Pope Francis says Pope Benedict was a 'great pope'

[Lormar]

Pope Francis is right about Pope Benedict. What I admire the most about Pope Benedict is his integrity. In the late sixties, he was able to see how some of the ideas he had held earlier that decade were not so good after all once he saw them in practice. He had the honesty to back track. For someone of his intellectual stature, that takes a lot. Most are too proud to do what he did.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope Francis is right about Pope Benedict. What I admire the most about Pope Benedict is his integrity. In the late sixties, he was able to see how some of the ideas he had held earlier that decade were not so good after all once he saw them in practice. He had the honesty to back track. For someone of his intellectual stature, that takes a lot. Most are too proud to do what he did.

I think the problem that Pope Francis is dealing with is proving the opposite. The ‘hostile inflexibility’ of the ultra traditionalists and intellectuals who cannot humble themselves to consider the path of the new evangelisation.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I think the problem that Pope Francis is dealing with is proving the opposite. The ‘hostile inflexibility’ of the ultra traditionalists and intellectuals who cannot humble themselves to consider the path of the new evangelisation.

Wow, thanks for the hand reach out across the aisle. As a “hostile inflexbile ultra traditionalist intellectual” I’ll muster what humility I can scrounge up and let it pass…

 

[Lormar]

Wow, thanks for the hand reach out across the aisle. As a “hostile inflexbile ultra traditionalist intellectual” I’ll muster what humility I can scrounge up and let it pass…

Me too. And take it as a lesson as what not to become like.

 

[ialsop]

Me too. And take it as a lesson as what not to become like.

Ditto!

 

[LongingSoul]

Wow, thanks for the hand reach out across the aisle. As a “hostile inflexbile ultra traditionalist intellectual” I’ll muster what humility I can scrounge up and let it pass…

Those were the words of the Pope during the Synod closing speech. He mentioned two types of error. I was pointing out that pride is not exclusively a problem with excessive liberalism… it manifests also in inflexible traditionalism.

Here is the quote…

• 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.”

 

[TMC]

Why does every thing that the Pope says have to be taken as a “signal” that he favors “traditionalists” or “progressives”? Maybe he was just saying earnestly saying something nice about his predecessor without any hidden meanings or cryptic signals.

 

[McCall1981]

Why does every thing that the Pope says have to be taken as a “signal” that he favors “traditionalists” or “progressives”? Maybe he was just saying earnestly saying something nice about his predecessor without any hidden meanings or cryptic signals.

I agree that we shouldn’t be looking for “signals” here, but probably for a different than what you mean.

I think looking for signals made sense in the earliest part of the pontificate because we didn’t know much about him, and wanted to know where he stood. By this point though, I think we have seen enough that we know the answers, without having to read the tea leaves of all of his comments.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Those were the words of the Pope during the Synod closing speech. He mentioned two types of error. I was pointing out that pride is not exclusively a problem with excessive liberalism… it manifests also in inflexible traditionalism.

Here is the quote…

• 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.”

Ah, got it, thanks. So now what I do is post the second half in reply, something to the effect that perhaps the Pope is equally struggling with those 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.

Sorry I missed my cue. Hostile inflexiblity can do that.

 

[LongingSoul]

Ah, got it, thanks. So now what I do is post the second half in reply, something to the effect that perhaps the Pope is equally struggling with those 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.

Sorry I missed my cue. Hostile inflexiblity can do that.

Lomar commented on the fact that Pope Benedict, originally a liberal theologian… rethought his ideas and moved to the conservative view, observing that others are too prideful to do that. I responded saying that Pope Francis was having an issue with the ultra conservatives not wanting to consider a rethink regarding the language and disciplines of the Church in place on certain issues. That is also a prideful position. Lomar posted one side. I countered in regards the prideful remark, with the other side of the coin. Then you came along guns akimbo. End of story.

 

[Lormar]

Lomar commented on the fact that Pope Benedict, originally a liberal theologian… rethought his ideas and moved to the conservative view, observing that others are too prideful to do that. I responded saying that Pope Francis was having an issue with the ultra conservatives not wanting to consider a rethink regarding the language and disciplines of the Church in place on certain issues. That is also a prideful position. Lomar posted one side. I countered in regards the prideful remark, with the other side of the coin. Then you came along guns akimbo. End of story.

Where do you see the words “liberal” or “conservative” in my post?

Here is my post:

Pope Francis is right about Pope Benedict. What I admire the most about Pope Benedict is his integrity. In the late sixties, he was able to see how some of the ideas he had held earlier that decade were not so good after all once he saw them in practice. He had the honesty to back track. For someone of his intellectual stature, that takes a lot. Most are too proud to do what he did.

I wasn’t posting any side. I was making a comment about Pope Benedict.

You are the one who took it upon herself to interpret my post as you wanted to.

Perhaps you can ask a poster to clarify in the future if you are confused about what they mean. It is better to do that than assume.

 

[LongingSoul]

Where do you see the words “liberal” or “conservative” in my post?

Here is my post:

Pope Francis is right about Pope Benedict. What I admire the most about Pope Benedict is his integrity. In the late sixties, he was able to see how some of the ideas he had held earlier that decade were not so good after all once he saw them in practice. He had the honesty to back track. For someone of his intellectual stature, that takes a lot. Most are too proud to do what he did.

I wasn’t posting any side. I was making a comment about Pope Benedict.

You are the one who took it upon herself to interpret my post as you wanted to.

Perhaps you can ask a poster to clarify in the future if you are confused about what they mean. It is better to do that than assume.

Following the synod threads I thought you to be on the conservative side. If there was no bias in your above statement and you could also respect those who would leave the inflexible traditional position spoken of for a more liberal perspective, I apologise for making a wrong assumption.

 

[Lormar]

Following the synod threads I thought you to be on the conservative side. If there was no bias in your above statement and you could also respect those who would leave the inflexible traditional position spoken of for a more liberal perspective, I apologise for making a wrong assumption.

Catholicism has no sides. We are not a political party.
And pride is no respecter of persons.
We all, unfortunately, have more of it than we should.

 

[FollowChrist34]

LongingSoul, I meant no offense. The point I was trying to make, perhaps clumsily, is that “liberals” and “conservatives” have to be together in the same Church. I was trying to demonstrate how destructive self-identifying into one of these categories can become if we don’t reach out to each other and at least see each other as human - maybe fellow Catholics is better.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Pope Francis is right about Pope Benedict. What I admire the most about Pope Benedict is his integrity. In the late sixties, he was able to see how some of the ideas he had held earlier that decade were not so good after all once he saw them in practice. He had the honesty to back track. For someone of his intellectual stature, that takes a lot. Most are too proud to do what he did.

What ideas did he retract?

The only things noticeable that I can tell are a deeper Mariology and more focus on St. Thomas Aquinas than earlier on. But nothing really retracted.

 

[ProVobis]

What ideas did he retract?

The only things noticeable that I can tell are a deeper Mariology and more focus on St. Thomas Aquinas than earlier on. But nothing really retracted.

Speaking for myself, it seems Cardinal Ratzinger, once a proponent for liturgical reforms, realized afterwards that what was put into practice became a “banal fabrication” and its spirit was lost. This among other things.

 

[Digitonomy]

What ideas did he retract?

One thing that comes to mind was his suggestion that a patriarch for each continent be created.

This doesn’t really fall into the category Lormar described, as his retraction wasn’t in the late 1960s, but about twenty years later.

 

[Digitonomy]

You have to remember that as a young man, Joseph Ratzinger was a brilliant theologian. He wrote something in regards to the Second Vatican Council. It was so good, that then Pope John XXIII used his same words. Pope Benedict had an 8 year pontificate and some people might say it was too short. But considering what the man did as a theologian, as a bishop, as a Cardinal, as JPII right hand man, and as Pope, when you put his pedigree together, it is impeccable.

I guess that’s one way to look at it. But if we are counting all his pre-ponificate activity to make him one of the three best popes in history (who are the top two?), then even if he had never been elected he would still probably be in the top quarter of popes. In which case, how many other non-popes through history should be high ranking on the list of popes?:whacky:

 

[jimmy]

I guess that’s one way to look at it. But if we are counting all his pre-ponificate activity to make him one of the three best popes in history (who are the top two?), then even if he had never been elected he would still probably be in the top quarter of popes. In which case, how many other non-popes through history should be high ranking on the list of popes?:whacky:

Not very many are as influential theologically as P. Benedict was. Leo the Great and Gregory the Great are probably the two most influential. The 19th and 20th centuries produced some popes who were influential theologically. But other than them, what great theologians have there been in the history of the papacy?

That said, I liked P. Benedict. Not only was he a great theologian, he was also very humble. I have been hesitant about P. Francis because in a lot of ways he is seen as contrarian to P. Benedict, and it is partly his fault. He has been very unclear in many of his statements. In many ways his pontificate seems reactionary against that of P. Benedict.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Not very many are as influential theologically as P. Benedict was. Leo the Great and Gregory the Great are probably the two most influential. The 19th and 20th centuries produced some popes who were influential theologically. But other than them, what great theologians have there been in the history of the papacy?

That said, I liked P. Benedict. Not only was he a great theologian, he was also very humble. I have been hesitant about P. Francis because in a lot of ways he is seen as contrarian to P. Benedict, and it is partly his fault. He has been very unclear in many of his statements. In many ways his pontificate seems reactionary against that of P. Benedict.

I agree about Pope Benedict, but IMO Pope Francis’ papacy is very much in line with his predecessor’s. There have been numerous times where I’ve read something from Francis and thought “he’s just repeating what Benedict said in his ________”. I think, iirc, some of his more “controversial” statements were things Ratzinger said 40 yrs ago in his Introduction to Christianity.

But he certainly does have a different style than Benedict. His line of thought, though, is very much in the same path.