Pope Francis: Obstinate Christians are Rebels and Idolaters

[TCEL]

I don’t know how that is relevant to this conversation, but I would agree that all Christian sects have evolved over time, yes.

I was trying to figure out a bit more where you are coming from since you have no religion listed. It was for context.

 

[JimG]

During this year of mercy let’s have mercy on obstinate Christians.

 

[KSU]

During this year of mercy let’s have mercy on obstinate Christians.

Now that’s funny!

 

[minion]

the world burns and it’s the usual unspecific vaguearies from Rome. better off paying no attention listening to Catholic news and just praying the Rosary.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I am familiar with all the standard semantic dodges. The unavoidable fact is that the Church has changed its teaching on some topics over the centuries, and will continue to do so in the future.

An example? One will do.

 

[otjm]

He screams the loudest whose shoe pinches the hardest.

Anyone who has raised a teenager knows what the word “obstinate” means. And there is a vast difference between not liking something and being obstinate about it.

It really doesn’t matter if we each individually know of whom, or what group(s) he was speaking. What matters is whether or not we, individually, are being obstinate.

As to the EF, it was granted to those “who have a particular attachment to it”, to echo Pope Benedict. There are many who are attached to the EF, and some simply prefer it to the OF. And then there are those who disdain the OF, attack it directly or indirectly, and are and have been the source of a tremendous amount of grief both to their local bishop and to Rome. That does not mean that his comments were directed to them, but if the shoe fits…

It also could be directed to members of the clergy, and specifically some bishops and cardinals. We do not see all of the workings of the various dicasteries and those involved with them, but if one has been paying attention for the last 12 months, there have been remarks made in public which would indicate that not all are happy campers. And if remarks have been made by some in public, you can bet your last dollar that a lot more have been made back channel, either designed to get to his attention, or have come to his attention unintended. It was clear as he started his papacy that one of the things those choosing him as pope wanted was a reorganization of the Curia, and he has been at work at that since then.

So it could be well intended for the Curia, or parts of it, and perhaps to those in the higher echelons of the Church who have been removed from dicasteries.

I raised teenagers. I did not ask them or expect them to like the choices I made concerning them. In fact, I pretty well knew they were not going to like some of the choices I made.

What I did expect was that they would do what I required. And if that is not clear enough of an example, one of the choices I made was that they were to attend a level of classes in high school which was going to challenge them from start to finish. They were seriously unhappy; but they studied hard, and graduated from high school with honors. Did they like it? They were seriously unhappy from time to time.

But they were not obstinate.

And the Pope is not asking for more.

 

[TMC]

I was trying to figure out a bit more where you are coming from since you have no religion listed. It was for context.

OK. I removed my religion from my profile because I got tired of people calling me a heretic and telling me I am not really a Catholic (based on some of my admittedly heterodox beliefs). Not listing a religion avoids some of that silliness.

 

[TMC]

An example? One will do.

Seriously, do you want to transform this thread into that old argument? OK, here is one: Usury. Now begin the avalanche of “explanations” of how the change in teaching on usury is really no change at all.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Seriously, do you want to transform this thread into that old argument? OK, here is one: Usury. Now begin the avalanche of “explanations” of how the change in teaching on usury is really no change at all.

‘avalanche of "explanations’’? I don’t think so. But I didn’t raise the subject of the Church changing her immutable teachings, remember. I just took it up, which is kosher on a Catholic forum.

 

[TMC]

‘avalanche of "explanations’’? I don’t think so. But I didn’t raise the subject of the Church changing her immutable teachings, remember. I just took it up, which is kosher on a Catholic forum.

Seems to me you have been around here long enough to know how this goes. Someone claims that the Church’s teachings have been identical and immutable for 2000 years. It is pointed out that is clearly erroneous and examples are given. A barrage of arguments are trotted out to “prove” that no changes can or ever have been made. If it was not your intent to start that old CAF tradition, I apologize.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Seems to me you have been around here long enough to know how this goes. Someone claims that the Church’s teachings have been identical and immutable for 2000 years. It is pointed out that is clearly erroneous and examples are given. A barrage of arguments are trotted out to “prove” that no changes can or ever have been made. If it was not your intent to start that old CAF tradition, I apologize.

I don’t mind a discussion when both parties are prepared to give time for each other’s viewpoints and the reasoning behind them. The problem with characterizing the Catholic position as ‘clearly erroneous’ and ‘a barrage of arguments’ is that it automatically precludes discussion. So all I can do is disagree with you and leave it at that.

 

[JimG]

. . . .

I raised teenagers. I did not ask them or expect them to like the choices I made concerning them. In fact, I pretty well knew they were not going to like some of the choices I made.

What I did expect was that they would do what I required.

Just commenting on this part. Your teenagers may not have agreed with the decisions you made, but they did what you asked. And that’s a good thing. But I suspect that one thing they did not have to do was have endless discussions with each other trying to figure out just what it was that you meant.

 

[TMC]

I don’t mind a discussion when both parties are prepared to give time for each other’s viewpoints and the reasoning behind them. The problem with characterizing the Catholic position as ‘clearly erroneous’ and ‘a barrage of arguments’ is that it automatically precludes discussion. So all I can do is disagree with you and leave it at that.

Your response presupposes that the belief that the Church has never changed any teaching is the “Catholic position.” It is not. The Church knows what has and has not been changed (and some teachings have changed). Beyond that, I am happy to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I received my Catholic education from very serious, very religious Sisters and Priests long before the felt banner brigades took over. I’ll stick to what I was taught rather than the constantly changing opinion/instruction I witness today. When and if the Church officially declares the pre-Vatican II teachings and the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy null and void and a sin to even consider I will decide which “version” of Catholicism I will follow, until then I don’t appreciate implications I am obstinately sinful regardless of who makes the implication.

I believe that this is what the Pope was referring to. People who believe that they know better the will of God, than the Magisterium that he left here on Earth and has protected by the power of the Holy Spirit for millennia.

If understanding never changes, if times never change, if teachings once taught never have to be refined and /or interpreted again, then why did God in His Wisdom leave a teaching body here on Earth. Why isn’t what Jesus said in his life enough? Why do we need the Sacred Tradition? Why do we need the Magisterium? We need them because things are not static! The Holy Spirit is leading us somewhere!

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Who was the Pope talking about? What change is he preparing us for? Am I going to like what is coming?

The answer to all of those questions is, I don’t know. BUT, I believe. I believe that the Church is founded on the rock of Peter and that the Pope is his successor. I believe that when the Church speaks ex cathedra, that it is protected from error by the power of the Holy Spirit. So until the Church speaks ex cathedra on something, I will reflect on this homily and many other statements and try to discern how they apply to me and my life and faith. Then, once the Church does speak ex cathedra on something I will accept it and follow it, regardless of my feelings and opinions.

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

I believe that this is what the Pope was referring to. People who believe that they know better the will of God, than the Magisterium that he left here on Earth and has protected by the power of the Holy Spirit for millennia.

If understanding never changes, if times never change, if teachings once taught never have to be refined and /or interpreted again, then why did God in His Wisdom leave a teaching body here on Earth. Why isn’t what Jesus said in his life enough? Why do we need the Sacred Tradition? Why do we need the Magisterium? We need them because things are not static! The Holy Spirit is leading us somewhere!

Two things…

First (and this is very troubling to me) why are the words of the pope so seemingly divisive? If we (who essentially are faithful Catholics) can’t understand who or what exactly he is referring to; if his words are so open to interpretation that we find ourselves upbraiding each other’s commitment to the faith on these forum boards, then the problem lies with the pope. He has stumbled in his responsibility to communicate in a manner that is understandable. And as a result, we are divided. That should not be so. The Shepherd needs to lead the flock, not confuse them.

Secondly, (in reference to CatholicGeek’s statement quoted above) it’s not that understanding never changes, nor that history is static, it’s that God’s law is eternal. The Law does not change. Truth does not change. Grave sin is still grave sin and it cannot be re-interpreted away. Interpreting the law is, of course, a necessary action when we face unanticipated change, but that doesn’t mean that the law itself changes. If that were the case, then everything we believe would be relative. That simply cannot be God’s intention for his people – that they cannot place their trust on the verities of His Word and the instructions of His Church. The Lord is my Rock and my salvation.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Two things…

First (and this is very troubling to me) why are the words of the pope so seemingly divisive? If we (who essentially are faithful Catholics) can’t understand who or what exactly he is referring to; if his words are so open to interpretation that we find ourselves upbraiding each other’s commitment to the faith on these forum boards, then the problem lies with the pope. He has stumbled in his responsibility to communicate in a manner that is understandable. And as a result, we are divided. That should not be so. The Shepherd needs to lead the flock, not confuse them.

Secondly, (in reference to CatholicGeek’s statement quoted above) it’s not that understanding never changes, nor that history is static, it’s that God’s law is eternal. The Law does not change. Truth does not change. Grave sin is still grave sin and it cannot be re-interpreted away. Interpreting the law is, of course, a necessary action when we face unanticipated change, but that doesn’t mean that the law itself changes. If that were the case, then everything we believe would be relative. That simply cannot be God’s intention for his people – that they cannot place their trust on the verities of His Word and the instructions of His Church. The Lord is my Rock and my salvation.

1. I don’t think that the Pope’s words were confusing at all. I think that people are reading things into his words that are not there, and they are causing confusion. The pope is saying that being obstinate against things the Church says/does, because they are different is sinful. I don’t find that confusing.
2. Of course, God’s eternal law doesn’t change. But how does that law apply today? What is its meaning? How do we 2 millennia later apply it to our lives? That is the job of the Church to teach, and as the world and society changes the application and interpretation of the law is different now.

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

CatholicGeek,

I’m sorry, but the pope’s words ARE confusing. Saying that they are not does not bring clarity to the discussion at all. And saying that “people are reading things into his words that are not there” is dismissive to those who, in good faith, are trying to understand his meaning. And furthermore, it’s a judgement on their intentions. In other words, those who have problems understanding the pope’s words are guilty of intentionally obfuscating his meaning in order to serve some kind of (I guess) anti-pope agenda; they are purposefully “reading things” that “are not there.” Are the sheep guilty of not understanding the shepherd?

The second point made is relativism, pure and simple. It is a denial of the possibility of determining the truth in matters of philosophy,religion and morals. Truth and meaning are not the constructs of the moment be they personal, social or historical. The truth is eternal, revealed and understandable. The revelation that is Christ and His Church discloses God’s purposes for the eternal well-being of humankind. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13:8).The pope’s point, in this particular instance, is unclear, and as such, it is debatable.

 

[LongingSoul]

Two things…

First (and this is very troubling to me) why are the words of the pope so seemingly divisive? If we (who essentially are faithful Catholics) can’t understand who or what exactly he is referring to; if his words are so open to interpretation that we find ourselves upbraiding each other’s commitment to the faith on these forum boards, then the problem lies with the pope. He has stumbled in his responsibility to communicate in a manner that is understandable. And as a result, we are divided. That should not be so. The Shepherd needs to lead the flock, not confuse them.

That was all said of Jesus who came and taught a New Commandment to the faithful. Unfortunately some of the faithful of the Jews simply didn’t like what He was saying. They tried to trip Him up and catch Him out and eventually they had Him killed simply for speaking about God and His will in a way they didn’t like.

Secondly, (in reference to CatholicGeek’s statement quoted above) it’s not that understanding never changes, nor that history is static, it’s that God’s law is eternal. The Law does not change. Truth does not change. Grave sin is still grave sin and it cannot be re-interpreted away. Interpreting the law is, of course, a necessary action when we face unanticipated change, but that doesn’t mean that the law itself changes. If that were the case, then everything we believe would be relative. That simply cannot be God’s intention for his people – that they cannot place their trust on the verities of His Word and the instructions of His Church. The Lord is my Rock and my salvation.

But it has. Prior to our developed understanding of mental illness and addiction, alcoholics were deemed grave sinners and denied a Catholic funeral and burial. Now in fact their sin of chronic drunkenness is understood as being mitigated by addiction and they are embraced by the Church with pastoral generosity. It was the same with the sin of suicide. Denied Catholic rites. Mental illness can now clearly account for the state that a person is in to commit such and act.

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

That was all said of Jesus who came and taught a New Commandment to the faithful. Unfortunately some of the faithful of the Jews simply didn’t like what He was saying. They tried to trip Him up and catch Him out and eventually they had Him killed simply for speaking about God and His will in a way they didn’t like.

But it has. Prior to our developed understanding of mental illness and addiction, alcoholics were deemed grave sinners and denied a Catholic funeral and burial. Now in fact their sin of chronic drunkenness is understood as being mitigated by addiction and they are embraced by the Church with pastoral generosity. It was the same with the sin of suicide. Denied Catholic rites. Mental illness can now clearly account for the state that a person is in to commit such and act.

So, people who have a hard time understanding the pope’s message are trying to trip up Christ, imprison him and crucify him? Is that what you truly think?

And, as to the Church in the past condemning those with mental illnesses, are you suggesting that these churchmen were aware of the sinfulness of what they were doing yet did it anyway? That they purposefully denied them sacraments – not out of their ignorance – but out of their malice aforethought? Is THAT what you’re saying?