Pope Francis: Obstinate Christians are Rebels and Idolaters

[KSU]

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.”

You have fallen into the trap set for us by Progressives. The Pope is not on their side and against traditional Catholics. Don’t believe all you are being told about what he said and what he meant, even if you read it for yourself. Moreover, all you get to see is the English translation of what he said by some incompetent and biased folks who, I believe, exaggerate the Pope’s “Jesuit” outlook on things. Even a 99% accurate translation can be misleading, e.g., the use of a small t where a capital T was intended.

Oh, yes, Francis is what some call liberal, but not when it comes to the Faith. Buck up, Lad, it’s not anyway near as bad as you think.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

Or try this one. In old Anglo-saxon England, before the arrival of the Normans, a curious recipe was used against stye, an infection of the eyelash follicles. It consisted of mixing garlic and onions (or leeks), wine, and cow bile together, and brewing it in a brass container before letting it sit for nine days (no, you don’t do it by the full moon).

Real mumbo-jumbo, isn’t it? But researchers at the University of Nottingham recreated it following the formula exactly - and found that not did the stuff take out Staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria that causes stye infections, but that it was also deadly when used against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in artificial wounds. The drug-resistant superbug causes over 80,000 severe infections and 11,000 deaths each year - mostly among patients under medical treatment. The Anglo-saxon concoction killed all but one out of 1000 MRSA cells in a test application. Check out the full article on the subject here.

Comparing how tradition managed Catholic living in the past and how Catholic living is practised today, I would say tradition wins the substance of the argument. Tradition basically gets it right, but it does need fine-tuning from time to time.

Take Latin. The ecclesiastical Latin of the EF Canon does not bear the remotest resemblance to Latin as spoken in the street in Roman times. It is poetical, elegant and intricately constructed. It respects the religious man’s instinctive desire to use an elevated form of language in his social and offical acts of religion, which helps foster a sense of reverence for a sacred action performed in a sacred place.

But of course one needs to have at least *some *grasp of the language used in the liturgy. Western Christendom lived with Latin for centuries after the fall of Rome. It was taught to children, used in writing, and employed diplomatically as a kind of lingua franca in Mediaeval and post-Mediaeval times. Only in the 20th century did it truly become a dead language, and there are now good arguments in favour of upgrading it in the liturgy to contemporary vernaculars. To have translated the EF Latin into modern languages whilst respecting the richness of its syntax would have been perfectly adequate IMHO without any need to change the prayers and rubrics themselves. They are timeless.

 

[TMC]

Or try this one. In old Anglo-saxon England, before the arrival of the Normans, a curious recipe was used against stye, an infection of the eyelash follicles. It consisted of mixing garlic and onions (or leeks), wine, and cow bile together, and brewing it in a brass container before letting it sit for nine days (no, you don’t do it by the full moon).

Real mumbo-jumbo, isn’t it? But researchers at the University of Nottingham recreated it following the formula exactly - and found that not did the stuff take out Staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria that causes stye infections, but that it was also deadly when used against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in artificial wounds. The drug-resistant superbug causes over 80,000 severe infections and 11,000 deaths each year - mostly among patients under medical treatment. The Anglo-saxon concoction killed all but one out of 1000 MRSA cells in a test application. Check out the full article on the subject here.

Comparing how tradition managed Catholic living in the past and how Catholic living is practised today, I would say tradition wins the substance of the argument. Tradition basically gets it right, but it does need fine-tuning from time to time.

Take Latin. The ecclesiastical Latin of the EF Canon does not bear the remotest resemblance to Latin as spoken in the street in Roman times. It is poetical, elegant and intricately constructed. It respects the religious man’s instinctive desire to use an elevated form of language in his social and offical acts of religion, which helps foster a sense of reverence for a sacred action performed in a sacred place.

But of course one needs to have at least *some *grasp of the language used in the liturgy. Western Christendom lived with Latin for centuries after the fall of Rome. It was taught to children, used in writing, and employed diplomatically as a kind of lingua franca in Mediaeval and post-Mediaeval times. Only in the 20th century did it truly become a dead language, and there good arguments in favour of upgrading it in the liturgy to contemporary vernaculars. To have translated the EF Latin into modern languages whilst respecting the richness of its syntax would have been perfectly adequate IMHO without any need to change the prayers and rubrics themselves. They are timeless.

Great example, but I think you make Pope Francis’ point for him. Once we discover how the old Anglo-saxon cure works, and are able to create the active ingredient directly, we no longer mess with the brass jug and the nine days. Francis is complaining about those that insist that a brass jug must be left out for nine days, even though we have advanced past that to understanding how the cure actually works. As we advance we capture the essence, and leave some of the traditional trappings behind. Unfortunately, some make idols out of the trappings, instead of focusing on the essence of the cure.

 

[ProVobis]

To have translated the EF Latin into modern languages whilst respecting the richness of its syntax would have been perfectly adequate IMHO without any need to change the prayers and rubrics themselves. They are timeless.

Yes, but that would be like saying Shakespeare is just as perfectly adequate in a Chinese translation as it is in his original English. One in China might be able to follow the plot and love it but it just wouldn’t be Shakespeare. Teachers frown on even using Cliff’s Notes to make this point clear, that in order to fully appreciate Shakespeare you have to study that era of English. It’s a different vibration otherwise.

But you don’t have to study Latin much to appreciate the EF because it’s the contemplative prayer and non-verbal communication that make it work, not vocal prayer so much.

Your other points are good, but I doubt if Church Latin was ever a street language of the Romans. The ordinary Roman wouldn’t have known a third conjugation pluperfect or could even read, for that matter. But Latin was used to preserve the meanings in the Mass, Scripture, and Church documents; in fact much of it could have been written by the more scholarly Greeks themselves.

 

[KSU]

Yes, but that would be like saying Shakespeare is just as perfectly adequate in a Chinese translation as it is in his original English. One in China might be able to follow the plot and love it but it just wouldn’t be Shakespeare. Teachers frown on even using Cliff’s Notes to make this point clear, that in order to fully appreciate Shakespeare you have to study that era of English. It’s a different vibration otherwise.

But you don’t have to study Latin much to appreciate the EF because it’s the contemplative prayer and non-verbal communication that make it work, not vocal prayer so much.

Your other points are good, but I doubt if Church Latin was ever a street language of the Romans. The ordinary Roman wouldn’t have known a third conjugation pluperfect or could even read, for that matter. But Latin was used to preserve the meanings in the Mass, Scripture, and Church documents; in fact much of it could have been written by the more scholarly Greeks themselves.

But what took you so long to reply, Pro?

Incidentally, I don’t think Justin Swanton said Church Latin was ever a street language.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Great example, but I think you make Pope Francis’ point for him. Once we discover how the old Anglo-saxon cure works, and are able to create the active ingredient directly, we no longer mess with the brass jug and the nine days. Francis is complaining about those that insist that a brass jug must be left out for nine days, even though we have advanced past that to understanding how the cure actually works. As we advance we capture the essence, and leave some of the traditional trappings behind. Unfortunately, some make idols out of the trappings, instead of focusing on the essence of the cure.

As a matter of fact you do need the brass jug and the nine days (read the article), but the real point is that if something handed down to us by our fathers works, we shouldn’t try fixing it even if we don’t understand it. And if we think we understand it, better not try fixing it anyway in case we break it because we don’t really understand it all that well.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Yes, but that would be like saying Shakespeare is just as perfectly adequate in a Chinese translation as it is in his original English. One in China might be able to follow the plot and love it but it just wouldn’t be Shakespeare. Teachers frown on even using Cliff’s Notes to make this point clear, that in order to fully appreciate Shakespeare you have to study that era of English. It’s a different vibration otherwise.

With Shakespeare, you’re going for the finer points of language for its own sake. "A little more than kin and less than kind’ works only in English. Liturgical Latin on the other hand ***can ***be successfully translated to convey the ‘mood’ (if I can put it that way) of the text of the Mass.

But you don’t have to study Latin much to appreciate the EF because it’s the contemplative prayer and non-verbal communication that make it work, not vocal prayer so much.

True, but the EF is a prayer made of words, and words are meant to be understood, at least in a general sense. One can understand the broad strokes of what is going on during an EF Mass by the actions and general atmosphere, even if one is ignorant of Latin, but one misses out on so much.

 

[peter26]

Tradition is indeed something solid for us to hold on to. And eroding it is a slippery slope. You abolish one little tradition. And another. And another. Why should a priest wear vestments? Tradition. Let’s just have him swear a shirt and tie instead. Why have a crucifix in a church? Tradition? OK, let’s just have a nice picture for people to look at instead. Why use bread and wine for communion? Tradition? Wouldn’t people like coffee and donuts more? Its a slippery slope. Traditions need to be maintained, just as rubrics have to be followed to the letter. Every time there are liturgical abuses, and every time accommodations are made for those carrying out the abuses, the rich past of the church is eroded and we move closer towards a bland indifferent post-modernism that says that any practice is acceptable and no ritual is needed. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. But those trying to chalk the line and being bitterly opposed and called idolators because they believe in something. This is how divisions begin. Pope Francis goes around apologising and embracing every non-Catholic group out there. But when it comes to showing tolerance and mercy to different groups within the church, a very different attitude.

 

[LongingSoul]

Or try this one. In old Anglo-saxon England, before the arrival of the Normans, a curious recipe was used against stye, an infection of the eyelash follicles. It consisted of mixing garlic and onions (or leeks), wine, and cow bile together, and brewing it in a brass container before letting it sit for nine days (no, you don’t do it by the full moon).

Real mumbo-jumbo, isn’t it? But researchers at the University of Nottingham recreated it following the formula exactly - and found that not did the stuff take out Staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria that causes stye infections, but that it was also deadly when used against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in artificial wounds. The drug-resistant superbug causes over 80,000 severe infections and 11,000 deaths each year - mostly among patients under medical treatment. The Anglo-saxon concoction killed all but one out of 1000 MRSA cells in a test application. Check out the full article on the subject here.

The population of 10th century England was around 2 million. Now it has 53 million people. In practical terms, how much garlic and how many cows and their bile would need to be collected and brewed in how many copper pots for how many 9 day periods, to service such a population? It’s impractical to defend such a process for the sake of tradition when progress has delivered a much more sanitary and expedient alternative.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The population of 10th century England was around 2 million. Now it has 53 million people. In practical terms, how much garlic and how many cows and their bile would need to be collected and brewed in how many copper pots for how many 9 day periods, to service such a population? It’s impractical to defend such a process for the sake of tradition when progress has delivered a much more sanitary and expedient alternative.

To push my example (it was just an example), the 53 million people in the UK eat chicken whenever they want because more chickens are reared. They can all eat steak because more cows are reared. In any case you don’t need anti-stye paste for 53 million people, only for those infected by stye. But the real point of the Anglo-saxon paste is that it works as well or better than any modern antibiotic equivalent. The way we do things now isn’t always better, in every field of human endeavor, than the way we did them in the past. That’s the point of tradition.

 

[ProVobis]

With Shakespeare, you’re going for the finer points of language for its own sake. "A little more than kin and less than kind’ works only in English. Liturgical Latin on the other hand ***can ***be successfully translated to convey the ‘mood’ (if I can put it that way) of the text of the Mass.

To some extent, sure. But it probably wouldn’t be a quiet Mass anymore, would it? The “mood” then would definitely shift and I wouldn’t support it. The EF is perfect the way it is.

But we digress.

 

[TMC]

As a matter of fact you do need the brass jug and the nine days (read the article), but the real point is that if something handed down to us by our fathers works, we shouldn’t try fixing it even if we don’t understand it. And if we think we understand it, better not try fixing it anyway in case we break it because we don’t really understand it all that well.

Well, if everyone had always felt that way we’d still be living in caves sitting around the fire.

.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

To some extent, sure. But it probably wouldn’t be a quiet Mass anymore, would it? The “mood” then would definitely shift and I wouldn’t support it. The EF is perfect the way it is.

Not at all. The quiet parts remain quiet. The rubrics would continue to be respected.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, if everyone had always felt that way we’d still be living in caves sitting around the fire.

Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Well, if everyone had always felt that way we’d still be living in caves sitting around the fire.

Not really. Sitting in caves around the fire doesn’t work that well since it means you are hunter-gatherers who live in small groups, are vulnerable to disease, predators and injuries, and are dependent upon an erratic food supply. So you eventually figure out that putting seeds in the ground and irrigating them gives you far more food much more easily, enabling you to live in larger and safer communities. And so on. But this does not apply to tradition, especially not tradition compared to modernity.

 

[TMC]

Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.

I love it, but its not the way I would live everyday.

 

[LongingSoul]

To push my example (it was just an example), the 53 million people in the UK eat chicken whenever they want because more chickens are reared. They can all eat steak because more cows are reared. In any case you don’t need anti-stye paste for 53 million people, only for those infected by stye. But the real point of the Anglo-saxon paste is that it works as well or better than any modern antibiotic equivalent. The way we do things now isn’t always better, in every field of human endeavor, than the way we did them in the past. That’s the point of tradition.

But when you say more chickens and cows are reared to cater to the increased population, think about how that is achieved. Traditional ways of rearing are gone. To cater for the population, modern ways of commercial breeding and farming are essential. We simply can’t all have a cow and a few chickens in our yards to feed ourselves. The culture, the conditions, the nature of the community. All these things influence the fate of traditions. The most important thing is the goal that they serve and that goal can be displaced if traditions are held on to without regard for how they serve it.

 

[Pulvis]

Unfortunately our weak human condition leads us to constantly seek out the new and shiny. Only to find out at some point that new and shiny is often a poor replacement for what we had. Modernization has only accelerated this “new and shiny” phenomena to the point now that everything more than a couple years old is suspect. Just look at I-phones. Now this might seem like an extreme example when compared to The Church, but think…how much has changed in the Latin Rite in just 50 years as compared to the longevity of what was before. When one sees the dismal catechesis, the frequent liturgical novelties, and the simple questions posted on this forum about traditions that were common to all Catholics just a few decades ago, one must wonder if we have not started a cultural suicide by jettisoning so much of our heritage just for the “new and shiny” change.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Tradition is indeed something solid for us to hold on to. And eroding it is a slippery slope. You abolish one little tradition. And another. And another. Why should a priest wear vestments? Tradition. Let’s just have him swear a shirt and tie instead. Why have a crucifix in a church? Tradition? OK, let’s just have a nice picture for people to look at instead. Why use bread and wine for communion? Tradition? Wouldn’t people like coffee and donuts more? Its a slippery slope. Traditions need to be maintained, just as rubrics have to be followed to the letter. Every time there are liturgical abuses, and every time accommodations are made for those carrying out the abuses, the rich past of the church is eroded and we move closer towards a bland indifferent post-modernism that says that any practice is acceptable and no ritual is needed. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. But those trying to chalk the line and being bitterly opposed and called idolators because they believe in something. This is how divisions begin. Pope Francis goes around apologising and embracing every non-Catholic group out there. But when it comes to showing tolerance and mercy to different groups within the church, a very different attitude.

In all sincerity and charity, I think you really need to examine your thoughts and feelings. It cannot be good to hold such harsh feelings for the Pope. He is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and while he may be doing things that you don’t like or things that you don’t understand, I believe that we should always give the greatest deference and charity to him. Does anyone truly believe that the Pope is acting out of malice as opposed to someone sincerely trying to please God and do God’s work?

 

[pnewton]

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. "

He said none of these things, either “clearly” or “essentially”.

What he said, to use one quote, “It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more(note this word) than the Word of the Lord.’”

Anything we elevate above God is idolatry. I understand the desire for the status quo. I also respect the spirituality of those who consider themselves traditionalist. However, God calls us to look past ourselves and to the needs of others. This means we have to be open to the Holy Spirit above all else. While I understand our human nature and desires, to place our own needs above others, much less above what God is wanting to do, belies the spirituality of traditionalism. After being here at CAF, I do not really see this widespread, though we do have the best of the best here. Rather, it seems those with the greatest true tradition spirituality understand the value of putting others first, as well as the value of suffering. (cue “Gather Us In”)