Pope Francis on Rigidity

[leonhardprintz]

It is a very modern thing to criticise a Pope in a manner that reflects we know better than him. It first emerged with the liberal persuasion of modern Catholic but the baton has now been taken up by the ‘traditionalists’ ironically.

That’s entirely true.

It is also true that people have never been more well read now than ever before. A thousand years ago, I we had been born then, the Pope would have been a distant figure we almost never heard about, and we’d listen far more to our local Bishop than to him.

We’d have little to wonder about if during this or that public speech something curious or vague was said. We’d just know our prayers, and our faith as it was taught to us.

I believe, perhaps unlike you (I don’t know - as I only skimmed the thread), that it is possible for Catholics to disagree with the Pope when done in a humble and proper way. I furthermore believe that its possible for scholars of theology to go even further, but since I don’t have a degree in those fields I never do that.

One of the good things of the Second Vatican Council was its move away from hyper montanism, where the Pope is seen as infallible in anything he says or does. I think going that far is easily seen as ridiculous.

I don’t think its as easy as saying “Liberals criticized Pope Benedict XVIth” and “Traditionals criticize Pope Francis”, that does tend to shoebox a lot of people. I’ve seen very traditional Catholics criticise Pope Benedict XVIth’s decision to promulgate Summorum Pontificum. Even outright calling it a mistake.

Its not a liberal act to criticize him for that.

This, liberal contra traditional, distinction I find a bit suspect. Though perhaps its just how people end up thinking, because cognitively dealing with real complex people is a lot harder.

 

[stpurl]

I’m glad you put ‘traditionalists’ in quotes but to be absolutely fair, you should have put ‘radical/sede traditionalists’. The average Catholic who considers himself or herself to be traditionalist, i.e. to like or even prefer certain styles, rites, or devotions, doesn’t criticize the Pope any more than you would when it comes to, as you put it, ‘knowing better than he’.

However, Catholics of all walks have always talked with or to their Popes, even to the point of pointing out personal errors. . .from St. Paul to St. Peter, to St. Catherine of Siena and the Popes in Avignon.

 

[Malcolm]

forgive me but I can’t get the comparison out of my head …

V2 is like the “new” Coke-a-Cola and people still want “the real thing”

maybe young people don’t even remember it (circa 1985) ?

 

[stpurl]

Well, not quite (though I’m old and I do remember, and actually it is an apt comparison in many ways).

V2 was a real council. There are documents (I’ve read them). There were proposed changes (but many, many of the ‘Vatican 2 changes’ were never called for in the documents, or even contradicted the documents. . .for example, the entire Mass was never meant to be ‘all in the vernacular’ and the vernacular was not instituted because the EF was something that people just ‘couldn’t understand’. A person can prefer the EF and Gregorian chant and such things as ember days and Rogation days, May crownings, etc and not be at all in conflict with Vatican 2. In fact, this is what most traditionalists are like; they accept what the Council actually taught just as they would accept any other teachings of the Church of the same degree. At the same time, if there are things put forward which are actually not part of the council, or if there are teachings put forth which appear confusing (AL and how it is ‘enforced’ in different areas) it is entirely possible to ask for clarity and to point out where it appears to be questionable. This is not disrespectful of any person in the hierarchy.

And here’s one more thing. Obviously, people who like the OF (and they are many) prefer it, and are not shy about saying so, for reasons such as: It’s in a language I understand, it’s more participatory, therefore it is ‘better’ (if it weren’t ‘better’, then you would say, 'it doesn’t matter which Mass I attend, each is the same to me). So why is that not only all right, but doesn’t even get noticed that it’s a claim that the OF is objectively better because of the above, but people who prefer the EF and say that it’s because it is deeper, more nuanced, more ‘sacred and mysterious’, are criticized? IMO, if you allow the OF to be preferred with the implication that it’s better because you can understand it blah blah, you equally should allow the EF to be preferred for the reasons of preferring the mystery. It’s only fair.

 

[Emeraldlady]

And here’s one more thing. Obviously, people who like the OF (and they are many) prefer it, and are not shy about saying so, for reasons such as: It’s in a language I understand, it’s more participatory, therefore it is ‘better’ (if it weren’t ‘better’, then you would say, 'it doesn’t matter which Mass I attend, each is the same to me). So why is that not only all right, but doesn’t even get noticed that it’s a claim that the OF is objectively better because of the above, but people who prefer the EF and say that it’s because it is deeper, more nuanced, more ‘sacred and mysterious’, are criticized? IMO, if you allow the OF to be preferred with the implication that it’s better because you can understand it blah blah, you equally should allow the EF to be preferred for the reasons of preferring the mystery. It’s only fair.

That’s not what happens. Look at the two most recent anti OF threads.

Feeling guilt from attending the Ordinary Form Liturgy and Sacraments

Hello, I have a friend who has started going to Extraordinary Form Masses. These Latin Masses are quite beautiful and I appreciate their reverence, but I don’t feel as comfortable as I was raised in the Ordinary Form. Typically it’s easier for me to worship God more fully in my native tongue, to understand how to best enter into worship. My pastor has very reverent, traditional Ordinary Masses in an old Gothic church: luckily no liturgical abuses anywhere. My friend is pressuring me to switch t…

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/novus-ordo-and-the-rise-of-the-lukewarm/547820

The argument for EF goes, we like it because it is ‘better’ than the OF which is full of abuse and irreverent and filled with ‘lukewarm’ Catholics.

The argument for OF goes, it’s the form the Church uses now. It has been said in the Casa Santa Marta nearly every day by every Pope since the Church gave it to us.

It is insulting to ordinary everyday Catholics to be told they aren’t reverent enough or participating in abuse of the Liturgy.

 

[stpurl]

It’s also insulting for EF Catholics to be told that they are ‘incapable of understanding a liturgy in a language not their own’, isn’t it?

Furthermore pulling up two ‘recent threads’ to support your position isn’t really germane. And I said nothing like

The argument for EF goes, we like it because it is ‘better’ than the OF which is full of abuse and irreverent and filled with ‘lukewarm’ Catholics.
that. You did.

 

[Emeraldlady]

It’s also insulting for EF Catholics to be told that they are ‘incapable of understanding a liturgy in a language not their own’, isn’t it?

[/quote]

I’ve never seen anyone give a reason why people shouldn’t go to EF. Perhaps someone said they prefer the vernacular to Latin because they don’t understand it but I’ve never seen it coined as a reason that others shouldn’t go. I’m suspicious of that claim.

Furthermore pulling up two ‘recent threads’ to support your position isn’t really germane. And I said nothing like

The argument for EF goes, we like it because it is ‘better’ than the OF which is full of abuse and irreverent and filled with ‘lukewarm’ Catholics.
that. You did.

You claim different all you like but I read these threads as they come up and the insults are against how bad the OF is, not the other way around.

 

[PetraG]

I think the Pope is only saying what Steven Covey says:
“The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”

There is the first and most important commandment and there is the second, which is like it.
The whole intention of seeking out the most revererent way to celebrate the Holy Mass and to show reverence to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament has to be to pursue the fulfilment of these two commandments ever more fully.

We have always known that rigidity and self-satisfaction are the temptations that Satan will use to tempt those who attempt to persevere in such a pursuit, just as the desire to avoid those two pitfalls are a way Satan will use to lull the lax into avoiding inspirations to leave behind a lukewarm spirit.

It is always worth testing ourselves against the poisons we know that the Evil One will attempt to implant in the faithful. No matter what we do, we know the tempter is prowling, looking for a way to seduce us from the way of holiness and mercy. Of course we have to be on the lookout; that is true no matter who we are or what means we have for giving ourselves wholeheartedly to Almighty God.

No matter who we are, we are on a battlefield. We are the Church Militant. No, we can never forget that, nor can we forget that we are all in this together. There are no souls for whom Our Lord does not thirst. If we have lost the thirst for souls that Our Master has, that is a warning that we need to question ourselves. If we question mainly others and not ourselves or don’t question others mainly to understand how to serve them better, that is also a red flag. Satan seeks to divide; we must be watchful lest the Evil One succeed in dividing us and so find a way to defeat anything that grace would achieve in us.

 

[gracepoole]

stpurl:

It’s also insulting for EF Catholics to be told that they are ‘incapable of understanding a liturgy in a language not their own’, isn’t it?

I’ve never seen anyone give a reason why people shouldn’t go to EF. Perhaps someone said they prefer the vernacular to Latin because they don’t understand it but I’ve never seen it coined as a reason that others shouldn’t go. I’m suspicious of that claim.

Furthermore pulling up two ‘recent threads’ to support your position isn’t really germane. And I said nothing like

The argument for EF goes, we like it because it is ‘better’ than the OF which is full of abuse and irreverent and filled with ‘lukewarm’ Catholics.
that. You did.

You claim different all you like but I read these threads as they come up and the insults are against how bad the OF is, not the other way around.

In a recent thread about extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, someone out of the blue made this comment: “Pieces of Catholic social media like this remind me why I use the EMHC every chance I get, and have resolved never to go to a Latin Mass.”

The thread wasn’t about the EF. Yet someone felt compelled to disparage it nonetheless.

Struggling with lay ministers and the Eucharist Liturgy and Sacraments

Wait, what? How does that follow?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

stpurl:

It’s also insulting for EF Catholics to be told that they are ‘incapable of understanding a liturgy in a language not their own’, isn’t it?

I’ve never seen anyone give a reason why people shouldn’t go to EF. Perhaps someone said they prefer the vernacular to Latin because they don’t understand it but I’ve never seen it coined as a reason that others shouldn’t go. I’m suspicious of that claim.

Furthermore pulling up two ‘recent threads’ to support your position isn’t really germane. And I said nothing like

The argument for EF goes, we like it because it is ‘better’ than the OF which is full of abuse and irreverent and filled with ‘lukewarm’ Catholics.
that. You did.

You claim different all you like but I read these threads as they come up and the insults are against how bad the OF is, not the other way around.

In a recent thread about extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, someone out of the blue made this comment: “Pieces of Catholic social media like this remind me why I use the EMHC every chance I get, and have resolved never to go to a Latin Mass.”

The thread wasn’t about the EF. Yet someone felt compelled to disparage it nonetheless.

Struggling with lay ministers and the Eucharist Liturgy and Sacraments

Wait, what? How does that follow?

That sounds like someone who just has a problem with all Priests. But it seems they were just a troll anyway as their account seems to be gone.
[/QUOTE]

 

[lucius2]

Enemies of the church can also be attitudes that bring dissension or are so malleable that flow like water or the wind to very nearly all traditions and structure in the name of tolerance or love or compassion. When in reality these attitudes are whispers of an unseen enemy that seeks to nullify and chip away at nearly all of our foundations. I think this Is the other enemy besides the obvious focus of our Holy Father’s chastisement of those who let themselves be so rigid as to become like the Pharisees. The winds and instruction of the Holy Spirit that you refer to should be tested and can be when appropriate to be sure and clear they are sound and coming from that Power and not something else.

 

[Dovekin]

IMO, if you allow the OF to be preferred with the implication that it’s better because you can understand it blah blah, you equally should allow the EF to be preferred for the reasons of preferring the mystery. It’s only fair.

This may be “fair” in some definition of that word, but it is not right. You create a clear difference between the two forms, where OF promotes understanding while EF promotes mystery.

If the Church is dedicated to preaching the Word of God so that people understand it, there is no fairness in allowing the promotion of obscurity or mystery.

If the Church is dedicated to holding God up as beyond our comprehension, there is no fairness in helping people understand.

Of course, the Church is dedicated to both those principles at one and the same time. We acknowledge one person with two natures, a companionable humanity and an incomprehensible divinity. We have a ritual with two forms, ordinary and extraordinary. They should not be set against each other, nor should the principles be opposed to each other.

 

[stpurl]

Why did you quote only the last bit of my post, but not the rest which puts the above in context?

It is not ‘understanding versus mystery’, it’s a lot more nuanced than that.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Enemies of the church can also be attitudes that bring dissension or are so malleable that flow like water or the wind to very nearly all traditions and structure in the name of tolerance or love or compassion. When in reality these attitudes are whispers of an unseen enemy that seeks to nullify and chip away at nearly all of our foundations. I think this Is the other enemy besides the obvious focus of our Holy Father’s chastisement of those who let themselves be so rigid as to become like the Pharisees. The winds and instruction of the Holy Spirit that you refer to should be tested and can be when appropriate to be sure and clear they are sound and coming from that Power and not something else.

That’s true but this thread is addressing why a particular rigidity is poisonous to faith and in a way denies that movement of the Holy Spirit in bringing to light divine revelation as God desires.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that the prime purpose of the Church is to hand down faithfully the deposit of Faith from generation to generation. That requires firm adherence to what has been received. And maybe it can be perceived as rigidity. But if we do not preserve the Faith, we are in danger of becoming the church of what’s happening now.

 

[MikeInVA]

If a Jesuit is stuck anywhere, it in the 1st century with Christ.

I pray that it were true, but most Jesuits that I have encountered recently are very much creatures of the 21st century.

 

[JimG]

It may be that some got stuck in the 1960’s.

 

[stpurl]

Oh I can’t help it. . .

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

If a Jesuit is stuck anywhere, it in the 1st century with Christ.

I pray that it were true, but most Jesuits that I have encountered recently are very much creatures of the 21st century.

That is usually the accusation of those who don’t believe Jesus would have fought for social justice were he incarnate today.

 

[JimG]

Well, Jesus is still incarnate today and for eternity. But when he walked the earth 2,000 years ago, he did not heal all the sick, though he cured some. He fed the 5,000, but did not provide for an ongoing food supply. He did not provide a safety net for all the poor.