P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I think of her as more of a religious as opposed to the average lay person.
- Status
L
Lucky7
Guest
Does the Church teach that the Holy Spirit works differently in the lives of the Laity than in the lives of the Religious?
C
commenter
Guest
Catherine received the Holy Spirit at Confirmation. But she wasn’t, and never claimed to be, infallible in the sense a pope is, even though she was later declared a Doctor of the Church. She is often represented as a “rebel”, for instance at my former parish of that name. OK, but she rebelled FOR the papacy, against the status quo which regarded the pope as having no importance. Unfortunately, she is now portrayed as a hero for those who reject papal authority; a position directly opposite hers. So yes, she was led by the Spirit, but the Spirit leads all of us to respond within our state of life.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I asked a question and tried to clarify, but only see questions in response.
L
Lucky7
Guest
To be clear I am not talking about rejecting papal authority. I am referring to her expressing her concerns with the fact that the pope remained in Avignon. She persuaded him that that decision was wrong and he listened to her …and moved the Seat back to Rome.
I’m sure she got a lot of flack for disagreeing with the Pope. But she was charitable. And I think that is what we need to do when we disagree with our Pope (current or otherwise).
L
Lucky7
Guest
It sounds to me that you are disregarding my example because she was not “laity”. So I’m asking whether that matters…a very valid question. So, does the Holy Spirit work differently with laity and religious?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
What in particular does one disagree with Pope Francis on? And how can we know when a layperson speaks against what the Pope says, it’s truly led by the Holy Spirit instead of what the Pope says?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Something different now, than when St. Catherine was around, is the amount of people claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, and all disagreeing with each other. How are the rest of us to know we should place more authority in another layperson’s view over the Pope?
I know the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit can work however, whenever, and wherever He chooses. I also know Christ taught the people to do whatsoever those that sit on the seat of Moses said to them. I find it difficult to think we should do other with those that sit on the seat of Peter. Scriptures also tells us to ‘obey our prelates.’
L
Lucky7
Guest
Oh we are going in circles now PS1…and I’m just not going there… All I am saying is that the laity CAN disagree with the Pope, the Pope CAN be wrong and the laity CAN be right.Obviously it requires much discernment on the part of everyone…and usually time will tell.
If you remember correctly PS1, I admitted in one of those gun threads that I once disagreed with the Pope about the war in Iraq. I could. It wasn’t Cahtolic teaching that I had to agree with him. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but I now see that I was probably wrong. Although others seem to think I’m quick to disagree with the current Pope, I am not (BECAUSE of my previous experience). However, it is wrong to tell others that they CAN NOT disagree or MUST AGREE with the Pope on matters other than faith an morals.
And with that, I think I have said what I need to say…more than once.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Bro JR corrected this misunderstand of what happened over in the Trad forum but I can’t the post.
Catherine didnt do this publicly and no one knew of the incident until after her death.
I’ll try and find Bro’s post. It may take some time
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I was only seeking to distinguish.
The problem is, some claim certain things are not ‘faith or morals’. It becomes to simple to reject based on personal views. I am a convert; 1985. I was guided to the Catholic Church because I couldn’t reconcile all the ‘Holy Spirit’ guided people who disagreed with each other.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Catherine did not make her conversations with the Pope public in anyway during her lifetime. She didn’t talk about her opinions on where the Pope should be or what he should do. She encouraged those around her to keep their opinions to themselves also.
We only see now, after the Pope moved and after her death, that she was instrumental in making that happen and that she was right. At the time of the discussions she wasn’t making this public at all. And many, many other people felt that the Pope living in France was just fine - in fact that it was safer and better for him to be there than Rome.
I don’t know where in this conversation we started talking about the Holy Spirit leading any one in a way that makes it seem that they don’t exercise free will. (And I really don’t need anyone pointing out post numbers or quoting sentences out of posts three pages ago.)
I do think though that we should all be able to agree that man who have given their lives to the church - who pray and focus themselves on God daily (the Cardinals) - would be more likely than the average person to be aware of the promptings of the Spirit. And if so, than their selection during the conclave would naturally follow those promptings.
Likewise, our new Pope (just like our previous popes for the past 100-200 years, and more) is a man attuned to the promptings of the Spirit. He has not spoken or done anything against the teachings of the church even though he expresses himself differently than pope emeritus Benedict did.
As faithful Catholics it is our responsibility to form our conscience and adapt our actions to the teachings of the church (and not the other way round). If Pope Francis calls our attention to teachings that we are not familiar with or well-instructed on, it is our job to learn about them and to find a way to adapt ourselves to both the teacings we knew previously and those we are learning about. The Church teaches only Truth so she will not lead us into contradictory actions or mental pretzels. It may take each of us some work to adapt, but that doesn’t mean the teachings are wrong or bad.
We only see now, after the Pope moved and after her death, that she was instrumental in making that happen and that she was right. At the time of the discussions she wasn’t making this public at all. And many, many other people felt that the Pope living in France was just fine - in fact that it was safer and better for him to be there than Rome.
I don’t know where in this conversation we started talking about the Holy Spirit leading any one in a way that makes it seem that they don’t exercise free will. (And I really don’t need anyone pointing out post numbers or quoting sentences out of posts three pages ago.)
I do think though that we should all be able to agree that man who have given their lives to the church - who pray and focus themselves on God daily (the Cardinals) - would be more likely than the average person to be aware of the promptings of the Spirit. And if so, than their selection during the conclave would naturally follow those promptings.
Likewise, our new Pope (just like our previous popes for the past 100-200 years, and more) is a man attuned to the promptings of the Spirit. He has not spoken or done anything against the teachings of the church even though he expresses himself differently than pope emeritus Benedict did.
As faithful Catholics it is our responsibility to form our conscience and adapt our actions to the teachings of the church (and not the other way round). If Pope Francis calls our attention to teachings that we are not familiar with or well-instructed on, it is our job to learn about them and to find a way to adapt ourselves to both the teacings we knew previously and those we are learning about. The Church teaches only Truth so she will not lead us into contradictory actions or mental pretzels. It may take each of us some work to adapt, but that doesn’t mean the teachings are wrong or bad.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
Please charitably discuss the news, not other members
Please return to the topic of the original post
Please charitably discuss the news, not other members
Please return to the topic of the original post
M
Megan7
Guest
^^^^
Franciscan conniptions: the Gothic, the Baroque and the Pope
My private life - which is and will remain unknown to most of you - is seriously busy at the moment. This is why I have not blogged much in the last few months and also why I have been chomping at the blogging bit since last Wednesday without so much of a whiff of getting near the computer keyboard. How about that for mixed metaphors?
So it was that my significant others and I gathered around a warm TV screen just over a week ago to await the announcement of the election of the Supreme Pontiff. There is something extraordinary about such a moment, even when it is participated in via TV. I was struck by Pope Francis’s serene composure as he looked out on the crowds. I was deeply touched by his leading the people in St Peter’s Square in prayer - the simple words of the Pater, Ave and Gloria Patri… instantly recognisable to the millions tuning in on TV. In that moment, we expected a pope but we also got a pastor.
Was I happy the cardinals had elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio? Not especially, though it was some satisfaction to know that my prediction for the 2005 election finally came through in 2013. (This time I thought he was too old.) I wasn’t unhappy either. You choose your friends; you cannot choose your family. I know somebody chose this pope, but I didn’t. How can you choose a father? It’s enough that the cardinals elected him - not that I believe the ludicrous thesis that they were directed by the Holy Spirit in their choice. I rather hope they were, but there is no mechanism that ensures as much.
No, the fact was simple: here was the next Successor of Peter. On that night - on that night - I really don’t know what else we were supposed to reflect on. God sends us shepherds as an act of his Providence; indeed, not only as an act of his Providence but also as a condition of his continuing incarnation among us in the Church. There would be plenty of time to fuss about Papa Bergoglio later on. On the night of the election what mattered was that he was our Papa.
And then the Punch and Judy Show began. I’m too tired to recount the way the story developed, and most of my readers know it anyhow. On the night in question I merely reflected on how Rorate Caeli, that most high-minded of blogs, which had pompously refused to stoop to participate in disseminating those leaked SSPX letters last year, lost no time after the conclave in publishing a piece of invective 90% of which was wildly gratuitous affirmation. Naturally they stood on the soapbox of high-mindedness and blustering courage. Look at the pictures: Bergoglio on his knees being ‘blessed’ by TV evangelists. I don’t dispute that of course, and hold such an act in the highest contempt. But anyone looking more closely at the Rorate article could clearly detect in this diatribe the evidence of local church politics, the backstabbing, and even the snobbery. Bergoglio after all uses “demotic language” …
In the normal Punch and Judy logic of the internet, these observations make me a slavish worshipper of the new pope. Er, no, my friends, no. Not so. I’ve warned you about tribal thinking before. I have my anxieties of course. Reliable sources - and that does not mean the BBC during Tuesday’s Inaugural Mass, but well-connected friends in Rome last week - have reported that when offered the mozzetta before going out to greet the crowd,
****Pope Francis said, ‘You wear it monsignor. The carnival is over.’ ****
But a mozzetta is not carnival attire. It denotes juridical authority; in his case, supreme pastoral authority. Did he not like the colour? I suggest it is the inconvenient colour of the blood of the martyrs. If he thought the mozzetta is no longer such a symbol, he only needed to step out on the balcony with it on and parse its significance for a waiting world. “Dear friends, I wear this robe which symbolises the yolk of my new responsibilities and the blood I ought to be ready to shed for you.” Instead of which … Well, he spoke simply and well, but what is this chippy attitude to the Benedictine polyphony of aesthetics?
Don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t give a rat’s wotnot about lace or ermine myself. And I know it was a tense moment for him, and that some people resort to sarcasm under pressure. Maybe Pope Francis does. But I agree with others. If we lampoon the sensibilities of any wing of Catholicism - if we lampoon the baroque as pure carnival or turn our nose up at the unwashed Franciscan - we risk creating a narrower Church, not a broader and more welcoming one. The waiting world assumes blithely that Francis’s coming from the other side of the world means that he does not suffer from European parochialism. Yes, but what if he brings his own parochialism him? Catholicism is big enough for the Gothic and for the Baroque, for the ermine and for the shabby cassock. It is not, however, disposed to allow one side of Catholic sensibility to turn its own measure of things from counsel into precept. Always beware those who want to turn counsel into precept and impose it willy-nilly. I warn you solemnly.
As for the rest, well, I have to say I have appreciated Pope Francis’s sermons and addresses in the last week and, on rereading them, have tried to understand what he has to say to the Church. I applaud his frequent mentioning of the Father of Lies. It shows a ready supernatural realism which refuses to be airbrushed from the public pronouncements of the pope. I cheered when the first secular author he quoted was Frenchman Leon Bloy - no soft Catholic liberal by any stretch of the imagination. And, there is no doubting the piety of the man - Marian and Eucharistic - though his past record suggests an openness to liturgical illiteracy and irreverence that should shame even a Jesuit.
M
Megan7
Guest
Here is the Carnival comment…
"In the normal Punch and Judy logic of the internet, these observations make me a slavish worshipper of the new pope. Er, no, my friends, no. Not so. I’ve warned you about tribal thinking before. I have my anxieties of course. Reliable sources - and that does not mean the BBC during Tuesday’s Inaugural Mass, but well-connected friends in Rome last week - have reported that when offered the mozzetta before going out to greet the crowd,
***Pope Francis said, ‘You wear it monsignor. The carnival is over.’
But a mozzetta is not carnival attire. It denotes juridical authority; in his case, supreme pastoral authority. Did he not like the colour? I suggest it is the inconvenient colour of the blood of the martyrs.****
If he thought the mozzetta is no longer such a symbol, he only needed to step out on the balcony with it on and parse its significance for a waiting world. “Dear friends, I wear this robe which symbolises the yolk of my new responsibilities and the blood I ought to be ready to shed for you.” Instead of which … Well, he spoke simply and well, but what is this chippy attitude to the Benedictine polyphony of aesthetics?"
^^^^^^ The above comes from the link provided in DENISE1957 post
B
Brendan_64
Guest
If Pope Francis did actually say, “You wear it monsignor. The carnival is over,” is that really such a big deal?
Pope Francis is our Pope now, not Benedict (good though he was). Different Popes have different ways of doing things and we should not expect one Pope to simply carry on in a seamless continuity of style, approach and emphasis as his predecessor. Maybe the words he used were a bit brusque and a little tactless, but the man is only human. How many of us have been guilty of using words that are sometimes a bit tactless?
I really do hope that Pope Francis does make a break with the past in terms of emphasising a simpler, less formal, less rigid approach to symbolic attire. I also hope we will see a Church that places less emphasis importance on the hierarchical structures of our institution. In my opinion we really need a radical shake-up in our Church. Not in terms of our doctrines, but in terms of how we deal with the wider world, how we present ourselves, and how we manage our Church internally. Less emphasis on the institutional model of the Church, and more emphasis on the mystical Communion model, and Servant models of the Church (using Dulles’s models).
Let’s face it, our Church is in a bit of a mess at the moment and to a great many of those outside of our Church we appear as a bit of a joke (at best) and at worst we are regarded as a haven for corruption and pedophilia. How the wider world views us matters a very great deal if we are to successfully evangelise humanity. We MUST address this. Image and presentation are important, and the emphasis on a simpler, more approachable Church will (in my opinion) help in this regard.
If Pope Francis did actually say, “You wear it monsignor. The carnival is over,” then (despite their brusque nature) these words actually give me an increased sense of hope for the future of our Church.
Pope Francis is our Pope now, not Benedict (good though he was). Different Popes have different ways of doing things and we should not expect one Pope to simply carry on in a seamless continuity of style, approach and emphasis as his predecessor. Maybe the words he used were a bit brusque and a little tactless, but the man is only human. How many of us have been guilty of using words that are sometimes a bit tactless?
I really do hope that Pope Francis does make a break with the past in terms of emphasising a simpler, less formal, less rigid approach to symbolic attire. I also hope we will see a Church that places less emphasis importance on the hierarchical structures of our institution. In my opinion we really need a radical shake-up in our Church. Not in terms of our doctrines, but in terms of how we deal with the wider world, how we present ourselves, and how we manage our Church internally. Less emphasis on the institutional model of the Church, and more emphasis on the mystical Communion model, and Servant models of the Church (using Dulles’s models).
Let’s face it, our Church is in a bit of a mess at the moment and to a great many of those outside of our Church we appear as a bit of a joke (at best) and at worst we are regarded as a haven for corruption and pedophilia. How the wider world views us matters a very great deal if we are to successfully evangelise humanity. We MUST address this. Image and presentation are important, and the emphasis on a simpler, more approachable Church will (in my opinion) help in this regard.
If Pope Francis did actually say, “You wear it monsignor. The carnival is over,” then (despite their brusque nature) these words actually give me an increased sense of hope for the future of our Church.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Jospeh Ratzinger:
Page 189, ‘Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium- An Interview With Peter Seewald’
T
Tigg
Guest
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I guess it depends on how you view the Church and how it can best fulfill its mission on Earth.
Slippery slope warning here!
The institutions and structures of our Church do not exist as an end in themselves, but to facilitate the Body of Christ which manifests itself in the People of God. The institutions and structures of our Church are merely tools to enable God’s work here on Earth, they have no intrinsic value in themselves other than being valuable tools.
Despite what we might sometimes think, the Church has adapted and changed throughout history, in order that it can better meet the need to build up the Body of Christ during particular times, cultural and social contexts. It is our morality and message that needs to remain the same; the institution can, should, and has been adapted in order to help us propagate our unchanging message more effectively in different times and cultural settings.
That’s how I view it anyway.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I agree with about 90% of this, i.e., perception. Perception is so crucial to winning hearts, in any realm, any dimension. To the extent that ceremonial aspects repel, confuse, scandalize, distance, or whatever they unintentionally may do, I agree that searching, sifting, and re-presenting may be in order, but I also trust Pope Francis to make those decisions, with the charisms he has and we do not have, not only by virtue of his office but as a Jesuit.
Keep in mind, though, that externals can always be overcome by behavior. He was riding in a “Popemobile” and wearing ecclesisastical clothing when he stepped down to approach the disabled man in the crowd. It’s the behavior that the world will most look to. And of course conversely, one can Talk the Talk with fiery sermons exclusively about poverty, and can dress down, and still not be convincing as to the message. I’m impressed so far with the man, not with anything he’s wearing or choosing not to wear.
Also keep in mind that some of us, Brendan, are well acquainted with recent secular “movements” (including forays into eastern religions by westerners) which have stressed externals such as dressing down, eschewing grooming, advocating external lifestyles of various sorts (including one’s diet) which proposed to be some kind of witness against the evils of materialism, but which for the most part have turned out to be self-serving affectations still focused on externals.
I would echo, though, Tigg’s post, and ask you directly, What do you mean by “less emphasis on hierarchical strucures?” Are you talking about governance, about formality, or about bureaucracy?
EDIT: I see we just cross-posted, so I’ll have to read your response to Tigg as well.
- Status