Pope Francis: Obstinate Christians are Rebels and Idolaters

[LongingSoul]

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?

I think this is an example of what’s going on. You purport to not understand what I said even though it was said very clearly. Jesus words confused some people but it is the confusion of a closed heart. People often say they don’t understand when they mean they don’t like. It’s psychology 101.

And I mentioned how the Church responds differently to the sin of alcoholism and suicide as opposed to “Prior to our developed understanding”. Anyone can clearly see that I mentioned a growth in understanding as accounting for the change. You have chosen to add your own bits such as “you said that the Church was malicious in the past!!” That’s called strawman. Philosophy 101.

You demonstrate a very important aspect of what some are calling ‘confusion’.

 

[KSU]

Posted by baliano: 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!

Nothing baliano said is what the Pope was referring to. The above-quoted words are totally orthodox and would be defended by Francis and the Magisterium as a whole.

You ask , “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”? One reason you seem to be overlooking is to defend unchanging truth against attacks. What baliano said is an example of unchanging truth.

Of course times change (e.g., new methods of birth control) and thus require expanded teaching to both address such change and, at the same time, defend existing teaching. No matter what some on this Forum obstinately say, teaching does not change.

 

[otjm]

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.

No, you are absolutely right about that - they didn’t.

On the other hand, I am not the Pope…

It does not bother me if he, during a homily, or in a public comment, makes a strong comment but does not say who he may be addressing it to. In fact, I respect him for not naming names in public. I strongly suspect that he is addressing it to specific groups, and unless they are dense (and there is that issue in some circumstances… ), they most likely know it is being addressed to them. I would be seriously surprised if it had not been said in private to them.

In any event, I go by the “if the shoe fits” response. If there is something in my faith life which I am being obstinate about, then I need to hear what is being said and address it, whether or not the message was being made to one or more specific groups.

And I agree that there is at times a lot of chatter concerning who is being addressed. If more people followed the “if the shoe fits” and decided to do some interior searching, we would have less chatter and perhaps more progress in faith.

Alas, the same can be said for the issue of sin. Christ was fairly clear on such matters, but 2,000 years later it might seem to some that we have not made much progress. Or perhaps have even regressed.

 

[pleasehelp]

As someone said earlier, “relax folks, it is the Pope”.

Didn’t Jesus say to Peter, "thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against her?"

And hasn’t He kept His Promise?

Pope Francis has not changed any doctrine so far.

And he cannot and will not. He will not be allowed to, by the Holy Spirit. Don’t we have that guarantee from Jesus? So what are we afraid of?

Even some sinful Popes have not changed doctrine since Peter !!

And the Pope has a further mandate, “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And teachings like celibacy for priests, etc. have changed and have been “bound in heaven.” (though some don’t like it and could be “obstinate”)

Hasn’t Our Lord guided His Church these last 2015 years? And won’t He continue to do so?

Long live Pope Francis. Praise and thanks to You Lord Jesus for giving him to us; and Your Holy Spirit for guiding him. May he be blessed upon the earth and deliver him not to the will of his enemies.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

As someone said earlier, “relax folks, it is the Pope”.

Didn’t Jesus say to Peter, "thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against her?"

And hasn’t He kept His Promise?

Pope Francis has not changed any doctrine so far.

And he cannot and will not. He will not be allowed to, by the Holy Spirit. Don’t we have that guarantee from Jesus? So what are we afraid of?

Even some sinful Popes have not changed doctrine since Peter !!

And the Pope has a further mandate, “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And teachings like celibacy for priests, etc. have changed and have been “bound in heaven.” (though some don’t like it and could be “obstinate”)

Hasn’t Our Lord guided His Church these last 2015 years? And won’t He continue to do so?

Long live Pope Francis. Praise and thanks to You Lord Jesus for giving him to us; and Your Holy Spirit for guiding him. May he be blessed upon the earth and deliver him not to the will of his enemies.

I like this outlook. Very much. God bless.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

As someone said earlier, “relax folks, it is the Pope”.

Didn’t Jesus say to Peter, "thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against her?"

And hasn’t He kept His Promise?

Pope Francis has not changed any doctrine so far.

And he cannot and will not. He will not be allowed to, by the Holy Spirit. Don’t we have that guarantee from Jesus? So what are we afraid of?

Even some sinful Popes have not changed doctrine since Peter !!

And the Pope has a further mandate, “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And teachings like celibacy for priests, etc. have changed and have been “bound in heaven.” (though some don’t like it and could be “obstinate”)

Hasn’t Our Lord guided His Church these last 2015 years? And won’t He continue to do so?

Long live Pope Francis. Praise and thanks to You Lord Jesus for giving him to us; and Your Holy Spirit for guiding him. May he be blessed upon the earth and deliver him not to the will of his enemies.

This is the point that I am trying to make. Thank you!

I think that there are a great number of people that are uncomfortable with any change. But things that are not doctrine or dogma can and sometimes should change even if it makes people uncomfortable and I believe that is part of the reason that the Pope has been given the power to bind and loose. If nothing ever needed to change, there would have been no need for that power to be given to the Church.

God Bless and long live Pope Francis!

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Posted by baliano: 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.

This is the part that I have a problem with (what is in bold) the assertion that the sisters and priests that did the teaching know more about these matters than the Pope. While there are many great clergy and religious teaching the faithful and many of them are unbelievably wise, they are not the Pope, the Pope is the leader of the Church and Christ’s Vicar on Earth and to hold any clergy or religious person’s opinion above that of the Pope is troubling to me.

 

[JimG]

This is the point that I am trying to make. Thank you!

I think that there are a great number of people that are uncomfortable with any change. But things that are not doctrine or dogma can and sometimes should change even if it makes people uncomfortable and I believe that is part of the reason that the Pope has been given the power to bind and loose. If nothing ever needed to change, there would have been no need for that power to be given to the Church.

God Bless and long live Pope Francis!

That’s all true, but I think that many ordinary Catholics are often genuinely puzzled by such statements. What does the pope mean by obstinate Christians? People who like the EF? People who don’t think the teachings on marriage and divorce should change? People who don’t like altar girls? People who don’t think doctrine should change? People who don’t like communion under both species? It could mean anything, and they are left wondering.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

That’s all true, but I think that many ordinary Catholics are often genuinely puzzled by such statements. What does the pope mean by obstinate Christians? People who like the EF? People who don’t think the teachings on marriage and divorce should change? People who don’t like altar girls? People who don’t think doctrine should change? People who don’t like communion under both species? It could mean anything, and they are left wondering.

Maybe they should examine their conscience and see if they are being obstinate about something and let that be a guide as to whether the Pope was speaking to them or not?

 

[KSU]

Posted by baliano: 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.

This is the part that I have a problem with (what is in bold) the assertion that the sisters and priests that did the teaching know more about these matters than the Pope. While there are many great clergy and religious teaching the faithful and many of them are unbelievably wise, they are not the Pope, the Pope is the leader of the Church and Christ’s Vicar on Earth and to hold any clergy or religious person’s opinion above that of the Pope is troubling to me.

My friend, what baliano says is correct, which is why I defended his post. He is talking about sticking with the doctrine he was taught versus the " the constantly changing opinion" we see today.

It is a shame to see the cacophony of conflicting opinion, instruction and practice surrounding the new Mass, depending on the particular diocese or even the particular parish in the same diocese. E.G., due to different policy, abortionists and practicing homosexuals can openly receive the Eucharist in some dioceses but (thank God) not in others. That is what troubles baliano and me.

Please don’t turn that into some sort of attack on the Pope’s authority.

 

[JimG]

Maybe they should examine their conscience and see if they are being obstinate about something and let that be a guide as to whether the Pope was speaking to them or not?

Yes, they could do that, and maybe improve their own outlook, only to discover later that the pope had some other thing in mind entirely.

I remember once when I was a supervisor at an office, having a meeting and trying to improve the tenor of the workplace ethic by speaking in generalities. The end result was that everyone was confused and angry, while the specific behaviors that I was thinking to improve just continued. I never did that again.

No point in trying to make everyone feel guilty if you only have certain ones in mind.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Maybe they should examine their conscience and see if they are being obstinate about something and let that be a guide as to whether the Pope was speaking to them or not?

Of course, they should. Just as people who took issue with the way Pope Benedict presented himself to faithful Catholics and his dissenters should have.

All Popes should attempt to speak to and reach all people. It is difficult. I do find the target of much of what Pope Francis talks about to be orthodox, doctine-loving Catholics. It seems to be a recurring theme.

Many have said (on here in fact) that they left the Church or were pushed away by Benedict’s tone or message. That is where they erred. I don’t see many folks, if any, saying they are leaving the faith because of Pope Francis’s words. I do see folks saying he wished they spoke more to both sides of the coin equally; namely, those who wish for a more rigid understanding of our faith, and those who wish for a more looose, open understanding. It is tough to reach everyone, but at times, I think it appears the Pope’s message appears to be aimed only in one direction, which it should never be, IMO.

 

[JimG]

Maybe he is hinting that those cardinals who wish to have communion for the divorced and civilly remarried should not be so obstinate about the matter. Hmmm…

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

This is the point that I am trying to make. Thank you!

I think that there are a great number of people that are uncomfortable with any change. But things that are not doctrine or dogma can and sometimes should change even if it makes people uncomfortable and I believe that is part of the reason that the Pope has been given the power to bind and loose. If nothing ever needed to change, there would have been no need for that power to be given to the Church.

God Bless and long live Pope Francis!

I think there may be some confusion here about the Pope’s power to bind and loose. This power (or authority) is generally referred to as the “Power of the Keys” and that phrase is taken from Matthew16:19 when Jesus conferred on Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter was the first pope. The Power of the Keys, then, refers to the supreme authority and jurisdiction vested by Christ in the Apostles and their successors, the popes. And that power extends to the present day. Doctrine and dogma are the subject of the Power of the Keys – the power to bind and loosen. Comments made by the pope to general audiences, to the press, and even in his homilies are not – and do not – belong to the Power of the Keys. Hence, the pope’s recent statements (and the subject of this discussion) do not have binding or loosening power upon us nor are we sinful in having a disagreement with something he says that is not binding.

To conflate the power to bind and loose with the need for some kind of “change” in contemporary society is unwarranted and, quite frankly, lacking in a basic understanding of Church teaching. It does a disservice to those who want to know the Church’s true teachings to suggest otherwise.

And, just to be clear, it might be good to define “doctrine” and “dogma” so that proper distinctions can be made (and here I will do a paraphrase of the OSV Catholic Encyclopedia, Rev. Peter Stravinskas, Editor)…

Doctrine is the teachings of the Church given to us by Christ through the Apostles for the sake of our salvation, and specifically to those formulations and creeds confirmed by conciliar and papal authority. These would include (for instance) Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. These definitions are defined and thus unoptional, and the faithful must assent to them if they wish to be in conformity to Church teaching.

Dogma: a teaching of the Church revealed implicitly or explicitly by Sacred Scripture and Tradition to be believed by the faithful by definition of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium. For a teaching to be “dogma,” the specific truth must have been formally revealed and taught, as such, by the Church. Because dogma is binding on the faithful, acceptance of it is necessary for salvation.

The pope’s recent statements do not rise to that level of acceptance. We must hear what he has to say, respect his authority, and make up our own mind as to the reach of his opinion in our lives.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I think there may be some confusion here about the Pope’s power to bind and loose. This power (or authority) is generally referred to as the “Power of the Keys” and that phrase is taken from Matthew16:19 when Jesus conferred on Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter was the first pope. The Power of the Keys, then, refers to the supreme authority and jurisdiction vested by Christ in the Apostles and their successors, the popes. And that power extends to the present day. Doctrine and dogma are the subject of the Power of the Keys – the power to bind and loosen. Comments made by the pope to general audiences, to the press, and even in his homilies are not – and do not – belong to the Power of the Keys. Hence, the pope’s recent statements (and the subject of this discussion) do not have binding or loosening power upon us nor are we sinful in having a disagreement with something he says that is not binding.

To conflate the power to bind and loose with the need for some kind of “change” in contemporary society is unwarranted and, quite frankly, lacking in a basic understanding of Church teaching. It does a disservice to those who want to know the Church’s true teachings to suggest otherwise.

And, just to be clear, it might be good to define “doctrine” and “dogma” so that proper distinctions can be made (and here I will do a paraphrase of the OSV Catholic Encyclopedia, Rev. Peter Stravinskas, Editor)…

Doctrine is the teachings of the Church given to us by Christ through the Apostles for the sake of our salvation, and specifically to those formulations and creeds confirmed by conciliar and papal authority. These would include (for instance) Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. These definitions are defined and thus unoptional, and the faithful must assent to them if they wish to be in conformity to Church teaching.

Dogma: a teaching of the Church revealed implicitly or explicitly by Sacred Scripture and Tradition to be believed by the faithful by definition of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium. For a teaching to be “dogma,” the specific truth must have been formally revealed and taught, as such, by the Church. Because dogma is binding on the faithful, acceptance of it is necessary for salvation.

The pope’s recent statements do not rise to that level of acceptance. We must hear what he has to say, respect his authority, and make up our own mind as to the reach of his opinion in our lives.

I think you are misunderstanding that point that I was trying to make and what I was directing my response at. Please allow me to clarify.

There seems to be some who think that nothing that they like about the Church should change. In cases of things that are doctrine or dogma, I absolutely agree. Those should not and in fact can not change. However, much of what we do, believe, etc., is not doctrine or dogma. Those things can change, and in some cases should change. My point with talking about binding and loosing was not to say that everything the Pope says should be binding, but to say that there would be no point for this power if nothing ever changed.

So I am not saying that everything the Pope says has to be believed, I am saying that those who fear he is going to change things in a way that they don’t like, should accept the changes if he makes them, because of the power entrusted to him by God.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I think you are misunderstanding that point that I was trying to make and what I was directing my response at. Please allow me to clarify.

There seems to be some who think that nothing that they like about the Church should change. In cases of things that are doctrine or dogma, I absolutely agree. Those should not and in fact can not change. However, much of what we do, believe, etc., is not doctrine or dogma. Those things can change, and in some cases should change. My point with talking about binding and loosing was not to say that everything the Pope says should be binding, but to say that there would be no point for this power if nothing ever changed.

So I am not saying that everything the Pope says has to be believed, I am saying that those who fear he is going to change things in a way that they don’t like, should accept the changes if he makes them, because of the power entrusted to him by God.

While I agree, one could make the same argument in reverse for those pushing for change. The whole notion of communion for divorced and remarried could be avoided entirely if we rested on the fact that whatever the Pope does or chooses not to do, we are not in error in faith and morals, and as such, a change or lack of change should not worry us.

Thus, we could avoid a whole host of discussions…

 

[CatholicGeek1]

While I agree, one could make the same argument in reverse for those pushing for change. The whole notion of communion for divorced and remarried could be avoided entirely if we rested on the fact that whatever the Pope does or chooses not to do, we are not in error in faith and morals, and as such, a change or lack of change should not worry us.

Thus, we could avoid a whole host of discussions…

I completely agree. That is why I think that people should stop criticizing and reading so many things into his words. He speaks what is on his mind. Maybe he doesn’t always speak clearly, but I am quite sure IMO that he is trying to do the right thing and to teach to the best of his ability.

I think many people need to relax and realize that he has not changed anything in a binding way, and rest in the assurance that if he does change something in a binding way that that decision is protected from error by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[philipl]

In his homily at Mass on Monday 18th January at the chapel in the Casa Santa Marta the Pope commented on Mark 2:22:And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.
.

What about wineskins that were particularly well taken care of? Wineskin that was really really well-made?

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s all true, but I think that many ordinary Catholics are often genuinely puzzled by such statements. What does the pope mean by obstinate Christians? People who like the EF? People who don’t think the teachings on marriage and divorce should change? People who don’t like altar girls? People who don’t think doctrine should change? People who don’t like communion under both species? It could mean anything, and they are left wondering.

He was fairly clear though.

“What does this mean? That He changes the law? No! That the law is at the service of man, who is at the service of God – and so man ought to have an open heart. ‘It’s always been done this way’ is a closed heart, and Jesus tells us, ‘I will send you the Holy Spirit and He will lead you into the fullness of truth.’ If you have a heart closed to the newness of the Spirit, you will never reach the full truth. And your Christian life will be a half-and-half life, a patched life, mended with new things, but on a structure that is not open to the voice of the Lord—a closed heart, so that you are not able to change the wineskins.”

He’s saying that the law is for the service of man who is at the service of God. He’s trying to explain the meaning of the law itself and he’s saying that regarding the law we should have an ‘open heart’. People who say ‘it’s always been done this way’ are demonstrating a closed heart with regard to the proper nature and meaning of the law.

He is saying that God has expressly sent the Holy Spirit to guide the the Church for the sake of reaching the full truth of eternal life. Being closed to that guidance has very serious implications for our soul.

Faith in that guidance is a very important thing. The Catechism explains it this way.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity.** If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.**

So we have to pay special attention to our doubt itself especially when the Pope has said that taking the position ‘it’s always been done this way’ is to close the heart to the Holy Spirit. To cling to that is serious.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe he is hinting that those cardinals who wish to have communion for the divorced and civilly remarried should not be so obstinate about the matter. Hmmm…