Pope Francis: Obstinate Christians are Rebels and Idolaters

[JimG]

“It’s always been done that way” could refer to anything. Petrine succession, divine worship, liturgy of the hours, liturgical dancing, communion under both species, the doctrine of purgatory, the doctrine on the communion of saints, holding hands during the Our Father, the permanence of marriage, the real presence in the Eucharist. Some of those things can be changed. Some can not be changed. Is it wrong to be ‘obstinate’ about following divine law? Obstinate about the permanence of marriage? Is Cardinal Pell obstinate, or Cardinal Kasper?

“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:”

And many who see themselves as holding fast to the Faith now wonder if they are being accused of obstinacy for holding fast to the Faith.

 

[ProVobis]

“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:”

Anyone holding an old missal would see the same thing printed under Examination of Conscience before Confession.

If faith in fact is absolute, you can’t blame those following those old missals as being obstinate.

 

[LongingSoul]

“It’s always been done that way” could refer to anything. Petrine succession, divine worship, liturgy of the hours, liturgical dancing, communion under both species, the doctrine of purgatory, the doctrine on the communion of saints, holding hands during the Our Father, the permanence of marriage, the real presence in the Eucharist. Some of those things can be changed. Some can not be changed. Is it wrong to be ‘obstinate’ about following divine law? Obstinate about the permanence of marriage? Is Cardinal Pell obstinate, or Cardinal Kasper?

“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:”

And many who see themselves as holding fast to the Faith now wonder if they are being accused of obstinacy for holding fast to the Faith.

One of my observations is that in the past ‘holding fast to the faith’ meant obedience and deference to the guidance of the Pope as part of the Magisterium. Today ‘holding fast to the faith’ is much more aligned to past procedure than to the living Magisterium headed by the Pope. I think there is less real understanding of the Church as a living thing on a journey, dealing with obstacles peculiar to the road being travelled at a given time.

Remember when some wanted to have certain topics taken of the synod agenda. They believed that the understanding of those things was complete already and that the past held all the answers. That was a closed attitude.

 

[JimG]

One of my observations is that in the past ‘holding fast to the faith’ meant obedience and deference to the guidance of the Pope as part of the Magisterium. Today ‘holding fast to the faith’ is much more aligned to past procedure than to the living Magisterium headed by the Pope. I think there is less real understanding of the Church as a living thing on a journey, dealing with obstacles peculiar to the road being travelled at a given time.

Remember when some wanted to have certain topics taken of the synod agenda. They believed that the understanding of those things was complete already and that the past held all the answers. That was a closed attitude.

Yes, and others were equally obstinate in ensuring that particular things got into the synod agenda.

We have a Church with an Apostolic Tradition handed down to us for 2,000 years, what has been known as the Deposit of Faith. But now we hear from some quarters that maybe we can’t be confident in the Deposit of Faith because the Holy Spirit might swoop in and change things at any moment. But I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit works against the Deposit of Faith or against Apostolic Tradition, but rather in concord with them. The Church cannot be divided against herself.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

One of my observations is that in the past ‘holding fast to the faith’ meant obedience and deference to the guidance of the Pope as part of the Magisterium. Today ‘holding fast to the faith’ is much more aligned to past procedure than to the living Magisterium headed by the Pope. I think there is less real understanding of the Church as a living thing on a journey, dealing with obstacles peculiar to the road being travelled at a given time.

Remember when some wanted to have certain topics taken of the synod agenda. They believed that the understanding of those things was complete already and that the past held all the answers. That was a closed attitude.

In many of the topics about “what did he mean” when discussing something Pope Franics says, it is suggested we each look internally to see how the message applies. In this case, I’d say you are correct for those who believe there is nothing to be gained from something like the Synod, or the washing of the feet at Holy Thursday. It would also apply to those who are obstinate in refusing to accept Catholic teaching in all the areas of their life, which even this website is rife with. Look no further than topics on NFP and contraception. That is glaring, obstinate refusal to accept our Holy Mother Church and think somehow, we have justified why we are correct in our thinking. Both are in this case the rebels and idolaters her refers to.

Semi-non specific messages apply to nearly everyone, though for very different reasons.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

In many of the topics about “what did he mena” when discussing something Pope Franics says, it is suggested we each look internally to see how the message applies. In this case, I’d say you are correct for those who believe there is nothing to be gained from something like the Synod, or the washing of the feet at Holy Thursday. It would also apply to those who are obstinate in refusing to accept Catholic teaching in all the areas of their life, which even this website is rife with. Look no further than topics on NFP and contraception. That is glaring, obstinate refusal to accept our Holy Mother Church and think somehow, we have justified why we are correct in our thinking. Both are in this case the rebels and idolaters her refers to.

Semi-non specific messages apply to nearly everyone, though for very different reasons.

She has a point!

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, and others were equally obstinate in ensuring that particular things got into the synod agenda.

We have a Church with an Apostolic Tradition handed down to us for 2,000 years, what has been known as the Deposit of Faith. But now we hear from some quarters that maybe we can’t be confident in the Deposit of Faith because the Holy Spirit might swoop in and change things at any moment. But I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit works against the Deposit of Faith or against Apostolic Tradition, but rather in concord with them. The Church cannot be divided against herself.

In many of the topics about “what did he mena” when discussing something Pope Franics says, it is suggested we each look internally to see how the message applies. In this case, I’d say you are correct for those who believe there is nothing to be gained from something like the Synod, or the washing of the feet at Holy Thursday. It would also apply to those who are obstinate in refusing to accept Catholic teaching in all the areas of their life, which even this website is rife with. Look no further than topics on NFP and contraception. That is glaring, obstinate refusal to accept our Holy Mother Church and think somehow, we have justified why we are correct in our thinking. Both are in this case the rebels and idolaters her refers to.

Semi-non specific messages apply to nearly everyone, though for very different reasons.

But returning to his homily, he specifically speaks of an attitude of obstinence that says ‘it’s always been done this way’. You must know what he is referring to by that? You must know of people in your experience who appeal to tradition from a sense of comfort when there are much more effective and expedient new ways of achieving the main goal. Some aspects of tradition relate to the conditions in which the goal is being lived while other aspects speak of the essential truth. Have you heard this anecdote?

A women cuts the ends of her rolled roast before putting it in the roasting pan. She has done that all her life. One day her teenage daughter asks, Mum why do you cut the ends off the roast each time. Mum answers, my Mother always did that. It serves some purpose so I’ve always done that too. The teenager needing to understand the origin of the tradition goes to her grandmother and asks Grandma why did you always cut the ends off your roast before putting it in the dish. Her grandmother replies, that’s because my roasting dish was small and I couldn’t fit the whole roast into it.

It’s not always clear which aspects of tradition are situational and which are essential to the main goal. The differences are the subject of the many discussions within the living Church today.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

But returning to his homily, he specifically speaks of an attitude of obstinence that says ‘it’s always been done this way’. You must know what he is referring to by that? You must know of people in your experience who appeal to tradition from a sense of comfort when there are much more effective and expedient new ways of achieving the main goal. Some aspects of tradition relate to the conditions in which the goal is being lived while other aspects speak of the essential truth. Have you heard this anecdote?

A women cuts the ends of her rolled roast before putting it in the roasting pan. She has done that all her life. One day her teenage daughter asks, Mum why do you cut the ends off the roast each time. Mum answers, my Mother always did that. It serves some purpose so I’ve always done that too. The teenager needing to understand the origin of the tradition goes to her grandmother and asks Grandma why did you always cut the ends off your roast before putting it in the dish. Her grandmother replies, that’s because my roasting dish was small and I couldn’t fit the whole roast into it.

It’s not always clear which aspects of tradition are situational and which are essential to the main goal. The differences are the subject of the many discussions within the living Church today.

True, and discussion is fine. However, one must also accept that a person could after discussion, come to find that they believe the tradition or “what has always been done” is still the correct answer in a particular case. That seems to be unacceptable to many who push for discussion.

To be open-minded simply means to be open to discussing a new idea. It does not imply ageering after consideration, that the idea has merit. And too often, if one rejects something, they are labled as close-minded, when in reality, they have often given it much consideration and deemed it unworthy of further implmentation.

 

[LongingSoul]

True, and discussion is fine. However, one must also accept that a person could after discussion, come to find that they believe the tradition or “what has always been done” is still the correct answer in a particular case. That seems to be unacceptable to many who push for discussion.

To be open-minded simply means to be open to discussing a new idea. It does not imply ageering after consideration, that the idea has merit. And too often, if one rejects something, they are labled as close-minded, when in reality, they have often given it much consideration and deemed it unworthy of further implmentation.

The point of the synod was not that each person discusses and then each persons makes up his own mind on the truth. It is that wonderful concept of ‘forum’ where everyone speaks their belief and hope and then the Pope makes a final call regarding change or retain. That’s when all involved in the discussion assent to that final call whether they like it or not. There may be cause for further discussion in the future since mans understanding of things is constantly evolving making him capable of broadening his faith also.

 

[JimG]

But returning to his homily, he specifically speaks of an attitude of obstinence that says ‘it’s always been done this way’. You must know what he is referring to by that? You must know of people in your experience who appeal to tradition from a sense of comfort when there are much more effective and expedient new ways of achieving the main goal. Some aspects of tradition relate to the conditions in which the goal is being lived while other aspects speak of the essential truth. Have you heard this anecdote?

A women cuts the ends of her rolled roast before putting it in the roasting pan. She has done that all her life. One day her teenage daughter asks, Mum why do you cut the ends off the roast each time. Mum answers, my Mother always did that. It serves some purpose so I’ve always done that too. The teenager needing to understand the origin of the tradition goes to her grandmother and asks Grandma why did you always cut the ends off your roast before putting it in the dish. Her grandmother replies, that’s because my roasting dish was small and I couldn’t fit the whole roast into it.

It’s not always clear which aspects of tradition are situational and which are essential to the main goal. The differences are the subject of the many discussions within the living Church today.

You say that I “must know what he is referring to by that,” (it has always been done this way), but the truth is, I don’t. I can only guess. It can refer to customs, to liturgy, to small-t tradition, or to major teachings. I don’t know.

I know a lot of people who lived through a whole host of changes to the Mass,the liturgy, the sanctuary, the homilies, the hymns, and never made a public fuss about it. The only people I’ve known who have made a big fuss over ‘changes’ have been those who have appealed not to Apostolic Tradition, but to the ‘tradition’ of Vatican II. I recall when our parish church was remodeled, and the pastor decided to keep the communion rail, one man complained bitterly to me. “It’s like Vatican II never happened!” he said. But Vatican II said nothing about communion rails. However, he was for a time rather bitter about the matter.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

The point of the synod was not that each person discusses and then each persons makes up his own mind on the truth. It is that wonderful concept of ‘forum’ where everyone speaks their belief and hope and then the Pope makes a final call regarding change or retain. That’s when all involved in the discussion assent to that final call whether they like it or not. There may be cause for further discussion in the future since mans understanding of things is constantly evolving making him capable of broadening his faith also.

Certainly, but my point didn’t refer specifically to a Synod, merely that we are called to be open-minded, and obedient. Open-minded does not mean accepting what is being promoted by others if we consider and simply decide we believe we were correct. Too often, we hear the notion of close-minded traditonalists being bandied about, when in fact, no one can say with any certainty whether or not they are close-minded, or even obstinate. Many traditionalists consider what is being suggested, pray about it, and then either concede or disregard the notion as not what is best. That is all we are called to do in this case.

Obedeince is call for everyone, and speaks for itself.

 

[otjm]

You say that I “must know what he is referring to by that,” (it has always been done this way), but the truth is, I don’t. I can only guess. It can refer to customs, to liturgy, to small-t tradition, or to major teachings. I don’t know.

I know a lot of people who lived through a whole host of changes to the Mass,the liturgy, the sanctuary, the homilies, the hymns, and never made a public fuss about it. The only people I’ve known who have made a big fuss over ‘changes’ have been those who have appealed not to Apostolic Tradition, but to the ‘tradition’ of Vatican II. I recall when our parish church was remodeled, and the pastor decided to keep the communion rail, one man complained bitterly to me. “It’s like Vatican II never happened!” he said. But Vatican II said nothing about communion rails. However, he was for a time rather bitter about the matter.

Bitterness and obstinance are not the sole province of conservatives, as your example well shows.And I have met them on both ends.

 

[pnewton]

I do not understand the disagreement with a homily of all things. No homily will have every point germane to all people. I few posters have understood that we need to take what applies to us and disregard what does not address our own failings. Most of us do this every time we go to Mass anyway.

At the heart, do we not know that tradition can be an idol? Anything can be an idol. The Pharisees were closed to the Word made flesh and clung to their traditions. We can do the same thing. Forget the wide aspect of this, but thing parochially. A parish which is not open to changes in tactics to address changes in the community will quickly become irrelevant to the community. Bingo night might not have to be on Friday, and might need to be cancelled in favor of a soups kitchen or a Bible study. This is simple and something we all understand, yet I bet many of you can tell stories of times when some have lost their perspective of the mission of the parish over changes that needed to be made.

If we can understand this, can we not understand how this applies to the whole, as well as the parts? It applies to any organic organization. Adherence to tradition for tradition’s sake is a recipe for stagnation.

 

[ProVobis]

OTOH, stagnation may be preferred to say, creating another denomination and having no qualms about it. What do we have, something like 30,000 of them right now?

 

[LongingSoul]

You say that I “must know what he is referring to by that,” (it has always been done this way), but the truth is, I don’t. I can only guess. It can refer to customs, to liturgy, to small-t tradition, or to major teachings. I don’t know.

I know a lot of people who lived through a whole host of changes to the Mass,the liturgy, the sanctuary, the homilies, the hymns, and never made a public fuss about it. The only people I’ve known who have made a big fuss over ‘changes’ have been those who have appealed not to Apostolic Tradition, but to the ‘tradition’ of Vatican II. I recall when our parish church was remodeled, and the pastor decided to keep the communion rail, one man complained bitterly to me. “It’s like Vatican II never happened!” he said. But Vatican II said nothing about communion rails. However, he was for a time rather bitter about the matter.

But that man wasn’t saying 'it’s always been done that way’. He was expressing what might be related to the liberal extreme of wanting to throw out everything. This homily was addressed to the opposite problem which Pope Francis referred to as part of his closing speech at the first synod…

• One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.
• The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

There’s the two extremes of closed heartedness and ‘bleeding’ heartedness and this particular admonition was in reference to those closed to the spirit and growth.

 

[JimG]

But that man wasn’t saying 'it’s always been done that way’. He was expressing what might be related to the liberal extreme of wanting to throw out everything. This homily was addressed to the opposite problem which Pope Francis referred to as part of his closing speech at the first synod…

• One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.
• The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

There’s the two extremes of closed heartedness and ‘bleeding’ heartedness and this particular admonition was in reference to those closed to the spirit and growth.

Okay, I understand the two extremes you have presented: closed hearts or bleeding hearts. Still, the very description sounds so metaphorical that it seems to lack clarity.

I suppose that at the time of the Reformation, Luther might have accused the pope of not being open to the spirit and growth. And he might have accused Calvin of being closed hearted and unmerciful.

 

[chaplainmom]

A church that is so rigid and self-righteous that it refuses to question itself when new information points to a more holy way of life will eventually become extinct.

The Catholic Church is a living breathing entity that has existed for over 2000 years guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church adapts when situations call for adaptation. However, this process is never perfect. The pendulum swings too far in one direction for a few centuries, and then too far in the other direction for a few more centuries. The Catholic Church isn’t heaven on earth but it keeps trying - very slowly.

I imagine Pope Francis could be talking about divination in relationship to positive Ecumenical dialogues with our Orthodox Christian sisters and brothers in Christ.

 

[Anthony2112]

I think the Pope was reading some of my remarks in the political threads. Sorry papa!

 

[DonCampbell]

A church that is so rigid and self-righteous that it refuses to question itself when new information points to a more holy way of life will eventually become extinct.

The Catholic Church is a living breathing entity that has existed for over 2000 years guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church adapts when situations call for adaptation. However, this process is never perfect. The pendulum swings too far in one direction for a few centuries, and then too far in the other direction for a few more centuries. The Catholic Church isn’t heaven on earth but it keeps trying - very slowly.

I imagine Pope Francis could be talking about divination in relationship to positive Ecumenical dialogues with our Orthodox Christian sisters and brothers in Christ.

Here’s the thing. The footwashing ceremony at Mass on Holy Thursday is a small “t” tradition. It can be changed at any time by the Pope. He could abolish it, if he wants. No one disputes that. But, Pope Francis essentially just told us is that to prefer it the way it has been done in the past, out of reverence for tradition, is a sin. So, to disagree with him on a matter that is not essential to the faith means we are “idolaters” who are guilty of the “sin of divination.”

He clearly loathes the fact that many Catholics are very traditional people. They like their traditions and don’t want them thrown out. Clearly, this makes Pope Francis angry. He sees it as irrational obstinance - as an obstacle and a stumbling block. He cannot conceal his contempt for us.

But I think he is missing something; something very big. Many, many of the flock are desperate for something solid and un-changing to hold onto in a world that they perceive as having gone insane. Everything around them is being turned upside down. They look to the Church, with its many small “t” ttraditions, as that rock of stability that they can cling to in the storm. But Pope Francis belittles them for it. He mocks tradtional devotions like the Rosary or Novenas. He changes traditions to suit his own agenda. And then he calls those who are dismayed by it “idolaters.”

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Here’s the thing. The footwashing ceremony at Mass on Holy Thursday is a small “t” tradition. It can be changed at any time by the Pope. He could abolish it, if he wants. No one disputes that. But, Pope Francis essentially just told us is that to prefer it the way it has been done in the past, out of reverence for tradition, is a sin. So, to disagree with him on a matter that is not essential to the faith means we are “idolaters” who are guilty of the “sin of divination.”

He clearly loathes the fact that many Catholics are very traditional people. They like their traditions and don’t want them thrown out. Clearly, this makes Pope Francis angry. He sees it as irrational obstinance - as an obstacle and a stumbling block. He cannot conceal his contempt for us.

But I think he is missing something; something very big. Many, many of the flock are desperate for something solid and un-changing to hold onto in a world that they perceive as having gone insane. Everything around them is being turned upside down. They look to the Church, with its many small “t” ttraditions, as that rock of stability that they can cling to in the storm. But Pope Francis belittles them for it. He mocks tradtional devotions like the Rosary or Novenas. He changes traditions to suit his own agenda. And then he calls those who are dismayed by it “idolaters.”

I honestly believe that your take on this could not be further from the truth. The thing to cling to when you want a rock is not tradition, it is God. The Lord does not change, He is the thing to cling to!