is guided by the Holy Spirit, let the Holy Father choose the style of dress and behaviour that he thinks best fits with the symbolism that he feels appropriate to the direction the Holy Spirit is guiding him to lead the Church in. A simpler, less remote, less institutional Church perhaps? A poorer Church in terms of it’s material nature? Less of an institutional nature, more a communion of the faithful perhaps?

I’m sure that the Holy Father knows exactly what he’s doing in terms of the symbolism he chooses to use. Why not have some trust in his actions and accept that perhaps he knows better than we do in this regard.

Great Post!

I see a lot of humility in our New Pope Francis. A strong example to the entire Catholic Church to shrug off some of its materialistic superficial pomp and gird-up our ourselves with the garb of humility itself.

In Fraternal Peace
Chris