Pope Francis' first moves hint at break with past

[jwinch2]

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!

Glad to hear it.

Too many people, here and elsewhere, are twisting humility and what it means. True humility is the denial of self and internal conversion. Whether or not the Pope is humble has nothing to do with how what he wears affects us, it is about how it affects him and whether it brings him closer to God.

Probably the greatest Franciscan theologian of all time is St. Bonaventure (if he’s not the best, he is in the running). When Bonaventure looked to define humility he wrote quite a bit but in that text, he also quoted another great, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who said simply “The truly humble man does not desire to be advertised as a humble man.”

 

[Brendan_64]

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

Because we are living in very different times, and people are not ‘converting left and right’ in their droves. We have a very different populace that we need to reach out to, a more secular, less subservient populace. We need to evangelise in a different manner. Our message should remain constant, but we need to structure the means of getting this message across according to the people we are trying to evangelise. The Jesuits did this very wel throughout their history through the way they assimilated into the different cultures they found themselves in and adapted their approach in order to circumstances. We ought to to the same. If particular symbols are not helping our evangelising mission then we should reevaluate the use of those symbols.

Symbols are merely tools, they are simply signposts. If a particular signpost is off-putting to the people whom we are trying to show the way then we should switch to the use of a different style of sign-post. No pint trying to use a signpost if it is written in a language that the people you are trying to evangelise can’t read.

 

[LilyM]

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.

No actually people were NOT converting in droves.

Clerical displays of wealth were a source of scandal and of people falling away from faith in St Francis’ own day - hence his emphasis on poverty being such a radical change and noteworthy novelty.

Same during the Reformation - people were scandalised by the wealth of the abbeys and convents and churches of England and so were all too ready to accept - and even assist - in Henry VIII’s dissolution of them and appropriation of their property, even down to smashing stained glass and statues and painting whitewash over rich frescoes on the walls. Same happened in Northern Europe and Germany.

 

[Lucky7]

Because we are living in very different times, and people are not ‘converting left and right’ in their droves. We have a very different populace that we need to reach out to, a more secular, less subservient populace. We need to evangelise in a different manner. Our message should remain constant, but we need to structure the means of getting this message across according to the people we are trying to evangelise. The Jesuits did this very wel throughout their history through the way they assimilated into the different cultures they found themselves in and adapted their approach in order to circumstances. We ought to to the same. If particular symbols are not helping our evangelising mission then we should reevaluate the use of those symbols.

Symbols are merely tools, they are simply signposts. If a particular signpost is off-putting to the people whom we are trying to show the way then we should switch to the use of a different style of sign-post. No pint trying to use a signpost if it is written in a language that the people you are trying to evangelise can’t read.

OK, so you are continually ignoring my question and my concerns. I’m done responding to you.

 

[Lucky7]

No actually people were NOT converting in droves.

Clerical displays of wealth were a source of scandal and of people falling away from faith in St Francis’ own day - hence his emphasis on poverty being such a radical change and noteworthy novelty.

Same during the Reformation - people were scandalised by the wealth of the abbeys and convents and churches of England and so were all too ready to accept - and even assist - in Henry VIII’s dissolution of them and appropriation of their property, even down to smashing stained glass and statues and painting whitewash over rich frescoes on the walls. Same happened in Northern Europe and Germany.

You are talking about abuses, wealth, etc. I am talking about traditions. Show me where traditions were a hindrance to conversion so much so that they were offensive(because that is what is being suggested here) and needed to be changed. People still converted.

I find it offensive that others find traditions offensive.

 

[oldcelt]

Reading this thread I’m curious…what exactly constitutes a tradition? How long does something have to be done in order to be considered a tradition? Does one Pope doing something make it a tradition? What if it skips one Pope or more? In my area the teaching of Limbo was a long established tradition…It all seems a bit loose to me for anyone to be upset if this or that Pope chooses to dress a bit differently.
A quick point about styles hundreds of years ago…the common man would very likely never have seen anyone of higher rank than his parish priest or local Bishop. Appearances are obviously much better known in the age of instant media. I mean…how could you tell if a Pope in distant Rome was wearing red shoes in an age before color photography? We’re lucky if we have more than an official portrait of most of the Popes.
I’ll admit that I’d much rather see a simpler form of attire for the hierarchy, but the way Pope Francis leads the church in its mission is far more important.

 

[Ellen_Mary]

The topic of discussion seems to fit what we know, and have seen since his Papacy began.

Amen.

 

[Lucky7]

Reading this thread I’m curious…what exactly constitutes a tradition? How long does something have to be done in order to be considered a tradition? Does one Pope doing something make it a tradition? What if it skips one Pope or more? In my area the teaching of Limbo was a long established tradition…It all seems a bit loose to me for anyone to be upset if this or that Pope chooses to dress a bit differently.
A quick point about styles hundreds of years ago…the common man would very likely never have seen anyone of higher rank than his parish priest or local Bishop. Appearances are obviously much better known in the age of instant media. I mean…how could you tell if a Pope in distant Rome was wearing red shoes in an age before color photography? We’re lucky if we have more than an official portrait of most of the Popes.
I’ll admit that I’d much rather see a simpler form of attire for the hierarchy, but the way Pope Francis leads the church in its mission is far more important.

For me, the issue is suggesting that traditions should be changed/gotten rid of because they are offensive and cause others not to convert…and that this is even WHY the Pope has changed the way he has dressed, etc.

Insulting.

 

[oldcelt]

For me, the issue is suggesting that traditions should be changed/gotten rid of because they are offensive and cause others not to convert…and that this is even WHY the Pope has changed the way he has dressed, etc.

Insulting.

Well, anyone who has suggested that they know what the Pope is thinking is likely fooling themselves. Whether or not a particular fashion is off-putting is a valid issue in the media age IMO. People see far more of the church hierarchy today than ever in the past and may very well find some of the gaudier dress to be a hindrance to exploring further.

Where Pope Francis plans to go with this is anybody’s guess at this point.

 

[CutlerB]

While I admire Pope Francis’ humility, I am worried about the dignity of the office of Pope, if he does away with most/all of the insignia, robes, and so forth. Of course I don’t expect him to put on every gold-woven garment every day, but to keep them in use with some regularity would be good.

And by the way, he did wear the mozzetta, didn’t he, so why would the report be of any concern?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I think potential converts are more interested in our liturgy and beliefs then Church trappings. The Mormons have a great temple in Salt Lake City but, regardless of whether they auction off the temple or double it’s size, there is zero chance of my conversion to the LDS church. Same holds true for their garments, number of chauffeured officials, LDS stock holdings, etc. You either agree with a religion’s core theology or you don’t, in which case conversion will never occur. Symbols pale in significance to a religious belief system.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think potential converts are more interested in our liturgy.

What did you think of the installation mass?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

What did you think of the installation mass?

I’m afraid I did not have the opportunity to watch Pope Francis’ inaugural Mass. I heard the reviews were good. So long as the Mass is performed with the greatest reverence, I’m not particularly hung up on minute details involving specific vestments, length of the Homily, etc.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m afraid I did not have the opportunity to watch Pope Francis’ inaugural Mass. I heard the reviews were good. So long as the Mass is performed with the greatest reverence, I’m not particularly hung up on minute details involving specific vestments, length of the Homily, etc.

I thought he followed Benedict well. I didn’t see anything different. I sympathize with the TLM as I was raised in it, I attend the OF now. I don’t see any reason for a divided Church over it, but that’s above me.

 

[centurionguard]

Its not materialistic or superficial to keep reminders around that the papacy is not about you but rather about all who came before you and all who died in the Faith. This helps the pope stay humble, because it helps him recognize that the office is not his to change, and that every decision he makes must be in continuity with all of the popes who came before him; and, will affect every Catholic who comes after him. The red shoes were put in place to help keep popes humble, not to puff them up.

It also serves as a visible reminder for the curia and others who work in the Vatican every time they see him to remember the same thing. It would do the same for us if we would only take the time to learn the meaning of our traditions before throwing them out. In 2000 years, the Church has developed some extraneous traditions to be sure, but the majority of them are there for good reason. Which is more humble, to recognize that there are good reasons for the things which were done in the past and that accepting them might cause others to think you are less humble, or getting rid of them?

Not to take away the good point you’ve made, it would seem this entire thread is more honed in on the trappings of Pope Francis choosing not to wear his “red shoes” than they should be focusing more on him being the successor of Christ and hearing his word.
I would hope good conscionable Catholics aren’t set on scurtinizing and judging our new Pope because he chose not to wear his “red shoes”. Red Shoes themselves taken in the best intentions of traditional papal symbolism don’t make a Holy Pope humble in themselves. With all due rightful charitable respect it seems some are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

In Fraternal Peace
Chris

 

[Tigg]

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.

Oh. dear! So fine art and gold in the Church contradict poverty? So the sacred vessels and vestments used in worship is decadent including those trappings which point to the visible head of Christ on earth? So where exactly does that leave the Divine gift Christ left us in His humility? Do we cover it up to hide it? Do we say it is of little significance and put His Body in a plain unpainted box so as not to draw attention to IT? As angels silently adore Him in the Eucharist should we contradict their praise by not making too obvious the very object of our salvation?

A truly poor and humble world, free of envy, would be attracted to the very beauty of that which it does not possess. It would indicate that which is to be exalted and given the highest glory. It would be a symbol for the poor and hint to them the utter splendor and beauty of their God. It would attract them to the Divine Light which offers them a share, not in mud as you suggest, but in the majesty of a transcendent God.

 

[Tobias22]

I think Pope Francis will be transformational in a way a Pope hasn’t been for a long time.

That could mean looking at small ‘t’ traditions like celibacy, vestments, perhaps the all male diaconate, and changing them. But the emphasis is small ‘t’. If you trust he is guided by the Spirit then you need not fear.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I think Pope Francis will be transformational in a way a Pope hasn’t been for a long time.

That could mean looking at small ‘t’ traditions like celibacy, vestments, perhaps the all male diaconate, and changing them. But the emphasis is small ‘t’. If you trust he is guided by the Spirit then you need not fear.

I would bet nothing major happens. With the enemies of the Church surrounding her like never before, now is not the time to enhance more lax standards in an effort to broaden appeal.

Now if the Pope thought doing something would help destroy Satan;s minions, so be it.

But you are right about trusting the Holy Spirit. if only the Catholics who opposed B16 and JPII had done the same.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I think Pope Francis will be transformational in a way a Pope hasn’t been for a long time.

That could mean looking at small ‘t’ traditions like celibacy, vestments, perhaps the all male diaconate, and changing them. But the emphasis is small ‘t’. If you trust he is guided by the Spirit then you need not fear.

That could also result in a tremendous growth in the SSPX.

 

[Tobias22]

That could also result in a tremendous growth in the SSPX.

That could happen but if it does those folks are clinging to small ‘t’ traditions which are not Catholic dogma. Mis-understanding the nature of the church.

I doubt the SSPX was going to reunite even with B16. They rejected the best offer they probably could get. Even while building a massive seminary in Virginia to house hundreds of seminarians. Cornerstone just laid. And another seminary eventually planned for the Western US. IMO the SSPX was never really serious about this.