Pope Francis: Obstinate Christians are Rebels and Idolaters

[TMC]

Exactly.

You know, for the best part of my 40 years working in industry, my job was to explain and automate systems. It was in my “progressive” nature. But every now and then, it didn’t hurt to remind my superiors that sometimes people still like to hear a human voice once in a while instead of a machine all the time.

Too much change too soon can be quite counterproductive.

From the laws of physics, however, acceleration implies force. In other words, it isn’t “organic” and natural. As I tried to show above, this doesn’t always provide the best results.

This is perhaps the crux of the issue. Sometimes the old ways are fine, or best, even. Change for its own sake is not anyway to run anything. But staying the same because that is the way it always was is no better, and potentially worse. I think this gets to the Pope’s point. He is saying that some are making an idol out of the past merely because that is what they are more comfortable with. I happen to agree with him.

 

[SWolf]

Be not afraid. There are no code words or conspiracies.

Of course there are. To think clergy do not engage in rhetoric and secret collaboration just like everyone else is naive.

 

[ProVobis]

He is saying that some are making an idol out of the past merely because that is what they are more comfortable with. I happen to agree with him.

Yes but this shouldn’t be confused with people who lose their jobs because of automation or job exports or budget cuts, which I suspect happens more often than idolatry with the past.

 

[sallybutler]

As Rev Sheed said in The Life of Christ, “not even God can tell the proud anything”. This reminds me of what my mother taught me was Original Sin, pride.

If we are unwilling to listen to the Pope, are we also refusing to listen to God? Perhaps, when we hold on to traditions, such as foot washing, meat on Fridays, etc., we are in danger of becoming the Pharisees that Jesus warned against. Maybe that is what th Pope meant. Are we putting the ‘rules’ ahead of God? Are we forgetting the Spirit in favor of the law?

I am often worried that I might be one of those that Rev Sheed speaks of (please put me in your prayers for this). However, when I attend Mass, I work to use the new phrases, even though they go against many years of habit. Perhaps that is all the Pope is asking of us, that we listen to the Church and the facts she teaches, not to our emotions and feelings. After all, being a Catholic is not about feelings, but about God and fact.

 

[JimG]

As Rev Sheed said in The Life of Christ, “not even God can tell the proud anything”. This reminds me of what my mother taught me was Original Sin, pride.

If we are unwilling to listen to the Pope, are we also refusing to listen to God? Perhaps, when we hold on to traditions, such as foot washing, meat on Fridays, etc., we are in danger of becoming the Pharisees that Jesus warned against. Maybe that is what th Pope meant. Are we putting the ‘rules’ ahead of God? Are we forgetting the Spirit in favor of the law?

I am often worried that I might be one of those that Rev Sheed speaks of (please put me in your prayers for this). However, when I attend Mass, I work to use the new phrases, even though they go against many years of habit. Perhaps that is all the Pope is asking of us, that we listen to the Church and the facts she teaches, not to our emotions and feelings. After all, being a Catholic is not about feelings, but about God and fact.

Maybe that is what the pope meant. But as numerous threads here have shown, figuring out what the pope meant is not always easy or straightforward.

 

[LongingSoul]

Of course there are. To think clergy do not engage in rhetoric and secret collaboration just like everyone else is naive.

If there is that will be between them and God. It’s not our concern.

Isaiah 8
12 “Do not call conspiracy
everything this people calls a conspiracy;
do not fear what they fear,
and do not dread it.
13 The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread.

 

[KSU]

I like Rush but I think he should have cut the Pope a little slack here, especially after the banking collapse of 2007-2008, if not years before. Paulson and Bernanke admitted themselves that they only had wished some regulations would have been imposed against the banks and their financial interests outside lending money. The term “moral hazard” was used a lot in bailing them all out in fact. Systemic failure is a lot different, however, than capitalistic failure.

I, too, think Rush should have cut the Pope some slack; I e-mailed him to that effect.

Rush, who is Protestant, was hurt by the Pope’s ambiguous attack on Capitalism because it came from the Catholic Church-- an institution which Rush greatly admires for its courage, unflinching moral stance against evil in all its forms, including Socialism, **and its teaching that politics, in the main, is the realm of the competent secular experts, not the Church **. He knows that there has never been another entity like the Church, and Rush understands how crucial morality is to America’s continued existence under its founding principles, such as the principle that our rights come from God, not the government.

In short, Rush was blindsided and shocked. He felt betrayed, mostly by the poorly drafted section 54 of the exhortation, so he let it all pour out. His first mistake was in reading the portrayals of the document by Reuters and the Washington Post.

I don’t get your point regarding the banking collapse of 2007-2008 and the Pope. The collapse occurred because the then all powerful Democrat Party infested lending practices with pure political, vote-getting threats to banks, i.e., lend to poor risks (the Democrat voting base) or else, the U.S. Attorney General told them. I doubt Pope Francis would have objected. What am I missing?

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t get your point regarding the banking collapse of 2007-2008 and the Pope.

It was complex and depicted to some extent in the movie “Too Big To Fail” and others. Let’s just say it had worldwide impact and am sure the Pope wasn’t the only one thinking capitalism had failed because of the collapse.

 

[KSU]

It was complex and depicted to some extent in the movie “Too Big To Fail” and others. Let’s just say it had worldwide impact and am sure the Pope wasn’t the only one thinking capitalism had failed because of the collapse.

Got it. Thanks, Pro.

BTW, your discussion with Justin Swanton inre perfectly translating the Latin into an awe inspiring, new, ordinary liturgy is very interesting and not off point with the OP. After the first, disappointing version of the English liturgy years ago, I asked my then obstinately Progressive pastor if he would consider bringing up this possibility with our bishop for consideration by the appropriate committee of the USCCB and eventually Rome. What a mistake! His jolly manner changed instantly and he loudly let me know what he thought of my request.

It would surprise those who conflate true Jesuit thinking with Progressivism, but I think Pope Francis is just the man to consider this type of change.

 

[pnewton]

Of course there are. To think clergy do not engage in rhetoric and secret collaboration just like everyone else is naive.

To think the Pope is speaking in code words is paranoia. I am not naive, an odd accusation if you knew me. But then I never said that priests do not engage in rhetoric. I never said that some things are secret. There is a difference between politics and conspiracy, as there is between rhetoric and code words.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe that is what the pope meant. But as numerous threads here have shown, figuring out what the pope meant is not always easy or straightforward.

We have to remember that we are not hearing him. We are reading journalists quoting snipets of what usually is a translation. If one does not understand what is meant, then charity demands we not assume it to be the worst possibility. Do notice how many posts here change his meaning? Use of the words like “implied” are too frequent in his critics and add mud instead of clarity. Then there is the phrase “code words.”

 

[pnewton]

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.

One lesson we can take from this is the difference between tradition and doctrine. Your questions demonstrate this. The first two might be part of a slippery slope, not that I believe them to be possible. The third question is not. It is a different beast all together. The Holy Father cannot and has never tried to change doctrine. If nothing else, we can learn from him, what is doctrine and why it is doctrine. The person that confuses the elements of communion with the vestments of the priest understands neither.

 

[ProVobis]

One lesson we can take from this is the difference between tradition and doctrine. Your questions demonstrate this. The first two might be part of a slippery slope, not that I believe them to be possible. The third question is not. It is a different beast all together. The Holy Father cannot and has never tried to change doctrine. If nothing else, we can learn from him, what is doctrine and why it is doctrine. The person that confuses the elements of communion with the vestments of the priest understands neither.

But doctrine can be undermined or ignored.

That’s not the issue here though as I see it. Traditionalists are given a bad rap, maybe deservedly so, but let’s not start mocking what has always been customary or held sacred, whether it be vestments or communion. Otherwise, thinking many progressive steps ahead here, we’ll automate ourselves completely out of existence altogether. Climate change then will be the least of our problems.

 

[abucs]

I think that the attack on traditional culture is often an effort to force people into accepting a new set of traditions by people who think they know better than you.

 

[PTL]

Michael Winters of the National Catholic Reporter’s take on this homily. I tend to agree that, viewed in context, it is at least partly in preparation for the Apostolic Exhortation on Marriage to come, possibly in March this year. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

I also sincerely hope you are wrong, but I am afraid you are right.

 

[FRLBJ]

I agree. What have we done wrong by adhering to Church teaching? None. We should rejoice that our own Holy Father is persecuting us for following our Lord! What a topsy-turvey Church!

 

[graciew]

I agree. What have we done wrong by adhering to Church teaching? None. We should rejoice that our own Holy Father is persecuting us for following our Lord! What a topsy-turvey Church!

"Topsy - turvey " Church ??

Do not take me wrong…but in general we first check we are.not standing on our heads ourselves. Routine practice.

 

[pnewton]

I agree. What have we done wrong by adhering to Church teaching? None. We should rejoice that our own Holy Father is persecuting us for following our Lord! What a topsy-turvey Church!

He is not persecuting you. He is teaching. How can you say you adhere to Church teaching when read such uncharitable spin into what you are being taught. I understand how non-Catholics can say they are following the Lord while making such statements, but how does a Catholic follow the Lord and attack the Pope? And you say the* Churc*h is topsy-turvey.

 

[pnewton]

I also sincerely hope you are wrong, but I am afraid you are right.

From the article you referenced:

"The Holy Father delivered another amazing sermon that is probably setting the groundwork"

Note the word “probably.” This is the sort of reporting that is more posturing than informing. If a person read uncharitable intent into what the Holy Father says he becomes complicit in the sin of rebellion he stirs up. Just once I wish we could stick to what actually is said. Adherence to tradition over faith is the the theme of the parable Jesus told about how the Pharisees rejected the God of the Law while idolizing the Law. This is nothing new. The Church has always opposed against phariseeism. Those who are strong traditionalist need to understand this potential for sin. I do not mean to single them out, it is just that this one sermon addresses this issue, as opposed to those sins that are a temptation for others, like rebellion (in innovates), or pride(in intellectuals), or presumption (in those who pray to manipulate God). Pope Francis is an equal opportunity preacher. Everyone gets a turn. If one does not have an issue with this sin, then don’t worry about. Maybe the next sermon will be the one that sticks in your craw.

 

[otjm]

"Topsy - turvey " Church ??

Do not take me wrong…but in general we first check we are.not standing on our heads ourselves. Routine practice.