Pope Francis in His Own Words

  • Thread starter Thread starter JReducation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JReducation

Guest
This is a very long article, but I really liked it. The writer addresses both liberal and traditionalist concerns and then proceed to put Pope Francis, his words and actions into a clear and cohesive context.

I thought of putting it in news, but then figured that Trads would probably enjoy it more.

WARNING:

It’s extremely long.

Pope Francis in His Own Words

After reading the article, the question is whether or not people still believe that Pope Francis should revert to previous styles of of exercising the Petrine Ministry, which were more reserved and aristocratic or is he getting people to pay attention, even when they don’t understand or they have their own agenda?

Personally, I don’t care if the media has its own agenda of if journalists simply don’t understand. The fact that the Holy Father is getting people’s attention means that someone is going to learn something. It may be someone who might not have learned anything before, because the papacy and the Church had not caught his attention.
 
This is a good and balanced read. Thanks for sharing this.

I think the final point that the author makes is crucial: no matter what the Pope says, someone is going to distort things. The media, by and large, is no friend of the Church, and often tries to co-opt it for ideological reasons. Even Pope Benedict was misrepresented on issues such as the pedophile scandals, Islam, and that one innocuous remark about condoms. Pope Francis is trying to engage us in a dialogue, to keep channels of communication open. That’s how you build a relationship. And establishing that relationship is a very psychologically sound first step in bringing back those who have fallen away or rebelled.
 
I believe that maybe the Catholic laity is a little too concerned about what the media says or doesn’t say about the pope or the Church. If you observe religious, we’re not concerned about it at all. Whatever the media says, it’s the bishop’s concern, not our own. We have more important things to deal with.

The media has a job to do. In this country it does it better than most, but it does not do it perfectly and never will. For good or not, journalism has become a business. Companies have to sell their product. They will make it as attractive as possible.

Then you have another issue. People today are not as well educated in matters of faith as they once were. Many journalists have no real intention to distort, as much as they have such a poor education that they don’t understand what it is that they are hearing or seeing. Like novelists, they fill in the blanks with their own links, which are often faulty. This I know, because I have two very good Catholic journalists in my family. They are often in passionate discussions with their colleagues who don’t understand the difference between A and B. I have witnessed these conversations and I must admit that they are sad. It shows the sad state of affairs in modern education.
 
JReducation said:
I believe that maybe the Catholic laity is a little too concerned about what the media says or doesn’t say about the pope or the Church. .
Click to expand...
brother this is a few times i’ve seen you posting about people who are concerned about what journalists say.
I think this is very naïve. it is off course of immense value what the papers say. the vast majority of people’s opinons are formed by what the MSM puts forward.
so our kids, our families, our co workers our friends believe what they read.
most people I know now believe the church has changed its teachings on a vast range of issues.
few if any will ever come in contact with someone who visits sites like this. few will hear a sermon on church teaching so the only place they will ever get an indication on the church is the media. this does not mean even if they return to mass they will no any different. please stop belittling peoples genuine concerns
 
JReducation said:
The fact that the Holy Father is getting people’s attention means that someone is going to learn something. It may be someone who might not have learned anything before, because the papacy and the Church had not caught his attention.
Click to expand...
Indeed, some will learn something no doubt. And those in the laity who are well-versed can use occasions of confusion to start conversations they otherwise would have. Make lemonade from lemons. All that being said, I’ve heard it said that if even one soul is saved because the media brought something to their attention, then it’s worth it. But on the reverse, I would not want to see one soul damned, who otherwise would not have been damned, because they built up false expectations of the Church and were angered or disappointed when they discovered otherwise.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Indeed, some will learn something no doubt. And those in the laity who are well-versed can use occasions of confusion to start conversations they otherwise would have. Make lemonade from lemons. All that being said, I’ve heard it said that if even one soul is saved because the media brought something to their attention, then it’s worth it. But on the reverse, I would not want to see one soul damned, who otherwise would not have been damned, because they built up false expectations of the Church and were angered or disappointed when they discovered otherwise.
Click to expand...
The red is mine. Just as no one can choose salvation for an individual, except the individual himself, no one can choose damnation for another individual either.

There is a mistaken concern among some people that one person can cause another person to lose his soul. This is not quite what the scriptures and the Church say. The wording is close, but not the same. Being the material cause of temptation is what the scriptures and Church warn us about, leading another into sin. Choosing sin is the responsibility of the individual.

Then there is original innocence. A person who believes that he is following a good and desires the good, but inadvertently does the opposite is more than likely confused. Unless there is someone to help him or her separate the right from the wrong, the chances are very good that the person is not subjectively culpable.

Our concern has to focus on helping the interested person understand. For that to happen, the person must be motivated to come and see. If whatever is out there motivates people to come and see, then our job is to show them. But we must do so as the Holy Father reminds us, with great kindness and gentleness.

We the faithful would do well to imitate the gentleness of the popes. Unfortunately, many of use prefer “cowboy proselytism” over fraternal evangelization. How did we ever get that idea? It was not from our popes. Our popes are not aggressive evangelists. In fact, they are everything that is gentle, respectful and gentlemanly.
 
JReducation said:
The red is mine. Just as no one can choose salvation for an individual, except the individual himself, no one can choose damnation for another individual either.

There is a mistaken concern among some people that one person can cause another person to lose his soul. This is not quite what the scriptures and the Church say. The wording is close, but not the same. Being the material cause of temptation is what the scriptures and Church warn us about, leading another into sin. Choosing sin is the responsibility of the individual.

Then there is original innocence. A person who believes that he is following a good and desires the good, but inadvertently does the opposite is more than likely confused. Unless there is someone to help him or her separate the right from the wrong, the chances are very good that the person is not subjectively culpable.

Our concern has to focus on helping the interested person understand. For that to happen, the person must be motivated to come and see. If whatever is out there motivates people to come and see, then our job is to show them. But we must do so as the Holy Father reminds us, with great kindness and gentleness.

We the faithful would do well to imitate the gentleness of the popes. Unfortunately, many of use prefer “cowboy proselytism” over fraternal evangelization. How did we ever get that idea? It was not from our popes. Our popes are not aggressive evangelists. In fact, they are everything that is gentle, respectful and gentlemanly.
Click to expand...
I agree with all that and was not suggesting otherwise. But there are snakes that can influence a decision.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I agree with all that and was not suggesting otherwise. But there are snakes that can influence a decision.
Click to expand...
Do you know why Franciscans have more saints than any other religious family in the Church, including secular orders?
 
Cojuanco said:
No. Enlighten us.
Click to expand...
Because we are naive.

But in reality, our theology is very sound. We have always maintained and taught the lay faithful who follow us to attend to what is before them, do the same things with great love, trust the power of penance and charity, study and learn whatever is at your disposal, and detach from what everyone else says or thinks. Poverty is not a means, but an end. The end to which the soul aspires is to be totally blank with no attachments and no preoccupations except one, to be conformed to the crucified Christ in all things to do as he did in every situation.

Some would say that we are wise. 🤷
 
JReducation #1
The fact that the Holy Father is getting people’s attention means that someone is going to learn something.
Click to expand...
Correct.

However it would be good to have avoided the real problems included in Evangelii Gaudium, concerning the erroneous notions identified in the six categories examined by Samuel Gregg in November 26, 2013.
m.nationalreview.com/corner/365004/pope-francis-and-poverty-samuel-gregg

Also, Pope Francis has acknowledged three mistakes.
Even the Pope Critiques Himself. And Corrects Three Errors
by Sandro Magister ROME, November 22, 2013
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it…/1350668?eng=y

Such imprecision is foreign to Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and the precision and depth of both Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI need to be emulated.
 
Abu said:
Correct.

However it would be good to have avoided the real problems included in Evangelii Gaudium, concerning the erroneous notions identified in the six categories examined by Samuel Gregg in November 26, 2013.
m.nationalreview.com/corner/365004/pope-francis-and-poverty-samuel-gregg

Also, Pope Francis has acknowledged three mistakes.
Even the Pope Critiques Himself. And Corrects Three Errors
by Sandro Magister ROME, November 22, 2013
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it…/1350668?eng=y

Such imprecision is foreign to Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and the precision and depth of both Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI need to be emulated.
Click to expand...
I would say that precision is needed. I would not impose on anyone that he emulate hs predecessors.

I run a tiny religious community. If anyone told me that I had to emulate St.Francis of Assisi, I would not have accepted the position as superior.

The person in authority must be free of his predecessors.
 
Since what has been demonstrated are failures of precision (clarity) and depth (reality) the objective of the need is to better inform and form the faithful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top