Pope Francis: Obstinate Christians are Rebels and Idolaters

[clem456]

It is unfair to characterise those who ask for clarity as demanding bombast, fire and brimstone.

Yes that would be unfair.
It would also be unfair to expect clarity on a specific individual level.
How do you find clarity in matters of faith? Jesus himself was obscure with his teaching, using parables, stories, metaphors. Why?
Perhaps the clarity we want is not what God wants. Maybe he wants us to engage in some self examination, rather than arrive at a legal form of certitude.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve never known a time in my life, when asking for a little clarity has suddenly been deemed so unneccessary and even offensive to alot people.

 

[pnewton]

No, I would struggle with trying to say the words in Latin as I read them from the page instead of praying the prayers.

The original purpose of setting the “Our Father” into Latin was to remove ambiguity and to universalize the language of scripture.

But the point the Holy Father was making was not whether or not we say a certain prayer in Latin or some other language, but whether we catch an attitude about changes based on misalignment of priorities, specifically, our current status quo being the old wineskin.

 

[clem456]

I’ve never known a time in my life, when asking for a little clarity has suddenly been deemed so unneccessary and even offensive to alot people.

Who has a problem with asking for clarity? Who finds it offensive? I love to have clarity. (don’t find it very often but that’s ok…)

Who are you asking for clarity, and how do you expect to receive it? Are you being realistic?
Just asking for some clarity

 

[pnewton]

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.

If we remember that the Pope is also a priest, and like a priest gives homilies, such a reaction makes sense. Everyone has times when some part of a homily goes in one ear and out the other, or over the head, or some such reaction. The best thing is just to let it go in and then out without worrying about it.

If we “don’t get something”, why be critical of it?

 

[KSU]

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 am going to assume that paragraph 54 [of the Pope’s first written work, EVANGELII GAUDIUM, November 2013] is your hangup as to whether or not you are being obstinate, as it relates to [the above] paragraph.

**I don’t have a hangup as to whether or not I am being obstinate. If I am ever being obstinate, I know it, and it’s never directly about a Church teaching or some Church policy the Pope has a right to change or approve: meatless Fridays, Mass in the vernacular, washing of feet, etc… There are some approved changes I don’t like, but that’s not being obstinate in the sense the Pope was condemning in the OP.

Nevertheless, and as usual, because of the ambiguity in the OP, it opens the door for Progressives to call me, and others who have every right to respect tradition, as being obstinate in the sense the Pope did condemn. If there is anything clear in this thread, it’s the latter.

Accordingly, why does the Pope employ a style of ambiguity that is worth increasing the existing disunity in the Church?**

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
I’m still hung up on paragraph 54 of the Pope’s first written work, EVANGELII GAUDIUM, November 2013.

This is why we have pastors. And theologians. And apologists. And friends on the internet blog…To help us understand things.

Agreed. The orthodox ones are as perplexed and confused about the contents and incompetent (hopefully it’s just incompetence) Vatican Press Office translation of 54 as I am..

 

[TMC]

Originally Posted by KSU
I’m still hung up on paragraph 54 of the Pope’s first written work, EVANGELII GAUDIUM, November 2013.

Why do you think the Vatican is incompetent in its translations?

 

[otjm]

I’ve never known a time in my life, when asking for a little clarity has suddenly been deemed so unnecessary and even offensive to a lot people.

With something over 240 posts, I can’t recall what everyone has said; but I don’t recall anyone saying clarity is “unnecessary” or “offensive”.

What I have maintained is that those demanding clarity of the Pope’s comments have enough clarity from what he said to look inward and see if it applies to them. To a degree, that sounds very much like they are uncomfortable that some personal position(s) might be subject to his comments - which is another way of saying, it sounds like they have something they are being obstinate about, and don’t want to come to terms about it.

That may or may not be the case; but why should anyone presume that, if they have an area they are obstinate about, that is not what he is speaking to?

It gives the impression that if he were to say "I am addressing this to (x and y) then if they are obstinate over (z), they get a free pass, but would he just say so.

Christ spoke about hardness of heart. He did not give a list of issues over which one might suffer from that. Why would He need to? And being obstinate over matters which the Church teaches (because of opposition to them) is … here it comes… get ready… hardness of heart.

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

So, there are those on this board who suffer from hardness of heart, who are obstinate but don’t wish to admit it, who seek clarity for what they see as opacity – and then, there are the those who, thank the Lord, are not hard of heart, not obstinate, and who can see the pure brilliance of the pope’s ever-lucid commentary.

Lord have mercy on us! The nerve!

“God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get”

Yeah. It gets down to that.

 

[otjm]

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?

Nevertheless, and as usual, because of the ambiguity in the OP, it opens the door for Progressives to call me, and others who have every right to respect tradition, as being obstinate in the sense the Pope did condemn. If there is anything clear in this thread, it’s the latter.

Accordingly, why does the Pope employ a style of ambiguity that is worth increasing the existing disunity in the Church?

There is just as much obstinacy on the part of progressives as there is on the side of traditionalists. That however, does not say that someone in either position is obstinate. From the sound of your comment, you do not seem to understand that his comments apply equally to both sides.

And the Pope is not going to detail, issue by issue, preference by preference, what you want him to say. He is not going to say that those who are attached to traditions are wrong; but he is saying that those who have an obstinate attitude toward changes in liturgy and sacraments since Vatican 2 are wrong (and that sweeps both sides).

However, he is also saying that those who favor the changes since Vatican 2 and are obstinate about those who don’t favor them are just as wrong. Why do you think that he needs to single out those who prefer the older form? No one group has lock on hardness of heart, and giving you some sort of detailed list then, by appearance, gives a pass to those on the other end of the spectrum.

Christ spoke repeatedly about hardness of heart. It wasn’t exactly something new in 30 AD, and it isn’t exactly overcome yet. We all can suffer from it. And the Pope, as pastor of the Church has a duty to call all of us - Traditionalists and Progressives - to look inward and see if we have put form over substance; if we are fighting battles the Church is not fighting; if we are refusing to accept the leadership of the Church. You speak of disunity; his comments are targeted right at that disunity, not to create more, but to heal what exists.

If you have felt disparaged by Progressives, I can understand your sensitivity. But he is calling on each and every one of us to a personal examination of our attitudes; and attitudes are not the sole province of either the Traditionalists or the Progressives.

Lent is coming. It is a time to make a thorough examination of conscience, and that includes not just the 10 Commandments, but to also examine our attitudes. He has not asked anything other than that. You appear to be taking this as some sort of subtle message that your preferences are wrong. It is not. The message is not about preferences; it is about judgmentalism of others’ preferences.

And I will say it again - I think you are intelligent enough to look inward and determine if you have had a judgmental attitude toward others. And if you have suffered slings and arrows from others for your choices, they too need to look inward. The sword cuts both ways.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
I’m still hung up on paragraph 54 of the Pope’s first written work, EVANGELII GAUDIUM, November 2013.

Why do you think the Vatican is incompetent in its translations?

I hesitate to reopen old political wounds here, TMC. But if you want to research it, there are a couple of CAF threads on VPO’s English translation of paragraph 54, focusing on (1) the Pope’s understanding of American style Capitalism v. Argentinian Crony Capitalism, as well as (2) the Pope’s use of the U.S. Socialist/Democrat pejorative “trickle-down theories”. That phrase is used against the American style Capitalist theory that a booming Capitalist economy =jobs and greatly increased tax revenues= real benefits for the poor and middle class; or as sometimes stated by Republicans, “A rising tide lifts all boats”. American Socialists on the other hand, conveniently forgetting that JFK and Reagan not only believed in that theory but proved it, mockingly say benefits never trickle down from business to the middle and poor classes, so there must be an “equitable” distribution of wealth by means of greatly increased taxation and control of business…

These two links might help:

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

nationalreview.com/article/365720/agreeing-pope-francis-michael-novak

 

[TMC]

Originally Posted by KSU
I’m still hung up on paragraph 54 of the Pope’s first written work, EVANGELII GAUDIUM, November 2013.

I hesitate to reopen old political wounds here, TMC. But if you want to research it, there are a couple of CAF threads on VPO’s English translation of paragraph 54, focusing on (1) the Pope’s understanding of American style Capitalism v. Argentinian Crony Capitalism, as well as (2) the Pope’s use of the U.S. Socialist/Democrat pejorative “trickle-down theories”. That phrase is used against the American style Capitalist theory that a booming Capitalist economy =jobs and greatly increased tax revenues= real benefits for the poor and middle class; or as sometimes stated by Republicans, “A rising tide lifts all boats”. American Socialists on the other hand, conveniently forgetting that JFK and Reagan not only believed in that theory but proved it, mockingly say benefits never trickle down from business to the middle and poor classes, so there must be an “equitable” distribution of wealth by means of greatly increased taxation and control of business…

These two links might help:

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

nationalreview.com/article/365720/agreeing-pope-francis-michael-novak

OK, got it. Personally, I think the Vatican knew what it was doing when it used that particular phrase, but I now recall the dispute over the issue.

 

[ProVobis]

Why do you think the Vatican is incompetent in its translations?

Depends on what you mean by incompetence. Translations aren’t infallible.

I imagine there a still a lot of people not realizing that “to worship” (as in Mary) is still on its English website.

And who can forget it took a journalist outside the Vatican who was skilled in Latin to first realize Pope Benedict had just resigned.

But then maybe the Vatican doesn’t do any translations at all.

 

[KSU]

Depends on what you mean by incompetence. Translations aren’t infallible. **Right, so I used “incompetence” to avoid saying what I really suspect about a certain translator in the VPO, about whom there is only circumstantial evidence of ideological bias. His shenanigans also were in play at the last Synod of Bishops. **

I imagine there a still a lot of people not realizing that “to worship” (as in Mary) is still on its English website.

And who can forget it took a journalist outside the Vatican who was skilled in Latin to first realize Pope Benedict had just resigned.

But then maybe the Vatican doesn’t do any translations at all. I’ll do the jokes around here, if you please

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

With something over 240 posts, I can’t recall what everyone has said; but I don’t recall anyone saying clarity is “unnecessary” or “offensive”.

What I have maintained is that those demanding clarity of the Pope’s comments have enough clarity from what he said to look inward and see if it applies to them. To a degree, that sounds very much like they are uncomfortable that some personal position(s) might be subject to his comments - which is another way of saying, it sounds like they have something they are being obstinate about, and don’t want to come to terms about it.

That may or may not be the case; but why should anyone presume that, if they have an area they are obstinate about, that is not what he is speaking to?

It gives the impression that if he were to say "I am addressing this to (x and y) then if they are obstinate over (z), they get a free pass, but would he just say so.

Christ spoke about hardness of heart. He did not give a list of issues over which one might suffer from that. Why would He need to? And being obstinate over matters which the Church teaches (because of opposition to them) is … here it comes… get ready… hardness of heart.

Perhaps, and yet, when we have posted our personal reflection on what it means to us, many who come from a more progressive bent chime in with “that’s not what he meant and you know it.”

Doesn’t bother me, because I ponder the words and am comfortable with what I take. But to say we must internalize the message, then be told we did so wrongly, is a bit silly and arrogant.

 

[otjm]

Originally Posted by KSU
I’m still hung up on paragraph 54 of the Pope’s first written work, EVANGELII GAUDIUM, November 2013.

I hesitate to reopen old political wounds here, TMC. But if you want to research it, there are a couple of CAF threads on VPO’s English translation of paragraph 54, focusing on (1) the Pope’s understanding of American style Capitalism v. Argentinian Crony Capitalism, as well as (2) the Pope’s use of the U.S. Socialist/Democrat pejorative “trickle-down theories”. That phrase is used against the American style Capitalist theory that a booming Capitalist economy =jobs and greatly increased tax revenues= real benefits for the poor and middle class; or as sometimes stated by Republicans, “A rising tide lifts all boats”. American Socialists on the other hand, conveniently forgetting that JFK and Reagan not only believed in that theory but proved it, mockingly say benefits never trickle down from business to the middle and poor classes, so there must be an “equitable” distribution of wealth by means of greatly increased taxation and control of business…

These two links might help:

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

nationalreview.com/article/365720/agreeing-pope-francis-michael-novak

“In the end, a theory is accepted not because it is confirmed by conventional empirical tests, but because researchers persuade one another that the theory is correct and relevant.” Fischer Black

…many of the factors discovered in the field of finance are likely false discoveries…Echoing a recent disturbing conclusion in the medical literature, we argue that most claimed research findings in financial economics are false." Harvey, Lieu and Zhu (2014)

“We can advance by developing radically new theories to help us understand what we now see in the data. Or we can go back, denying what is now readily apparent to most, bending the data through ever more convoluted processes until it screams its compliance with our preconceptions.” Robert Haugen (2010)

“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn to avoid being deceived by economists.” Joan Robinson

“As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists as a group mistook beauty, clad in impressive looking mathematics, for truth.” Paul Krugman

"Mathematics has given economics rigor, but alas, also mortis.: Robert Heilbroner

“Economics is usually some kind of story that we tell that we think approximates reality, but we can get carried away with our stories.” Robert Shiller

Okay, so now we are completely off topic;however, the issue of paragraph 54 could make for an interesting thread.

 

[TMC]

Depends on what you mean by incompetence. Translations aren’t infallible. **Right, so I used “incompetence” to avoid saying what I really suspect about a certain translator in the VPO, about whom there is only circumstantial evidence of ideological bias. His shenanigans also were in play at the last Synod of Bishops.
**
I imagine there a still a lot of people not realizing that “to worship” (as in Mary) is still on its English website.

And who can forget it took a journalist outside the Vatican who was skilled in Latin to first realize Pope Benedict had just resigned.

But then maybe the Vatican doesn’t do any translations at all. I’ll do the jokes around here, if you please

I’m not buying this particular conspiracy theory. You think that some individual in the Vatican is changing the meaning of Vatican documents and no one else is noticing (except some astute forum members in America)? I don’t think so. I think the Pope meant what he wrote, and that the translation reflects his intentions.

 

[LongingSoul]

Perhaps, and yet, when we have posted our personal reflection on what it means to us, many who come from a more progressive bent chime in with “that’s not what he meant and you know it.”

Doesn’t bother me, because I ponder the words and am comfortable with what I take. But to say we must internalize the message, then be told we did so wrongly, is a bit silly and arrogant.

The Popes words need to be contemplated in light of the scripture passages that he referenced rather than trying to do some sort of psychological analysis though. Those references were to not putting new wine into old wine skins. That is easily understood as a new message not being stuffed into old practices. Then there is the 1 Samuel story of Saul and the Amalkites where God, through Samuel anointed Saul king and asked him to go and destroy the Amalkites and everything they own.

Saul went but he sent one group whom he liked, off so as not to be killed and then he spared the Amalkite kings life and kept all the best cattle and sheep to bring home ‘for sacrificing’. Then God told Samuel to strip Saul of his title because he didn’t obey Gods command. He decided to do some of it… but he kept hold of things ‘that he liked’.

It is fairly clear that using old wine skins for new teachings is unwise sentimentality and when Gods messenger is telling us to ‘destroy something’… then we can’t just keep stuff coz ‘we like it’.

 

[sallybutler]

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.

I hope you are not saying that my mother was a bad mother for teaching me the Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, etc. In English instead of Latin (which she did know, along with French and Spanish). I learned these prayers in English from my mother, just as others learned in many languages other than Latin. If I were to say them in Latin, I would be reciting them as opposed to saying them. Perhaps that is what you missed in my previous post and what the Pope wants us to do. Pray our prayers, not recite them, live our faith, not follow the law.