K
Pope Francis: Obstinate Christians are Rebels and Idolaters
- Status
H
Hazen_Pingree
Guest
The original purpose of setting the “Our Father” into Latin was to remove ambiguity and to universalize the language of scripture.
There is a deficit to be found in translating from the original languages of the New Testament, which are Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, into another language. One way of describing this deficit is the old adage that “Translation is Treason.” That’s because it can never be absolutely accurate. Nonetheless, it is what is necessary for a widespread understanding of the Gospel message. When Jerome translated the Bible in the late 300’s/early 400’s AD (he died in 420 AD), he took the texts from their original languages and rendered them into a commonly used form of Latin that was used by the Church and by the people of the Latin West. This “vulgate” (or “common”) Latin was the venerable (and venerated) form by which Christians throughout the world came to know the “Our Father” which was given to us by our Lord himself when He was still with us. It is His instruction to His flock. He said, “when you pray, say, ‘Our Father…’” (Matt 6:9-13 & Luke 11:2-4).
Millions of people over the centuries have prayed the “Pater Noster” daily. It is the earliest and most common form of the prayer. Translation into English came much later, and, because English itself was a language in transition when Gutenberg invented the printing press and moveable type in the late 1400’s, it was first printed in the Latin. English versions of the Bible – the text of which varied radically for years – wasn’t really codified until the 1600’s – and even then there was great controversy over the meaning of the words that had been translated from the vulgate.
Yes, some people grew up reciting or singing the “Pater Noster” rather than the “Our Father” at Mass and during the Divine Office. It is our heritage, and a glorious heritage at that! Whole bodies of music are dedicated to the faithful and beautiful expression of the prayer in Latin. It is a sublime legacy of the Church Universal. When we refuse to pray it in the Latin because we are unfamiliar with it, I say “grow up!” Stop being obstinate. The “Pater Noster” is a prayer for eternity.
C
clem456
Guest
The Pope isn’t a judge or my confessor. A judge issues specific statements that address legal issues.
The Pope is exhorting people pastorally. If his exhortations seem ambiguous maybe it’s because the hearer cannot discern the relevance to his life.
A judge is a whole different vocation than Pope, don’t you think?
Since he speaks to a flock of millions of people it’s pretty much impossible for his advice to be tailored to you.
It seems to me that as a shepherd and pastor his exhortations should touch some common concerns for everyone’s soul.
We have a lot in common, all of us human beings.
As with the Gospels, it requires some discernment on my part to absorb how his words pertain to me. Maybe the word is ponder, as Mary would do.
K
KSU
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
Not everyone thinks he is ambiguous.
It seems his language is very specific, precise, and pointed. He is not going to single out individuals, but that is not his job.
Isn’t the whole point of pastoring to suggest conversion to your flock?
I try to just assume he is talking to me, since he is our leader. Sometimes I discover a valuable lesson, sometimes not.
You can require someone to be specific to the point of absurdity, where any possible meaning is rejected for the listener on the grounds of ambiguity. That sucks the pastoral value right out of his words, for that particular listener.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Indeed. And that’s why the monks took such great care to copy and preserve the prayers, scripture, the liturgy, Church’s documents, Roman writings, and much of the Latin written by Greeks themselves.
.
P
ProVobis
Guest
So do you think we’re being over analytical here? I think if I heard this same sermon coming from my pastor it would probably go in one ear and out the other, no disrespect intended.
C
clem456
Guest
No I don’t think we’re being overly analytical. I think we are being defensive and dismissive.
O
otjm
Guest
I think there are three groups hearing his words: 1) those who are so obstinate that they will not even listen; 2) those who are obstinate and are willing to admit that fact, and hear his words (and then applying them or not applying them), and 3) those who are not obstinate.
I have enough self honesty and am capable of enough honest introspection to be able to determine that I am not being obstinate about matters of faith. I listen to what the Church teaches, and follow the Magisterium. I am not fighting against the documents of Vatican II; I am not presuming that I have a better perspective on those issues than the 2,500 +/- bishops of the world. I am not in the church hierarchy, and do not work at one of the dicasteries, so I am not obstinate in matters related to the direction of the dicasteries. I am not following any alleged apparitions so I am not obstinate in opposition to the Church’s position. Nor am I a bishop or theologian pushing anything which may be contrary to matters of faith and/or morals, or siding with those who may be doing so.
I am not obstinate about either the EF or the OF; I think they both should be available to those who prefer them, and recognize the parameters set by Pope Benedict and how that can limit the availability of the EF; I am not going to tell him, or anyone else he was worng in how he set it, or how he was right. I simply accept his leadership in the matter.
Just from simply sitting and watching, I have seen people on the left who are obstinate and in opposition to what the Church teaches (and am in contact with some of them fairly often) and I have seen people on the right who are obstinate and in opposition to what the Church teaches, but am not in contact with them as often a with the other end of the spectrum. And I know people who are fairly well in the middle, but have an issue upon which they are obstinate.
And I think that anyone who is aware of what the Magisterium teaches is capable of enough introspection to determine if they are being obstinate or not, presuming they have enough self honesty to look inward, and particularly if they know that they prefer one thing over another in excess of what the Church teaches.
So no, I don’t agree that you cannot figure it out.
P
Peebo
Guest
Well…by the number of people who seem to be taking umbrage what he said…maybe he has hit a raw nerve with them…God bless Pope Francis
A
abucs
Guest
Unfortunately on too many occasions nobody really knows what the pope is talking about and this leads to confusion and anxiety.
It is not a good look for the pope to sow division and make himself the centre of attention by getting people to speculate about what he really means.
Why not just tell us?
Who needs confusion, division and speculative arguments?
We are supposed to be better than that.
Pope Francis needs to be very careful that he does not create millions of obstinate opponents from the very people who want very much to support him.
If Francis wants to put a different emphasis on some Church ministry or traditions then let him make the case. Let him be clear, open and honest about that and trust that his vision will be respected and welcomed by the church.
It is not a good look for the pope to sow division and make himself the centre of attention by getting people to speculate about what he really means.
Why not just tell us?
Who needs confusion, division and speculative arguments?
We are supposed to be better than that.
Pope Francis needs to be very careful that he does not create millions of obstinate opponents from the very people who want very much to support him.
If Francis wants to put a different emphasis on some Church ministry or traditions then let him make the case. Let him be clear, open and honest about that and trust that his vision will be respected and welcomed by the church.
J
JimG
Guest
I suppose that everyone is obstinate about something. St. Thomas More was obstinate in refusing to sign a simple document for King Henry. But everyone has their own points of obstinacy. If you are not obstinate about anything, you are lukewarm.
K
KSU
Guest
Originally Posted by KSU
I do want him to explain enough for me to figure out if I’m being addressed directly or indirectly. I want to know if he is saying that my particular beliefs amount to divination and idolatry. Don’t you?
I do want him to explain enough for me to figure out if I’m being addressed directly or indirectly. I want to know if he is saying that my particular beliefs amount to divination and idolatry. Don’t you?
You certainly are a good person and smarter than I am. I’m still hung up on paragraph 54 of the Pope’s first written work, EVANGELII GAUDIUM, November 2013.
M
mikekle
Guest
IMO, this was the problem back when Francis visited the US, everyone expected him to talk tough on abortion, SSM, but he barely alluded to these topics, choosing instead to speak very vaguely. I think thats why just about everyone was happy with his visit, when in reality, there should have been plenty of people that were upset about things he said…after all that is to be expected, especially in a nation like the US, one of the most hedonistic, liberal countries in the world, but even the US mainstream media was praising him…??? LOL, something very wrong with that imo!!!
It was once said, when there is no opposition to what someone has said, it usually means they have said nothing at all…I think this is especially true when it comes to a person such as the Pope and his speeches.
O
otjm
Guest
Okay, just for spits and giggles, (sorry, that is a phrase, slightly modified, from a friend of mine from Ireland, meaning we are not going to go to war over this conversation), I am going to assume that paragraph 54 is your hangup as to whether or not you are being obstinate, as it relates to this paragraph.
Unless you are a business owner who is becoming significantly wealthy from your business, or you are an investor doing the same, the odds are that this does not apply to you. Or perhaps you are or have studied finance or related disciplines and have bought into the theory and don’t want to hear what that paragraph has to say.
The Pope is speaking to that part of society which is caught up with wealth, pursues wealth, and borders on or out-right worships money, power and prestige.
There are individual business owners whom I know, who could “buy me” out of, maybe a bit more than their pocket change. It would be easy for me to paint them all with the same brush, but I have been around long enough to know that some of them have been exceedingly generous in very quiet and private ways. They are not the group the Pope is speaking to.
And one I don’t know, but certainly know of, is the individual who started Domino’s Pizza; he has given a tremendous amount to the Church and Church related groups.
I also have known people who are, compared to the median of middle class, very wealthy and verbalize not only how fantastic they are, but how totally beneath them are most others; seriously nasty about the poor, racist when not in public… and not even of the “I got mine, let me show you how to get yours”, but rather “I got mine, and (deleted word) you!”
It is easy to look down on those who are poor. Whether it is from theory (trickle down economics) or a simple disdain from them, the Church has something valid to say. It is easy to get caught up in the next I-whatever (phone, tablet,) and forget those who don’t even have shelter. It is easy to go work in a soup kitchen and pat oneself on the back, all the while thinking how much the people one served were bums, and we have to take care of them with a bowl of soup, and aren’t they lucky we are so benevolent.
Being obstinate about the gap between even the lower middle class and the poor, let alone someone farther up the economic ladder is something that Christ speaks of in the Gospels, repeatedly. Christ calls us to be far less worldly, far less caught up in the distractions that material goods cause us, than many of us are.
And it is one thing to be blind, dumb and stupid about the gap (that is, ignoring it); it is another thing to be actively involved in the materialism of the world. And those who are, are in large part obstinate about our responsibilities to those less advantaged. To the point of being obstinate.
It really is not that hard to figure out.
A
abucs
Guest
I personally think it is wrong to think in terms of ‘financial gaps between people’. I believe this leads to division and envy and there really doesn’t need to be.
The financial gap between me and Bill Gates is extreme but i think that it is not social justice to try and close that gap. In fact to put in place the government apparatus that claims to close that gap ‘for me’ can be very dangerous.
I prefer to think in terms of individual dignity and respect and encourage people to have the chance to be comfortable in obtaining what they need rather than comparing them to someone else and demand the taking of others money.
The financial gap between me and Bill Gates is extreme but i think that it is not social justice to try and close that gap. In fact to put in place the government apparatus that claims to close that gap ‘for me’ can be very dangerous.
I prefer to think in terms of individual dignity and respect and encourage people to have the chance to be comfortable in obtaining what they need rather than comparing them to someone else and demand the taking of others money.
O
otjm
Guest
It seems to be your opinion that he spoke **very vaguely.**However, having heard that before you said it, it has been my observation that many saying that are of the opinion that if the speech is not fire and brimstone, it is mealy mouthed, watered down, vague, and meaningless.
I would invite you to go back and research the full texts of what he said, and see if you don’t get a different opinion.
On the other hand, it may be that you will not get a different opinion reading the full texts. Some people have an image of what Pope Francis has to be, needs to be, to be Pope.
For whatever reason, two Popes ago the cardinals chose the first non-Italian Pope in I can’t remember how long. And they chose him knowing that he had been a member of the periti at Vatican 2, and had two Ph.D’s. Subsequently, they chose a Pope whom many consider to be one of the brightest, if not the brightest theologians alive today. Rumor has it that the current Pope was receiving enough votes at that consistory, that he pointedly withdrew in favor of Ratzinger.
And if anyone thinks that the Cardinals did not know who they were choosing this time, one knows very little about that rarefied world of candidates and possible candidates.
They chose him knowing full well what he was like, what his background was, what he had accomplished, what any weaknesses might be, what his style was, and they chose him for reasons we are not privy to.
They very pointedly did not pick someone who was in the mold of the prior two Popes. They chose someone who “smelled of the sheep”, who was a Jesuit with a Franciscan spirituality, who avoided pomp and circumstance, and one who, not surprisingly after being made Pope, had several pointed comments about clericalism.
He spoke in the US from who he is, the way he is. Those who choose to call his talks vague want someone else.
I don’t find him vague, just as I don’t find the Gospel accounts of Christ’s teaching vague. But if you want bombast - look elsewhere. If you want a shepherd, look to Rome. Shepherds don’t spend a lot of time in fire and brimstone. They also don’t talk a lot about justice; but they certainly talk a lot about, and show mercy.
Suggestion - go read the Gospel account of the young man who demanded his inheritance, and pay special attention to his father.
A
abucs
Guest
It is unfair to characterise those who ask for clarity as demanding bombast, fire and brimstone.
O
otjm
Guest
I think if you refer back to the post I was responding to, you will see that the poster was unhappy because the Pope did not lecture about abortion, etc. I did not use the word 'bombast", but “fire and brimstone” is a commonly used term for direct lectures about sin - and last time I checked, abortion and same sex marriage were considered sinful. And I seriously doubt that the poster was desirous of the Pope saying such thing really were not nice. I will gladly stand by my characterization of what they wished for and did not hear. He moved from clarity to not covering the topics he wanted the Pope to speak on.
Sorry, but I was not the one to introduce a moving target.
- Status