Pope Francis wants Church to be poor, and for the poor

[Corki]

Let’s just wait and give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. I trust the Holy Spirit and the man chosen.

This comment makes no sense in relation to my post which you quoted. I said nothing about the Pope or doubt. My comment was about CAF posters who do not have any particular protection against error.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The best line in the article in my view: To set our duty to serve the poor against the splendor of divine worship is nothing less than to split Christ in two.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This comment makes no sense in relation to my post which you quoted. I said nothing about the Pope or doubt. My comment was about CAF posters who do not have any particular protection against error.

Mine says basically the same thing.

 

[Corki]

Well, a Cardinal taking a cab (and I agree with Jason: if it ends up costing more, then it’s pretty dumb-if for no other reason than the fact that the extra money will mean less money for good programs), would sure be a good witness. Even if I could afford a driver and limo, I wouldn’t purchase/use them.

Again, just pushing for specifics…

A good witness to what, exactly? No one, except hard core anti-Catholics, really wants to see a Prince of the Church standing in a cab line like a mid-level salesman.

And why would you categorically not take a limo with a driver? There are lots of reasons that executives do this and it’s not all money and prestige. Is it so important that a person **appear humble **that he would eschew the most efficient or cost effective means to get from point A to point B? My family takes a car service almost every time we go on a long trip. It’s much cheaper than paying for gas, tolls and airport parking not to mention the incalulable value of having someone help with luggage when you are juggling a babe-in-arms.

My point is simply that we are giving a lot of “ink” to what people expect to see and forgetting that the #1 job of a Cardinal (other than electing a Pope) is to act for the good of the Church – regardless of appearances.

 

[Megan7]

Actually having everything in Latin would be cheapest overall, if one factors in the money spent for translations, copyrights, royalties, etc. Not to mention being a lot more unifying than the existing system which splits Catholics into Spanish Masses, Polish Masses, etc.

Bingo!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s turn the question around - how exactly does the Pope using a sedia gestatoria, taking limos everywhere and living personally with luxuries that he doesn’t need help the Church?

Especially when doing so contrasts so vividly with the Gospel example set by Our Lord, the Apostles and the early Christians?

And more especially in this day and age when material display is so very often associated with ego, selfishness and self-indulgence, and provides such easy fodder for accusations of hypocrisy and such an easy excuse for people not to listen to the Church’s message

Actually there was a very interesting post in Father Z’s blog today.

Father Z, when young, used to shy away from the ‘smells and bells’ because he thought they were putting too much emphasis on HIM. (A wrong idea which is apparently still being embraced by some priests). . .

Then he realized by studying Scripture that the ‘sacrificial victim’ had ALWAYS been treated with special care. It was always the ‘lamb without blemish’ and always presented with great RITUAL. From the time of Abel’s offering of ‘the very best’, our sacrifices to God have been the same.

The PRIEST at Mass is the sacrificial victim, the "alter Christ’ and this is a reason why He (and also in extension the Sacred Body and Blood requiring to be kept in 'precious vessels) dressed in special vestments and was treated with such care (the Latin Mass is good for showing this).

Likewise, the Pope is Christ’s representative - not simply "Christ the Man’ who worked the earth as a poor man, but Christ the KING who is seated on the throne of heaven and WHO WILL COME IN GLORY.

That is the reason that the Pope wears ‘simple clothing’ when he is ‘at home’ but wears ‘robes’ and a crown and is escorted by men wearing ceremonial clothing and taken in things like the ‘popemobile’. . .because he represents the RISEN Christ, the CROWNED Christ, the KING Christ, who is representing the King in the performance of the King’s duties.

Too many seem to think that Popes or priests should be only "Christ the poor man’ and don’t want them to be Christ OUR VICTIM AND OUR KING (as the hymn goes).

There is no need for making something an ‘either-or’ when it’s a both-and. We don’t have to limit the Pope, or our priests, to ‘one’ representation of Christ. We can let the Pope and our priests be the FULL representatives of the WHOLE Christ. . .as it should be.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Again, just pushing for specifics…

A good witness to what, exactly? No one, except hard core anti-Catholics, really wants to see a Prince of the Church standing in a cab line like a mid-level salesman.

And why would you categorically not take a limo with a driver? There are lots of reasons that executives do this and it’s not all money and prestige. Is it so important that a person **appear humble **that he would eschew the most efficient or cost effective means to get from point A to point B? My family takes a car service almost every time we go on a long trip. It’s much cheaper than paying for gas, tolls and airport parking not to mention the incalulable value of having someone help with luggage when you are juggling a babe-in-arms.

My point is simply that we are giving a lot of “ink” to what people expect to see and forgetting that the #1 job of a Cardinal (other than electing a Pope) is to act for the good of the Church – regardless of appearances.

I don’t think it’s limited to ‘hard core anti-Catholics.’ There are people who would not consider the Catholic Church, or even research the Church, because of the ostentatious appearances. I really think Pope Francis’ simplistic approach could help with the New Evangelization, of those on the outside looking in.

 

[LilyM]

Actually there was a very interesting post in Father Z’s blog today.

Father Z, when young, used to shy away from the ‘smells and bells’ because he thought they were putting too much emphasis on HIM. (A wrong idea which is apparently still being embraced by some priests). . .

Then he realized by studying Scripture that the ‘sacrificial victim’ had ALWAYS been treated with special care. It was always the ‘lamb without blemish’ and always presented with great RITUAL. From the time of Abel’s offering of ‘the very best’, our sacrifices to God have been the same.

The PRIEST at Mass is the sacrificial victim, the "alter Christ’ and this is a reason why He (and also in extension the Sacred Body and Blood requiring to be kept in 'precious vessels) dressed in special vestments and was treated with such care (the Latin Mass is good for showing this).

Likewise, the Pope is Christ’s representative - not simply "Christ the Man’ who worked the earth as a poor man, but Christ the KING who is seated on the throne of heaven and WHO WILL COME IN GLORY.

That is the reason that the Pope wears ‘simple clothing’ when he is ‘at home’ but wears ‘robes’ and a crown and is escorted by men wearing ceremonial clothing and taken in things like the ‘popemobile’. . .because he represents the RISEN Christ, the CROWNED Christ, the KING Christ, who is representing the King in the performance of the King’s duties.

Too many seem to think that Popes or priests should be only "Christ the poor man’ and don’t want them to be Christ OUR VICTIM AND OUR KING (as the hymn goes).

There is no need for making something an ‘either-or’ when it’s a both-and. We don’t have to limit the Pope, or our priests, to ‘one’ representation of Christ. We can let the Pope and our priests be the FULL representatives of the WHOLE Christ. . .as it should be.

Which is fine and dandy for Father Z, you and I and the other 0.0001% of the population that gets it. How does it help the 6.9 billion who don’t? It’s not like they are even going to be intrigued and curious and ask.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

No one, except hard core anti-Catholics, really wants to see a Prince of the Church standing in a cab line like a mid-level salesman.

If a donkey was good enough for Jesus then a cab is good enough for the Pope. I don’t believe Jesus intended to appear distant, out of reach, and out of touch with the common man so why should it be so with the Pope? John Paul II did a great deal to reverse that perception but, from an outsider looking in, that work is far from complete. At least from my perspective, it seems that a lot of people value the luxurious trappings, pomp, and circumstance as much as the office itself. These are just remnants of an era in which the Pope was as much a worldly king, with his own armies with which to conquer, as he was a spiritual leader. Of course, as many people like to point out around here, I’m just an agnostic so what do I know.

And why would you categorically not take a limo with a driver? There are lots of reasons that executives do this and it’s not all money and prestige. Is it so important that a person **appear humble **that he would eschew the most efficient or cost effective means to get from point A to point B? My family takes a car service almost every time we go on a long trip. It’s much cheaper than paying for gas, tolls and airport parking not to mention the incalulable value of having someone help with luggage when you are juggling a babe-in-arms…

How expensive do you think it is to maintain a fleet of luxury vehicles and their drivers vs dropping a few bucks every once in awhile for a cab?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Which is fine and dandy for Father Z, you and I and the other 0.0001% of the population that gets it. How does it help the 6.9 billion who don’t? It’s not like they are even going to be intrigued and curious and ask.

And how did we ‘get it’, Lily? Surely you, I, and Father Z aren’t the world’s smartest Catholics, (I know I’m not). We aren’t the world’s most faithful Catholics, (I know I’m not).

So. . .I must have been ‘enabled’ (like you, and Father Z, and that other made-up statisticial bitty number) to ‘get it’. Somehow.

But I would NOT ‘get it’ if people decided, “it’s too hard”, “people won’t understand”. . 'we have more important things to do and this will confuse people" and never bothered to teach it/say it, right?

Don’t underestimate people or pigeonhole them into some vast box where they will ‘never’ bother to try to ‘learn’ something. If you’d talked to me 30 years ago, I’d have been just as ‘clueless’ as the ‘majority’, but I listened and I learned, later.

Maybe that ‘small number’ of us just needs to keep on teaching this. It’s truth, isn’t it? there is no truth that is too ‘small’ or too ‘hard’ that we need to STOP teaching because ‘so many people won’t get it, or care’.

Honestly, if the early Christians had decided that there were just too many non-Christians who were not only NOT getting it but also killing off people who were teaching Christianity, and decided not to rock the boat with the ‘hard stuff’, we wouldn’t have Christianity today.

Because things that are accepted by the majority today weren’t ‘known’ to the majority once upon a time. In fact they were actively FOUGHT against by the majority at some point. But people perservered because ALL truth matters.

 

[ProVobis]

If a donkey was good enough for Jesus then a cab is good enough for the Pope.

How expensive do you think it is to maintain a fleet of luxury vehicles and their drivers vs dropping a few bucks every once in awhile for a cab?

Out of curiosity I googled “Modes of transportation in the Roman Empire” and found these interesting sites:

crystalinks.com/rometransportation.html

jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/transprt/shiptrav.htm

io9.com/5975032/this-interactive-travel-map-of-the-roman-world-is-like-oregon-trail-meets-civilization-and-it-is-awesome

Many others.

 

[LilyM]

And how did we ‘get it’, Lily? Surely you, I, and Father Z aren’t the world’s smartest Catholics, (I know I’m not). We aren’t the world’s most faithful Catholics, (I know I’m not).

So. . .I must have been ‘enabled’ (like you, and Father Z, and that other made-up statisticial bitty number) to ‘get it’. Somehow.

But I would NOT ‘get it’ if people decided, “it’s too hard”, “people won’t understand”. . 'we have more important things to do and this will confuse people" and never bothered to teach it/say it, right?

Don’t underestimate people or pigeonhole them into some vast box where they will ‘never’ bother to try to ‘learn’ something. If you’d talked to me 30 years ago, I’d have been just as ‘clueless’ as the ‘majority’, but I listened and I learned, later.

Maybe that ‘small number’ of us just needs to keep on teaching this. It’s truth, isn’t it? there is no truth that is too ‘small’ or too ‘hard’ that we need to STOP teaching because ‘so many people won’t get it, or care’.

Honestly, if the early Christians had decided that there were just too many non-Christians who were not only NOT getting it but also killing off people who were teaching Christianity, and decided not to rock the boat with the ‘hard stuff’, we wouldn’t have Christianity today.

Because things that are accepted by the majority today weren’t ‘known’ to the majority once upon a time. In fact they were actively FOUGHT against by the majority at some point. But people perservered because ALL truth matters.

I get it because a) I was born Catholic and have known it from my childhood, and b) I have also had the extraordinary good fortune to have priests as close family friends so that I could really see that their private living was anything bit sumptuous.

It was not, I can assure you. because any priest preached it in a sermon or wrote on the Internet about it. If I had not drawn from my own experience but only seen Father Z’s column it probably would have sounded like the most weak and self-serving of self-justifications, and I likely would not have bothered to I vestigate further.

I can’t answer for you, but I would make a substantial bet that most of those who ‘get it’ are in the same situation as I, rather than being won over by the likes of Father Z or posts on CAF.

ETA - those priests who I have known personally, now that I think of if, have all been Franciscan, so even their public liturgy was never smells-and-bells-to-the-uttermost-max, although there was enpugh incense, chanting and the like to create a suitably dignified liturgy. Perhaps the fact that there was not such a massive disconnect between rebid public and private personae made it easier to understand.

 

[TEPO]

I want everyone on earth to be poor… Then we can all be for each other ! :hypno:

 

[Corki]

If a donkey was good enough for Jesus then a cab is good enough for the Pope.

That’s a rather selfish attitude, no offense intended. The Pope can no more take a cab than the President can. It would be sercurity risk and put his life and the lives of those around him in danger. Why would anyone think it is worth endangering others just because of outward appearance? But the discussion was about Cardinals, anyway, not the Pope.

At least from my perspective, it seems that a lot of people value the luxurious trappings, pomp, and circumstance as much as the office itself.

Not AS MUCH. But it is a slap in the face to Catholic tradition to dismiss out of hand, the value of the pomp and circumstances attached to the office. They are not AS IMPORTANT but neither are they valueless.

These are just remnants of an era in which the Pope was as much a worldly king, with his own armies with which to conquer, as he was a spiritual leader.

No they are not. The style of many of the trappings is from that era. But they are not “just remnants”. They are symbols of the role of the Pope as Vicar on earth and Supreme Pontiff. The Pope is not just a “regular guy” and never can be.

How expensive do you think it is to maintain a fleet of luxury vehicles and their drivers vs dropping a few bucks every once in awhile for a cab

You might be surprized. This isn’t a “fleet” maintained full time. They are cars and drivers hired for the duration of a Cardinal’s visit to Rome, which is usually for a week or two. Given the number of meetings and other events that a Cardinal usually has on his schedule, calling a cab in Rome several times a day is not going to be cheap either - especially if they have to sit with the meter running a few times a day. If there is a cost savings, it is undoubtedly small and maybe not even a good trade off for the reduction in efficiency and security. But it sure makes the press happy.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We have an awful lot of people who are saying what they think Pope Francis meant when he spoke the thread title words, or what they WANT Pope Francis to have meant. . .

For myself, I think I’ll let Pope Francis, in the coming days, weeks, months, years, etc. tell me what he means instead of letting others tell me what they think he means.

 

[stellina]

So lets assume for a minute that we sell off everything the Vatican has, and accumulate a few billion dollars to give to the poor. We could give each poor person, what, five or six dollars? And what then? You’ve given away everything, have nothing left, and now have no further way to help.

Helping the poor need not, and should not, mean putting the church itself into abject poverty, if for no other reason than this would make it much harder to help.

Exactly. People are getting a bit crazy and reading far too much into the pope’s remarks. What His Holiness said is nothing new, or nothing that should seem new or revolutionary to any Christian who knows the Gospel.

I’ll tell a story that illustrates something about people who are taking this opportunity to scream about the wealth of the church. Once I was in Rome with someone who made a point of telling me that in one of the small Vatican museums, there was a case of solid gold Christmas ornaments studded with diamonds. He followed this with the usual rant about how disgusting it is that the church owns such things, that they should be sold & the money given to charity, etc. Then we went there and he proudly pointed out the display. I had worked in a jewelry store and could tell at first glance that the ornaments were nothing more than painted wood and rhinestones. All I had to do was ask him calmly if he realized this and he shut up.

 

[LilyM]

That’s a rather selfish attitude, no offense intended. The Pope can no more take a cab than the President can. It would be sercurity risk and put his life and the lives of those around him in danger. Why would anyone think it is worth endangering others just because of outward appearance? But the discussion was about Cardinals, anyway, not the Pope.

Not AS MUCH. But it is a slap in the face to Catholic tradition to dismiss out of hand, the value of the pomp and circumstances attached to the office. They are not AS IMPORTANT but neither are they valueless.

No they are not. The style of many of the trappings is from that era. But they are not “just remnants”. They are symbols of the role of the Pope as Vicar on earth and Supreme Pontiff. The Pope is not just a “regular guy” and never can be.

You might be surprized. This isn’t a “fleet” maintained full time. They are cars and drivers hired for the duration of a Cardinal’s visit to Rome, which is usually for a week or two. Given the number of meetings and other events that a Cardinal usually has on his schedule, calling a cab in Rome several times a day is not going to be cheap either - especially if they have to sit with the meter running a few times a day. If there is a cost savings, it is undoubtedly small and maybe not even a good trade off for the reduction in efficiency and security. But it sure makes the press happy.

Sometimes symbolic gestures and the impressions they create are very important too - the symbolic value of Jesus riding into Jerusalem surrounded by a cheering throng vs the symbolic value of Jesus washing the feet of His Apostles, for example.

After all, isn’t that what this argument is about?

Wearing finery and taking limos on the one hand, because it creates an impression of dignity and authority and power vs not wearing it and taking cabs on the other, because it creates an impression of concern for substance rather than show. Each side hoping that the impression, the symbol, begets the reality.

 

[Corki]

After all, isn’t that what this argument is about?

Actually, this part of the argument was about Cardinals taking taxis.

Sometimes symbolic gestures and the impressions they create are very important too - the symbolic value of Jesus riding into Jerusalem surrounded by a cheering throng vs the symbolic value of Jesus washing the feet of His Apostles, for example.

But IMHO, it is wrong to expect our Cardinals or our Pope to behave as if they were living in 1st Century Jerusalem. That’s not what makes a clergyman Christ-like.

Wearing finery and taking limos on the one hand, because it creates an impression of dignity and authority and power vs not wearing it and taking cabs on the other, because it creates an impression of concern for substance rather than show. Each side hoping that the impression, the symbol, begets the reality

I don’t really see any “substance” in an Italian cab ride that is significant for a Cardinal. Does a cab provide the substantive element of dignity, authority or power? Maybe I am just missing it but I don’t see that. This is a false dichotomy.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s a rather selfish attitude, no offense intended. The Pope can no more take a cab than the President can. It would be sercurity risk and put his life and the lives of those around him in danger. Why would anyone think it is worth endangering others just because of outward appearance?

That is an interesting point. Security does cost money and whether he feels he needs as much as the previous Popes did will soon be known to us. But then if he reduced security he might be hinting that his predecessors were perhaps too extravagant. That would be a little awkward IMO. Anyone feel differently?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Wearing finery and taking limos on the one hand, because it creates an impression of dignity and authority and power vs not wearing it and taking cabs on the other, because it creates an impression of concern for substance rather than show. Each side hoping that the impression, the symbol, begets the reality.

This reminds me of Prince Charles’ investiture as Prince of Wales. I’ve heard it said that the he found the coronet to be too heavy so the golden globe near the top was temporarily replaced with a spray painted golf ball for the ceremony.