Pope Francis' first moves hint at break with past

[Brendan_64]

What do you mean by “less emphasis on hierarchical strucures?” Are you talking about governance, about formality, or about bureaucracy?

Less rigid formality would, I believe assist us in presenting an image of a Church that is reaching out to all humanity in the spirit of respect and equality. A loosening of the the image (that still persists) of the institution of the Church as being the controllers of the taps that allow the flow of grace from God to humanity. Less of a Church that gives the impression (whether true or not) that its sets itself above those it seeks to evangelise. A ‘poorer’ Church in terms of it’s displays of wealth and opulence, a Church that appears less concerned with meeting Christ through elaborate ritual in great basilicas, and more concerned with meeting Christ among the poor and needy. Reform of the Roman Curia and the the Vatican bank. And very importantly a clear out of any members of the Church hierarchy that were in any way responsible for any cover-up of child-abusers within or clergy.

 

[Tobias22]

I definitely think there will be a move towards a more horizontal less hierarchial church.

Maybe ultimately fulfilling V2 hopes that never came about of bishops councils informed by priests councils and informed by lay councils - where women would be given real authority. Locally anyway. With real decision making roles in a more “democratically” structured church. I sense a lot of excitement about that possibility.

 

[commenter]

Less rigid formality would, I believe assist us in presenting an image of a Church that is reaching out to all humanity in the spirit of respect and equality. A loosening of the the image (that still persists) of the institution of the Church as being the controllers of the taps that allow the flow of grace from God to humanity. Less of a Church that gives the impression (whether true or not) that its sets itself above those it seeks to evangelise. A ‘poorer’ Church in terms of it’s displays of wealth and opulence, a Church that appears less concerned with meeting Christ through elaborate ritual in great basilicas, and more concerned with meeting Christ among the poor and needy. Reform of the Roman Curia and the the Vatican bank. And very importantly a clear out of any members of the Church hierarchy that were in any way responsible for any cover-up of child-abusers within or clergy.

In my diocese, many have taken “equality” to an extreme. Some priests avoid blessing persons or things, because that implies inequality. Some religion teachers and textbooks avoid any hint that Catholicism has any more truth than any other religion. Some liturgies more or less imply that the whole congregation “makes Jesus present”, the priest is there not as “the” celebrant but to convene the community. Some catechists say their job is to bring out the Christ already present in the student, and to build community, not to teach doctrine that the students might be ignorant of. The evangelization program is entirely devoted to “friendliness”. What few converts we do get come through ministry of those who believe Catholicism DOES have something to teach, that the sacraments ARE ways for God’s grace to flow.

 

[Brendan_64]

Commentator, I agree things can be taken too far. It is all about getting the balance right. In the end it is all about balance between one extreme and the other, and about the Church, led by the Pope, judging whereabouts the balancing point should lie, in order to evangelise effectively, depending on the prevailing circumstances. The core message and morality should however not change, but rather the manner and means in which this message is presented. We should not let tradition handcuff our approach to the extent that, as a result, those we are trying to evangelise to view us unattractive and thereby are not inclined to even listen to us.

I agree with you on Sacraments being a flow of God’s grace through our priests, but they are not the only way God’s grace flows. The Holy Spirit operates throughout the Body of Christ and the clergy do not control where, or how, the grace of the Holy Spirit flows. Christ can be found in all walks of life, but especially amongst the poor and needy, and amongst those sinners who appear in greatest need of salvation.

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them,” doesn’t specify that at least one of those present must be an ordained priest. Yes we need the Sacraments, but God’s grace is to be found throughout the Body of Christ (and amongst men of good will of whatever belief).

 

[shelby_sun]

This is not to disrespect the holiness of the Vatican or the position of the Pope, bit I think what might happen before any “big” changes we will actually see is similar to what happens when the head of a corporation, which the Vatican and the Church is in one way, gets involved or touches base with every level and all the people within his corporation.

I think we might hear how Pope Francis is down in the main kitchen meeting all people who work there, asking about the menu. He might go down to the meet the garden and landscaping crew, asking about what flowers they like best. I would bet we even hear that he goes down to meet the cleaning and laundry crew and thank him for all their hard work. Now maybe Pope Benedict did that also and we just never heard about it, but if this Pope does it, it will be news. It seems Pope Francis wants to bring people close in the name of God even thought they have major differences, such as, culture, economic levels, marriage status, etc. I liked his statement that something to the effect of God forgives us much easier than we forgive each other.

Also, doesn’t it seem that by using the word “poverty” the Pope not only means financial poverty, but also spiritual, social, and moral poverty. That is what I am getting from him, but other seems to focus on him only wanting people to sell materialistic things and give money to the poor. Just wondering.

 

[allhers]

Sometimes, while reading through some of these threads, and I do sometimes read through the whole thread. I think to myself, “If this is what some of the people inside of the Church think, I can only imagine what some outside of it think.”
I wonder if some of you have ever read anything on the Vatican web site, or ever listened to the news on EWTN, which you can get on your computer. Or even if you have read anything that the people who started Catholic Answers have wrote.
It might be a good idea for you to, for those that haven’t, as you come across as not really knowing what you are talking about. (Just my personal opinion.)

 

[Tigg]

You see, this very post illustrates the slippery slope to which I alluded.

I definitely think there will be a move towards a more horizontal less hierarchial church.

With real decision making roles in a more “democratically” structured church. I sense a lot of excitement about that possibility.

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.

There are certain fundamentals within the institution that cannot be changed. The hierarchy is the foundation of the Church structure as Christ Himself decreed it and the accounting of it is very detailed and recorded in the Scriptures. Not only did He establish this hierarchy, but Jesus gave authority to it and specifically gave the keys of His kingdom to Peter. Surely you aren’t suggesting this can be changed? It cannot. And we, as members of this one Body in Christ must submit to this authority that defines the pathway to salvation or else, even though we desire to follow the teachings of Jesus, we are no better than Protestants.

Less rigid formality would, I believe assist us in presenting an image of a Church that is reaching out to all humanity in the spirit of respect and equality. A loosening of the the image (that still persists) of the institution of the Church as being the controllers of the taps that allow the flow of grace from God to humanity.

I have no idea what you are saying since the very mission of the Church is the salvation of souls which is accomplished through living the sacramental life – the likes of which is impossible without the priesthood.

A ‘poorer’ Church in terms of it’s displays of wealth and opulence, a Church that appears less concerned with meeting Christ through elaborate ritual in great basilicas, and more concerned with meeting Christ among the poor and needy.

This is a totally inaccurate caricature because no other institution in the world concerns itself more with the poor and oppressed than the Catholic Church. The wealth and opulence you seem to have a problem with I’ve already addressed and you said you did not understand it. Why do you have such resistance with giving to Christ the precious oil poured out on His feet as an oblation to His divinity?

Reform of the Roman Curia and the the Vatican bank. And very importantly a clear out of any members of the Church hierarchy that were in any way responsible for any cover-up of child-abusers within or clergy

No problem here.

 

[Sirach2]

Bro JR corrected this misunderstand of what happened over in the Trad forum but I can’t the post.

I’ll try and find Bro’s post. It may take some time

Someone at the Vatican has already had to straighten out that the pope never said, “You wear them Msgr, the carnival is over.”

What happened was that as with every new pope, he was shown into the room of tears which apparently doubles as a dressing room. Every possible option is there for the newly elected pope to choose. When asked about the mozzetta, he said, “Leave it there.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Pope Francis has not and will not ‘break’ with the past any more than Benedict, or John Paul II, or Paul V, or even John XXII ‘broke’ with the past. . .the Church’s teachings are timeless but the Church exists in time. We won’t see Popes crowning kings the way we did in AD 1200, and we won’t see people wearing robes and coming in from the fields to Mass the way that the majority of people did in AD 600, etc.

I have no problem whatsoever with a humbler Church if by that you mean humbler PEOPLE in the Church. And humility doesn’t mean everybody dressing in sackcloth, or in jeans and Tees, lest they otherwise look too ‘ornate’ in comparison to some predermined vision of what the ‘poor’ dress like. Don’t regiment people.

I do have a problem with people trying to force what their opinion of ‘humble’ is onto not just people, but upon symbols. Who are we to tell those departed people who spent THEIR monies, THEIR lives, THEIR visions, and THEIR choices to build works of beauty that what they gave to God, WE feel we should ‘take back’ because it’s too ‘wealthy’ for God and should be for the poor instead?

Again, I have no problem with urging Catholics to be more careful in their stewardship, more prayerful, more concerned with the SOULS of the poor in addition to the bodies. . .but don’t inflict an iconoclastic and quasi Puritan destruction of beauty and call it ‘simplifying’ or claim that it is ‘for the poor’. It didn’t work when Judas tried it and it shouldn’t now.

 

[Brendan_64]

There are certain fundamentals within the institution that cannot be changed. The hierarchy is the foundation of the Church structure as Christ Himself decreed it and the accounting of it is very detailed and recorded in the Scriptures. Not only did He establish this hierarchy, but Jesus gave authority to it and specifically gave the keys of His kingdom to Peter. Surely you aren’t suggesting this can be changed? It cannot. And we, as members of this one Body in Christ must submit to this authority that defines the pathway to salvation or else, even though we desire to follow the teachings of Jesus, we are no better than Protestants.

Yes Jesus did leave a structure of 11 bishops with Peter as Pontif. But that was it. We have established many other layers to deal with the increasing complexity of a now huge Church, but let’s not kid ourselves that all the layers and complex structures we now have in place were decreed by Jesus himself.

As for the Body of Christ, that body includes all Christians, not just Catholics. Our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ are also part of Christ’s body on earth. We all profess, through the Nicene Creed, to believe in one Baptism. How can someone baptised in Christ be outside of the Body of Christ?

 

[allhers]

Sirach2:
…obviously the quote feature didn’t work

I was going to say that the “room of tears” is called that, because almost every Pope, after being chosen, has gone there and cried. I think that is awesome.

 

[edwest2]

I definitely think there will be a move towards a more horizontal less hierarchial church.

Maybe ultimately fulfilling V2 hopes that never came about of bishops councils informed by priests councils and informed by lay councils - where women would be given real authority. Locally anyway. With real decision making roles in a more “democratically” structured church. I sense a lot of excitement about that possibility.

“women would be given real authority” to do what? The Church is not a Democracy.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Spiritual poverty threatens world peace - Pope Francis

ncregister.com/daily-news/spiritual-poverty-threatens-world-peace-pope-states/

Peace.
Ed

 

[Lucky7]

Spiritual poverty threatens world peace - Pope Francis

ncregister.com/daily-news/spiritual-poverty-threatens-world-peace-pope-states/

Peace.
Ed

I’m curious as to what he meant by:

“But there is no true peace without truth!” he stressed.

What truth? Catholic Truth?

 

[jwinch2]

I’m curious as to what he meant by:

“But there is no true peace without truth!” he stressed.

What truth? Catholic Truth?

I read an article on the mission of the Church the other day vis-a-vie peace which made the point that due to our fallen nature, the only way peace will ever actually be established on earth prior to the return of our Lord is through coming to know Christ through his Church. Thus, if the Church truly wishes to pursue peace, it must be through evangelization.

I see Pope Francis’s comments as a continuation of what Pope Benedict so often stressed regarding relativism and the rejection of objective truth in the modern world. If you substitute the word “charity” for “peace”, Pope Benedict even wrote an encyclical on the matter.

 

[Lucky7]

I read an article on the mission of the Church the other day vis-a-vie peace which made the point that due to our fallen nature, the only way peace will ever actually be established on earth prior to the return of our Lord is through coming to know Christ through his Church. Thus, if the Church truly wishes to pursue peace, it must be through evangelization.

I see Pope Francis’s comments as a continuation of what Pope Benedict so often stressed regarding relativism and the rejection of objective truth in the modern world. If you substitute the word “charity” for “peace”, Pope Benedict even wrote and encyclical on the matter.

I wish he would be clearer then.

 

[jwinch2]

I wish he would be clearer then.

“But there is another form of poverty!” he told the diplomats.
“It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously."
“It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the ‘tyranny of relativism,’ which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples,” he said.”

emphasis mine

This part of the article seems to support my interpretation. Perhaps others will have more insight.

 

[Lucky7]

emphasis mine

This part of the article seems to support my interpretation. Perhaps others will have more insight.

I see those comments as having an issue with individualism. I don’t see him referring to the fullness of the truth found in Catholicism. I guess I’m looking for comments that don’t require anyone’s “interpretation”.

 

[edwest2]

emphasis mine

This part of the article seems to support my interpretation. Perhaps others will have more insight.

I believe he is referring to this example:

Pope Benedict

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary by the Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy. The Holy Father offers us a visions of the State according to our Catholic heritage”

We are surrounded by too many people who ignore the truth in an attempt to create a world that ignores actual truth, both earthly and spiritual.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Corki]

This is not about a pair of red shoes and a cape.

Other folks have said the same thing I ahve said (see the posts I have cited) …that to say that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in all of his decision is NOT Cahtolic teaching (but you didn’t even respond to them). Popes have not always taken the Church in the direction of the Holy Spirit. We might like to think that happens all of the time, but history shows that it just isnt true.

I have NO problem with your stating your opinion on the direction the current Pope is taking (and to be honest I have not decided how I feel about things as of yet). However, that doesn’t mean you get to make a blanket statement that all papal decisions are guided by the Holy Spirit. That is not an opinion.

If I am wrong about Cahtolic teaching, then I will apologize profusely, but if I’m right, I have a duty to speak the Truth.

No, you are correct. The Holy Spirit does not directly choose the Pope nor is everything a pope says to be interpretted as coming from the Holy Spirit. Pope Benedict made this very clear. If that was the case, every conclave would have only one vote and it would be unanimous.

I have NO problem with your stating your opinion on the direction the current Pope is taking (and to be honest I have not decided how I feel about things as of yet). However, that doesn’t mean you get to make a blanket statement that all papal decisions are guided by the Holy Spirit. That is not an opinion.

I don’t think we have any idea yet of the direction that Pope Francis will take or where he will take the Church. He has done lots of things that give us information about who is is as a person and what his personality may be but he hasn’t actually DONE anything yet in his *official *capacity. The first indication of “direction” will be when he makes or maintains curial appointments, makes his first choices for Bishops, and writes his first encyclicals. What we have now is a lot of interesting and entertaining guesses.