I don’t think he ever really went back on the reforms per se, only certain implementations. I think he was interviewed as Pope about that once and he said it was a good thing, at least the introduction of the vernacular.
It was pretty much the same with the Benedict/St JPII relationship. B was perceived as hard line old school tradition whilst JPII pushed the envelope of ecumenical relationship and humanism. The irony though is that both were a huge influence on each others work and spirit. Two sides of the one coin.
You could probably make a better argument about Pope JPII being a traditional since he was taught by the classical Thomist Garrigou-Lagrange. OTOH, Ratzinger was a “young firebrand” at VII.
Vernacular really wasn’t the issue (everyone wants things in their own language) as much as the complete elimination of Latin, as I understood it. True with Popes Paul VI and St John Paul II as well, who tried to restore Gregorian chant to parts of the Mass per Vatican II.
Ah ha. So true!You could probably make a better argument about Pope JPII being a traditional since he was taught by the classical Thomist Garrigou-Lagrange. OTOH, Ratzinger was a “young firebrand” at VII.
Right, but I don’t think Ratzinger ever argued for the complete elimination of Latin, so he never had to retract anything about that.
Not understanding (in english) what Pope Francis says in Italian does not make him unclear.He has his style and Pope Benedict XVI had his own!Talking about humility, each of them have expressed their humility in different ways.That does not mean Pope Francis is any less humble than Pope Benedict just because you are uncomfortable with his style.
I don’t think what Pope Francis is saying is contradictory or confusing, I just think and believe that the secular media gets it and manipulates the info. Look at how humble the man, look at his track record in Argentina. Pope Francis is a man of the Church and would never mess that up.
Not his fault but Argentina isn’t exactly where one wants to look for economic success. They just defaulted recently. His concern about poor countries is certainly understandable. It’s unfortunate this is translated as an attack against more successful economies and individuals.
First of all I never said he was less humble. I made no comparisons between the two. I agree with a lot of what P. Francis has done or says needs to be changed. But the way he goes about it makes it appear like a break from the past, which is very dangerous for any tradition.Not understanding (in english) what Pope Francis says in Italian does not make him unclear.He has his style and Pope Benedict XVI had his own!Talking about humility, each of them have expressed their humility in different ways.That does not mean Pope Francis is any less humble than Pope Benedict just because you are uncomfortable with his style.
Lets pray for God to remove the scales from our eyes and learn to see people for who they realy are and not for what we want to project them to be.( i usually do this myself)
The Cardinals are not economists in their countries. That is not the Pope Francis fault for the way Argentina has gone.
Well, everybody is affected by their socio-economic and cultural background. I wouldn’t exclude Pope Francis from that. Or any Pope for that matter. Surely, you allow that he is clearly a “progressive” on economic issues, correct? I think he would own up to it in a heartbeat; his politics come from personal conviction, no doubt. He jokes about getting called a Communist. I don’t see him as a man who hides anything he believes; it is there to see if you just follow the trail of his comments and actions. Seems to me that others are the ones who do the hiding and/or creative overhauls on his behalf. One of my resolutions next year I think will be to stop doing that. What you see is what you get with Papa Francis. A lot of this stress-inspired head bashing over the Synod :banghead: could be relieved. :dancing
This is not to opine on how the Pope will go forward from the 2015 Synod; just saying I think his own ** position on the issues can, in fact, be reasonably discerned. The ball there really is in the court of the bishops I sincerely believe - but we’re talking economics here, not Synod!)Actually most, if not all, bishops are responsible for finances and Church property within their respective dioceses. This does not make them economists, no, but they aren’t without secular responsibilities. The Pope has been even encouraging religious orders to be taking finance classes.
IIRC Pope Francis tightened the reigns on finances in his archdiocese. Maybe will help explain some of his emphasis against wastefulness.
Yes, but it wasn’t his stance that made Argentina go in default. That was my post in regards to your post from earlier. Argentina went default not bc of Pope Francis but because of the government that’s a big difference.
I agree, like I posted before posting to you, it was in regards to another member saying or implying that due to Pope Francis, Argentina went default. but I said, that is not Pope Francis fault, he is not the economist for that country, He is for his Diocese but not the entire country of Argentina,
Never said it was. In fact my first words in that post were “Not his fault.” I mentioned it when Argentina was brought up. There were creditors who lost their shirts investing in its bonds and other securities. It has a ripple effect on other economies as well. IIRC, there was a two- or three-day steep selloff in the U.S. markets as well.
Precisely.