Pope Francis what to do?

[Latin]

EXCERPTS FROM “Solid food Theology.”

For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 1) that the "Divine will or power is called fate. "
But the Divine will or power is not in creatures, but in God. Therefore fate is not in creatures but in God.

The Divine will is cause of all things that happen, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.). Therefore all things are subject to fate.

The same is true for events in our lives. Relative to us they often appear to be by chance.
But relative to God, who directs everything according to his divine plan, nothing occurs by chance.

Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop.
Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III.)

.
CCC 2022; The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).
.
CCCS 1996-1998; This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.”

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.

Evil He converts into good (Genesis 1:20; cf. Psalm 90:10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6; Psalm 65:2-10;

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in “P.L.”,

God is the sole ruler of the world. His will governs all things. He loves all men, desires the salvation of all, and His providence extends to all nation.

Again, from the fact that God has created the universe, it shows that He must also govern it; for just as the contrivances of man demand attention and guidance, so God, as a good workman, must care for His work.

God acts through secondary causes, yet all alike postulate Divine concurrence and receive their powers of operation from Him ; efficacious, in that all things minister to God’s final purpose, a purpose which cannot be frustrated (Contra Gent., III, xciv);

That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Divine Providence
.
God bless

 

[Bernoulli]

There are two types of will, active and permissive, for God. Pope Francis himself when asked later stated that the document referred to God’s PERMISSIVE will in this and not his ACTIVE will.

The problem with this interpretation is that the document also mentioned gender differences in the same sentence. It is not correct that gender differences are based on God’s permissive will instead of active.

 

[Xarto]

What about the pachamama incident?

Evangelism, over done.

 

[pnewton]

In “Milk food Theology,”
.
In “Solid food Theology

Might I as the theologian who proposed this distinction? I have never heard of it, and despite the quotes from the catechism, it is not in there.

 

[StudentMI]

Those detractors of Pope Francis will surely face a harsh judgement for the damage they’ve done to the faith of people like yourself.

Methinks that’s a bit ridiculous. Playing God, if you will. Especially considering most of them if not all are simply going by their conscience and their understanding of the faith.

 

[Latin]

… who proposed this distinction?

1 Cor.3:2 contains both “Milk food Theology” and “Solid food Theology,” we don’t even need too much theological knowledge or God’s gift of logic to see it.

1 Cor.3:2; I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.

1 Cor.3:2; I fed you with milk (tech you “Milk food Theology”) and not with solid food; (cannot yet teach you “Solid food Theology”) for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.

.
EXAMPLE OF “Milk food Theology:”

CCC1743 God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him" ( GS 17 § 1).
.
CONCLUSION
According to “Milk food Theology,” God is not our ruler, we are our own ruler because by our whims we are anytime able to override the will of God. So, we are our own god and naturally follows, we are responsible for our salvation or our damnation.

.
EXAMPLES OF “Solid food Theology:” – In “Solid food Theology” God causes every act of His creatures. This is the key to understand our Catholic “Solid food Theology.”
.
CCC 301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence. – Exact opposite of CCC 1743.
.
CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. – Exact opposite of CCC 1743.
.
CCC 307 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free, causes in order to complete the work of creation, … Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan. They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom. – Exact opposite of CCC 1743.
.
CONCLUSION
Because God works in us He causes all our actions, we all freely do what we want to do and we don’t even realize, we are as His builders, freely cooperating with His graces and working on to complete His creation. – Naturally follows, God is responsible for our salvation.
.
As we see above, there are two Theology, “Milk food Theology” for the novice Christians and “Solid food Theology” for the theologically educated Christians. – For novice Christians, until they grow up in theological knowledge, “Solid food Theology” is not palatable for them.
.
God bless

 

[pnewton]

1 Cor.3:2 contains both “Milk food Theology” and “Solid food Theology,” we don’t even need too much theological knowledge or God’s gift of logic to see it.

I see. Then were I to invoke logic, I note a begging of the question. This Scripture in no way attempted to argue the meaning of free will, but addressed the quarrelsome sectarianism of the Church at Corinth. Just read the context To use this in some force type of proof-text will only beg the question, that is, which is more substantial.

Personally, I find @stpurl 's explanation more… palatable.

 

[Aulef]

Pray for Pope Francis.

And I siggest focusing on the life of Saints and Church teaching that is consistent throughout the centuries.

 

[fide]

Are we being sea lioned about gaslighting?

That’s it. Either I am going crazy, or I’ve wandered into a place where English is a 3rd language.

 

[goout]

stpurl:

There are two types of will, active and permissive, for God.

In “Milk food Theology,” God has permissive will, which means, our whims is our governor.
.
In “Solid food Theology” God has Active/ Supernatural will. It means, God is at work in all the actions of His creatures and His call to eternal life coming TOTALLY from His decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.

.
1 Cor.3:2; I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.
.
As we see above, there are two Theology, “Milk food Theology” for the novice Christians and “Solid food Theology” for the theologically educated Christians. – For novice Christians, until they grow up in theological knowledge, “Solid food Theology” is not palatable for them.

.

This paradigm can refer more properly to docility than to the appropriation of knowledge. One who is not docile to the faith will not absorb it. Docile faith and reason should be integrated seamlessly.
Here is Paul’s passage in context:

* Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people,* as infants in Christ.

2I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now,a

3for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you,* are you not of the flesh, and behaving in an ordinary human way?b

4Whenever someone says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?c

Paul is not making reference to intellectual comprehension, but to their spiritual maturity.

We all know educated Christians who are not really studying God (The-ology). And I have known many of what you call novice un-educated Christians who absorb Christian teaching like a sponge.

What you are hinting at here sounds like gnosticism.

And so it goes with Catholics who chafe at the Pope’s instruction. Accepting instruction is greatly aided by docile faith. In fact we probably ought to say that without docile faith, religion becomes something other than Christian faith.

 

[ioannes_pius]

But did not the Pope sign a declaration saying such?

Are you not aware of the clarifications that were made on this point?

 

[goout]

pnewton:

The rest of the post seems to be a strawman, under things no one is saying.

But did not the Pope sign a declaration saying such?

Can I suggest reading the passion narratives in the Gospels? They detail a man whose words and deeds are twisted and distorted for politico/religious purposes in the name of religious orthodoxy. They cause him to be pilloried, literally.
Religious orthodoxy is a fine thing, but religious orthodoxy is a means, not the end. Right?
What end do you have in mind, and what are the means?

Love of Christ in His Church is the ends. Christ is The Telos, and orthodoxy is a means to serve that end. Sometimes we get that backwards.

 

[ioannes_pius]

Pope Sixtus IV laid down a theologically principle that I believe applies here:

“…according to the rule of theological science, any proposition that has a doubtful sense must always be understood according to the sense which leads to a true affirmation.” [Romani Pontificis Provida (1477), Denzinger n. 1407, my translation from the French]

The Pope said this in response to a group who had applied an erroneous interpretation to an ambiguous proposition of his. I believe the same should be done for Pope Francis.

 

[ioannes_pius]

True.

10 characters

 

[goout]

Fair enough, but this doesn’t change my point. Ambiguity should be avoided.

Of course we should ascribe an orthodox interpretation to doubtful statements. But it’s still better for those doubtful statements to have never been made.
[/quote]

I wish you luck with avoiding human ambiguity. Human beings are not God, and human expression will never be perfect.
We can agree that one should not speak deceptively or be lax in clarity. That is not really the issue here.

Is it possible that Pope Francis’ main evangelical concern is not to provide perfect theological clarity for the sake of orthodoxy? But rather to speak to those souls on the outside thirsting for salvation, in way that is approachable for those souls? Is that a possibility? Those are good intentions, and maybe they provide clarity for souls who really need some.

 

[TMC]

To be honest, most of the calls for “clarity” from Pope Francis that I have seen have been requests for him to be more clear about the Church’s disapproval of certain types of people - like gay people, atheists, non-Catholics; or those that do or support certain acts - abortionists, the remarried, and so forth. Pope Francis at times sacrifices clarity on what the Church does not approve of in favor clarity on the fact that God loves all of the above and that the Church welcomes everyone. I’m fine with that.

 

[goout]

Which is why Church teaching possesses semantic stability and set formulas.

In any case, the link I provided shows that ambiguity has a specific theological definition, not just a general ‘unclearness’ of language. You don’t have to be a great writer to state Church teaching unambiguously.
[/quote]

Communication is a two way street.
Consider that God himself is perfect, yet human beings hear poorly and get confused on a regular basis. We should not hold the Pope to a higher standard than God.
What we owe him is obedience, the root word of which is “to hear”. Or to listen in good faith and act in good faith.

 

[catholic03]

@Eternal_Wisdom

I concede that, like you, I have sometimes struggled with the teachings of the Holy Father. However, one website that assisted me greatly and allowed me to understand the theological reasons for Pope Francis’ teaching is wherepeteris.com.

We are truly blessed to live in the time of Pope Francis.

 

[PracticallyCatholic]

You can always just wait around and see who is next elected the Bishop of Rome. Or the next…etc. Perhaps one will be more to your liking.

I don’t see anything to ‘be done’ currently. The history of the office encompasses a very diverse, interesting, and sometimes scandalous persons. Yet, the office and Church have perdured.