Pope Francis: Obstinate Christians are Rebels and Idolaters

[otjm]

Originally Posted by KSU
What was worth this cost to our unity?

Pope Francis is the person in whom we place our earthly trust, love and hope. If he wanted to teach or explain something, why didn’t he do so with confidence, i.e., openly and clearly? All authentic Catholics would have accepted his lesson, even if it applied to them.

Instead, while nobody learned any new lesson, this thread proves that more mistrust, hurt feelings, accusation, preaching and confusion has resulted. That can’t have been his intention, so why does he persist in speaking ambiguously? Assuming he is not being kept in the dark, which seems preposterous, he knows that a big problem has resulted from mistranslation at the Vatican and media, coupled with his M.O. of ambiguity and off-the-cuff speaking.

What great benefit, then, does he see that is worth this cost to our unity?

I rest my case.

There is a whole lot of chatter, but precious little in the way of examples of what some people, who seem to be highly agitated about this homily, might think he is challenging them on. What is it that they hold dear to, which he might be challenging them on?

I get the impression that there are a number of uncomfortable people around, made uncomfortable specifically by his comments about being obstinate.

If one is not being obstinate about something having to do with the Church, then clearly he is not speaking to that one.

And if one is being obstinate about something having to do with the Church, then I can see that they might be at least uncomfortable with the message, as well they should be.

So why does he have to explicate chapter line and verse as to what he finds people being obstinate about? So that some who are being obstinate about x or y or z can be told off publicly, and those who are being obstinate about a or b or c can slide and get a pass?

If one have an issue, or a series of them which they are being obstinate about, Lent is right around the corner, and it is an excellent time for some serious deep inner reflection about themselves, the matter they are obstinate about, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that unity which some seem to think is either disturbed or broken.

There is no particular need, when a homily can be directed to a series of different groups and individuals, to make it focus explicitly on them. Whining about this is starting to sound like teenagers, who know perfectly well what is being said and to whom, but want to play a sophomoric game of “Well, you didn’t say me” in that whiny voice that teenagers are suddenly so adept at using.

If the show fits, grow up an wear it.

If it doesn’t fit, then it does not belong to you. Get over it.

 

[pleasehelp]

Firstly, the Pope has not changed any doctrine or dogma. If he has, please let us know which one, when did he change it, and proof of the change.

For someone who said he does not believe in the Rosary, that is not only false; but slander. Recently in St. Peter’s Square, during the Angelus, he showed a carton that looked like a pack of tablets for the heart. He then said, “now you must be thinking the Pope is a pharmacist. Yes I am. And you can take this medicine as many times a day as you like. It is good for your heart.” And he got the homeless men to distribute these thousands of packs of rosaries. What an innovative idea and what a restoration of dignity to those homeless men clad in uniforms, distributing those rosaries.

The question then seems to be not changing doctrine or Tradition or any ambiguity.
He could never be more direct. He does not need to name names; it is a great advantage to be able to see ourselves as we are, - with honesty. This is the virtue of humility.
The question is “Can I take criticism?” It is not to be expected that I should like criticism; but when criticism does come, can I accept it gracefully and calmly without blowing my top, or being resentful or discouraged? If I really know myself, then I know whether or not I deserve this criticism. If it is justified, then I accept it gratefully and profit by it. If I grow angry, then I have the touchiness of the proud. If I have serenity, then I am humble, and being humble, I am strong." (Fr. Leo Trese). Lord, help us to be strong.

And the question is obedience. Jesus had two instances when he “obeyed” despite doing His Father’s will in the Temple, He got up and left to go with Mary and Joseph; and the second time, when He said, “my time is not yet come” yet changed the water into wine at Mary’s request…
Thank you Lord for showing us obedience by example. Help us obey your representative on earth, Your Vicar, Your Rock. When we are obedient we are humble. And we are like You.

 

[Pulvis]

Pope St John Paul II was criticised regularly by traditionalists. Not sure if you are just young or remembering selectively.

I am 60 yrs young, and no, i am not using selective memory. Pope St. John Paul II was somewhat ambiguous on occasion. But His written communications and most of His verbal exhortation were quiet clear. You did not have too strugle to understand what He was trying to convey. Some of which i did not agree with, but that is another topic.

 

[clem456]

Sunday’s Gospel is relevant to the discussion here.
Christ comes bearing a message and his own people want to kill him. Not because he does evil, but because he brings good news to them in a way they don’t want to hear, he does good in a way they refuse to accept, and with people they won’t accept.
“Non-serviam”

 

[KSU]

There is a whole lot of chatter, but precious little in the way of examples of what some people, who seem to be highly agitated about this homily, might think he is challenging them on. What is it that they hold dear to, which he might be challenging them on?

I get the impression that there are a number of uncomfortable people around, made uncomfortable specifically by his comments about being obstinate.

If one is not being obstinate about something having to do with the Church, then clearly he is not speaking to that one.

And if one is being obstinate about something having to do with the Church, then I can see that they might be at least uncomfortable with the message, as well they should be.

So why does he have to explicate chapter line and verse as to what he finds people being obstinate about? So that some who are being obstinate about x or y or z can be told off publicly, and those who are being obstinate about a or b or c can slide and get a pass?

If one have an issue, or a series of them which they are being obstinate about, Lent is right around the corner, and it is an excellent time for some serious deep inner reflection about themselves, the matter they are obstinate about, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that unity which some seem to think is either disturbed or broken.

There is no particular need, when a homily can be directed to a series of different groups and individuals, to make it focus explicitly on them. Whining about this is starting to sound like teenagers, who know perfectly well what is being said and to whom, but want to play a sophomoric game of “Well, you didn’t say me” in that whiny voice that teenagers are suddenly so adept at using.

If the show fits, grow up an wear it.

If it doesn’t fit, then it does not belong to you. Get over it.

**OK, but why did you address all that to my post without a clear answer to the one and only question it raised: “What great benefit, then, does he see [in an ambiguous style] that is worth this cost to our unity”? You may be able to guess his intent and targets, but most people can’t and shouldn’t have to; it’s very dangerous to have to put words in his mouth, and leads to all the problems listed in my post. He is Christ’s representative on earth; why should he not always speak openly and clearly? **

 

[LongingSoul]

There is a whole lot of chatter, but precious little in the way of examples of what some people, who seem to be highly agitated about this homily, might think he is challenging them on. What is it that they hold dear to, which he might be challenging them on?

I get the impression that there are a number of uncomfortable people around, made uncomfortable specifically by his comments about being obstinate.

If one is not being obstinate about something having to do with the Church, then clearly he is not speaking to that one.

And if one is being obstinate about something having to do with the Church, then I can see that they might be at least uncomfortable with the message, as well they should be.

So why does he have to explicate chapter line and verse as to what he finds people being obstinate about? So that some who are being obstinate about x or y or z can be told off publicly, and those who are being obstinate about a or b or c can slide and get a pass?

If one have an issue, or a series of them which they are being obstinate about, Lent is right around the corner, and it is an excellent time for some serious deep inner reflection about themselves, the matter they are obstinate about, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that unity which some seem to think is either disturbed or broken.

There is no particular need, when a homily can be directed to a series of different groups and individuals, to make it focus explicitly on them. Whining about this is starting to sound like teenagers, who know perfectly well what is being said and to whom, but want to play a sophomoric game of “Well, you didn’t say me” in that whiny voice that teenagers are suddenly so adept at using.

If the show fits, grow up an wear it.

If it doesn’t fit, then it does not belong to you. Get over it.

It’s not just a teenage thing. It’s a documented adult relationship tactic also. People will say I don’t understand when they mean I don’t like… as a stonewalling technique.

 

[LongingSoul]

**OK, but why did you address all that to my post without a clear answer to the one and only question it raised: “What great benefit, then, does he see [in an ambiguous style] that is worth this cost to our unity”? You may be able to guess his intent and targets, but most people can’t and shouldn’t have to; it’s very dangerous to have to put words in his mouth, and leads to all the problems listed in my post. He is Christ’s representative on earth; why should he not always speak openly and clearly? **

He has named names before in an effort to jog consciences but people still don’t like it. At the closing speech of the first synod he said…

• 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.

It’s clearly a temptation of those identifying as traditionalist and intellectuals, to be closed hearted to the movements of the Spirit… which requires an open heart and open mind.

He names names, he’s attacked. He tries to be more subtle. He’s attacked. You’d think people… just didn’t like him.

 

[Mystrx]

This Pope always leaves me feeling unsteady, unsettled, unsure, confused and attacked when he speaks: or perhaps, just maybe, its how they choose to report what was said to us; because it seems whenever I see an article stating Pope Francis “does” or “says” its always presented in a cryptic and odd fashion. So either he’s a poor communicator or he’s intentionally being adumbral with his words or his words and actions are being spun and used at his and our expense to fit individual agendas. :twocents:

 

[fred_conty]

Sounds to me like the Holy Father may be referring to the resistence of doing buisness in the Vatican. He wants to see change and there is resistence. He may want some changes in the system and he may be getting static.

He never mentions liturgy, or prayer, or doctrine, but just change. And what are those things that can change?..ways of running the church.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
OK, but why did you [otjm] address all that to my post without a clear answer to the one and only question it raised: “What great benefit, then, does he see [in an ambiguous style] that is worth this cost to our unity”? You may be able to guess his intent and targets, but most people can’t and shouldn’t have to; it’s very dangerous to have to put words in his mouth, and leads to all the problems listed in my post. He is Christ’s representative on earth; why should he not always speak openly and clearly?

He has named names before in an effort to jog consciences but people still don’t like it.

As otjm said, “There is a whole lot of chatter, but precious little in the way of examples”. So, LS, what are some of the examples you are talking about? And please quote those who were not involved but still didn’t like it.

At the closing speech of the first synod he said…

• 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.

It’s clearly a temptation of those identifying as traditionalist and intellectuals, to be closed hearted to the movements of the Spirit… which requires an open heart and open mind.

**You don’t know what Synod bishops or Cardinals he meant, if any, because small t traditionalists are just non-Progressive, orthodox Catholics who love the Church’s valid traditions, such as the traditions shamefully and illegitimately destroyed by the “Spirit of VC II”; they are not zealots. Yet you put words in the Pope’s mouth and slime both those good people and intellectuals as closed hearted to the movements of the Spirit. If I had to guess who he was describing, it would be capital T Traditionalists, the separated, so-called Trads and their ilk. **

He names names, he’s attacked. He tries to be more subtle. He’s attacked. You’d think people… just didn’t like him.

**That’s neither true nor charitable, but it does, once again, prove my point:

While nobody learned any new lesson from the ambiguity at issue in this thread, it demonstrates that ambiguity from the one person on earth from whom we don’t want ambiguity results in mistrust, hurt feelings, accusation, preaching and confusion. That can’t have been his intention, so why does he persist in speaking ambiguously? What great benefit does he see in ambiguity that is worth this cost to our unity? **

 

[graciew]

Originally Posted by KSU
OK, but why did you [otjm] address all that to my post without a clear answer to the one and only question it raised: “What great benefit, then, does he see [in an ambiguous style] that is worth this cost to our unity”? You may be able to guess his intent and targets, but most people can’t and shouldn’t have to; it’s very dangerous to have to put words in his mouth, and leads to all the problems listed in my post. He is Christ’s representative on earth; why should he not always speak openly and clearly?

Because he is human. A man. A person who is 79 yo.
A person who gives daily homilies ,has a long road covered ,books written and streets walked.
And there is no such career as Popism he studied ,chose , gather supporters for , and envisioned as something he was looking for. No debates ,nor supporters ,no funding . Only the minor detail of a Conclave…and all its members.
And if he sounds ambiguous for some it does sound very clear for others ,and irrelevant for many and an opportunity to foster agendas for others.
He was chosen. From one day to the other. He left his office and friends and family to never return out of love of God and a lifetime story of giving himself to others.
What is ambigous about that ?

      Or do we need to touch to believe he is a son of the Church ?

    I d like to see any of us take his place...

Not for anything on earth for me. I d freak out ,as far as I can get and more.I’ d still be running.

 

[KSU]

Because he is human. A man. A person who is 79 yo.
A person who gives daily homilies ,has a long road covered ,books written and streets walked.
And there is no such career as Popism he studied ,chose , gather supporters for , and envisioned as something he was looking for. No debates ,nor supporters ,no funding . Only the minor detail of a Conclave…and all its members.
And if he sounds ambiguous for some it does sound very clear for others ,and irrelevant for many and an opportunity to foster agendas for others.
He was chosen. From one day to the other. He left his office and friends and family to never return out of love of God and a lifetime story of giving himself to others.
What is ambigous about that ?

      Or do we need to touch to believe he is a son of the Church ?

    I d like to see any of us take his place...

Not for anything on earth for me. I d freak out ,as far as I can get and more.I’ d still be running.

Fair enough.

 

[otjm]

**OK, but why did you address all that to my post without a clear answer to the one and only question it raised: “What great benefit, then, does he see [in an ambiguous style] that is worth this cost to our unity”? You may be able to guess his intent and targets, but most people can’t and shouldn’t have to; it’s very dangerous to have to put words in his mouth, and leads to all the problems listed in my post. He is Christ’s representative on earth; why should he not always speak openly and clearly? **

He did speak clearly and openly. It is you who are insisting that he name names. He does not have to name names, any more than Christ did not have to name names when He spoke about adultery, and indicated that lusting after a woman was a sin. If those who were going to stone the woman were lusting after her - or another women - they knew who they were. And if some of them were not lusting after any woman, they also knew that His comment was not directed to them about that sin. And that did not preclude them being guilty of another sin, knowing and acknowledging they were sinful, and so having no right to stone her.

And he did not need to name the other sins of which they might be guilty. They got it. They all slunk off, even though he was not clear about it. Except that He was clear enough. They got it.

And I suspect that others who are obstinate about matters in the Church also get it; it is a cop out to say “Oh, that can’t be meeee…” just because Francis has not specified whatever the issue is that they are obstinate about.

And as for the issue of unity - if people are being obstinate about a number of different things, then any “unity” is a figment of the imagination. Nothing in what the Pope said causes disunity. What causes disunity is being obstinate, instead of accepting what the Church teaches and does.

Most people can’t? Most people have not even heard the sermon or any out takes of it. And for those who have heard it, those who know they are not being obstinate know it is not directed to them. So unless they have an attitude of gossip - “Oh, did you hear what the Pope said today? Wow, he is really bringing heat down on (xyz)!”, the odds are extremely high that they will go about their business without so much as a sneeze.

I suspect that some people don’t want to hear the message; and a good way of avoiding it is to take the “Oh, it can’t be mmeee” approach and focus on the fact that he didn’t point out someone else on a different matter. It is called avoidance.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

WHAT FRANCIS IS GETTING AT:

• believing Archbishop Winters
• putting the Old Covenant first 1,900 years after Jesus Christ tried nice and hard to replace it with the new
• a kow towing mindset towards those who “lord it” over others’ outlook in church circles
• throwing His talent back at Him because we don’t want to build up the next person to be among the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, we don’t want the next person to have a spiritual crown let alone ourselves (the Irish nuns said it would be bad for us)
• casuistry (let’s stop CAF becoming Casuistry Answers Forum)
• people pleasing

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

My imagination went off at a tangent.

Benedict and JP II used to say exactly the same thing. Bible quote, core of Our Dear Lord’s message, great sermon.

Then they would say and here’s a “concrete” illustration of it - Mary was willing to have her son follow His Heavenly Father rather than her.

Paroxysms of delight all round. Everyone takes their eye off the ball altogether.

(Not knocking their style, simply saying that was it.)

Francis wants us to stay in touch with Our Lord’s raw message for New Covenant times however “feel-good” it isn’t.

 

[KSU]

He did speak clearly and openly. It is you who are insisting that he name names. When did I say that? You may be confusing me with LongingSoul’s comment about naming names. He does not have to name names, any more than Christ did not have to name names when He spoke about adultery, and indicated that lusting after a woman was a sin. If those who were going to stone the woman were lusting after her - or another women - they knew who they were. And if some of them were not lusting after any woman, they also knew that His comment was not directed to them about that sin. And that did not preclude them being guilty of another sin, knowing and acknowledging they were sinful, and so having no right to stone her. And he did not need to name the other sins of which they might be guilty. They got it. They all slunk off, even though he was not clear about it. Except that He was clear enough. They got it. Right, but the people Jesus was addressing were the people standing with rocks in their hands, and they and He knew they committed the sin and/or sins He wrote in the sand. There was no ambiguity there, so that’s an invalid comparison to the ambiguity in the OP.

And I suspect that others who are obstinate about matters in the Church also get it; it is a cop out to say “Oh, that can’t be meeee…” just because Francis has not specified whatever the issue is that they are obstinate about. ** There might be some of that, but not anywhere close to compensating for the harm caused by ambiguity.**

And as for the issue of unity - if people are being obstinate about a number of different things, then any “unity” is a figment of the imagination. Nothing in what the Pope said causes disunity. What causes disunity is being obstinate, instead of accepting what the Church teaches and does. Of course there is disunity; we don’t need to throw oil on the fire by ambiguity.****

Most people can’t? Most people have not even heard the sermon or any out takes of it. And for those who have heard it, those who know they are not being obstinate know it is not directed to them. So unless they have an attitude of gossip - “Oh, did you hear what the Pope said today? Wow, he is really bringing heat down on (xyz)!”, the odds are extremely high that they will go about their business without so much as a sneeze.

I suspect that some people don’t want to hear the message; and a good way of avoiding it is to take the “Oh, it can’t be mmeee” approach and focus on the fact that he didn’t point out someone else on a different matter. It is called avoidance.You are avoiding my point and question.

 

[otjm]

KSU:
I am not confusing you with any other post. You say he is ambiguous. Okay, if naming names would not cure the alleged ambiguity (and I think you are proposing it, whether or not you state it that way), naming the specific matter being addressed as an obstinate reaction would leave you with the same charge - that he is being ambiguous, because you don’t know who it is who is being obstinate about whatever he named as the subject. Play it either way, you say he is ambiguous. I say not.

As to my reference to those wishing to stone the adulterer, I beg to differ. What is it about the Pope’s statement you don’t get? the “sin” - that is, what people are being obstinate about? If he names it, your next complaint is “Well, I don’t know who it is so he is being ambiguous…”; at least I can’t discern anything else in your statements. Re-read my statement; it applies to your vague uncertainties, alleging that there is some sort of unity (which I disagree with for starters) which is being broken (I also disagree, as it is not there to begin with) by ambiguity over either what people are being obstinate about or who is being obstinate.

First you posit that the Popes’ comments will damage unity, tehn you agree there is disunity. Can’t have it both ways.

and you say his comments are putting oil on the fire. If the fire is people’s obstinate attitude, what do you suggest is going to challenge them? He is taking them verbally to the woodshed. You want nicey nicey? And that is going to break down an attitude of obstinacy? I have not seen it work yet; Christ confronted the Pharisees; the Pope is confronting those who are obstinate. If there had been a better way to bre=ak down the obstinate attitude of the Pharisees, I kinda suspect Christ would have used it… but He didn’t…

 

[KSU]

I am not confusing you with any other post. You say he is ambiguous. Okay, if naming names would not cure the alleged ambiguity (and I think you are proposing it, whether or not you state it that way), naming the specific matter being addressed as an obstinate reaction would leave you with the same charge - that he is being ambiguous, because you don’t know who it is who is being obstinate about whatever he named as the subject. Play it either way, you say he is ambiguous. I say not.You logic is too sophisticated for me to follow.

As to my reference to those wishing to stone the adulterer, I beg to differ. What is it about the Pope’s statement you don’t get? the “sin” - that is, what people are being obstinate about?** Correct.** If he names it, your next complaint is “Well, I don’t know who it is so he is being ambiguous…”; **Not correct, and there you go again with the false accusation, made first by another poster, that I want names. I would be satisfied with just his telling us the subject matter he was talking about. ** at least I can’t discern anything else in your statements.Sure you can: I’m clearly and plainly asking what great benefit he sees in an ambiguous style that is worth increasing our disunity as evidenced by threads such as this one? He is the Pope, for goodness sake, so he should be confident enough to speak plainly. Re-read my statement; it applies to your vague Vague? uncertainties, alleging that there is some sort of unity (which I disagree with for starters) which is being broken (I also disagree, as it is not there to begin with) by ambiguity over either what people are being obstinate about or who is being obstinate. Yes, I know that your statement is that you disagree with me.

First you posit that the Popes’ comments will damage unity, then you agree there is disunity. Can’t have it both ways.** What I posit is that ambiguity exacerbates disunity, as plainly evident in this thread. That’s not having it both ways. **

and you say his comments are putting oil on the fire Yes, the fire of existing disunity. If the fire is people’s obstinate attitude, Those are your words, not mine. what do you suggest is going to challenge them? He is taking them verbally to the woodshed. **True, but irrelevant to my question because he doesn’t tell us why he is taking some people to the woodshed. It would not be proper for a father to take his son to the woodshed for being obstinate about something the boy had no reason to believe was other than laudable resoluteness. ** You want nicey nicey? Only from my wife. From the Pope I want an absence of ambiguity. And that is going to break down an attitude of obstinacy? Depends on the obstinate person. I have not seen it work yet; Ever here of Mother Teresa? Christ confronted the Pharisees; Not with ambiguity though. the Pope is confronting those who are obstinate. But with ambiguity. If there had been a better way to break down the obstinate attitude of the Pharisees, I kinda suspect Christ would have used it… but He didn’t…**But He used kindness to many, and was not ambiguous to those he took to the woodshed.

My friend, I can’t convince you because you are very obstinate in your belief that I am obstinate in mine. So, let’s just agree to be obstinate. Peace.**

 

[clem456]

Ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder.
Isn’t the Pope addressing every Catholic? Why do we always assume he is talking about someone else?

 

[sallybutler]

It is natural and okay to want something. However, obstinacy is more than wanting something. For example, if you went to a Mass that had the Our Father in Latin, perhaps to accommodate a bi-lingual parish for a single joint Mass, and if you have it in front of you to read, would you refuse to join in the community to “fight” the Latin?

No, I would struggle with trying to say the words in Latin as I read them from the page instead of praying the prayers. Just like I did when I was a little kid and most of the Mass was in Latin. Like most kids, Dominus vobiscum came out as Dominus Nabisco, and I wanted to know why we were mentioning cookies in church.

If I were in a Spanish Mass, I would expect the Our Father to be in Spanish., French Mass, French prayers, Filipino, Tagalog, etc. In a bi-lingual Mass, I might expect one set of prayers to be in one language, the next set in another language, or perhaps repeat them in both languages. I really hadn’t thought about it.

Of course, what language would the sermon be in? Should it also be in Latin?