B
Brendan
Guest
So you claim that they consider themselves to be perfect by acknowledging that they have imperfections???
That is a contradiction in terms
Pope says he's saddened by 'perfect' Catholics who despise others
- Status
That is a contradiction in terms
U
unafraid
Guest
The Pope is simply preaching the gospel in this instance. Our Lord referred to them as “Whited Sepulchres”. Once again, Pope Francis is drawing waters up from the wellspring that is the Word Himself. He is speading the gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world. He is doing his job.
B
Brendan
Guest
I agree, I am only looking at who he might be referring to. Those would consider themselves to be perfect would exclude someone who regularly attends confession, would it not.
One cannot consider themselves to be perfect and imperfect at the same time.
The Pharisees considered themselves to be sinless, a person who regularly attends confession does not.
If this statement is directed at anyone, it would start with those who do not see any need to attend confession.
R
Randolph
Guest
Those who consider themselves “imperfect” would take hearts to Christ’s command to “sin no more” and to amend their lives–whereas those who consider themselves “perfect” would not.
By definition, to be faithful to Christ and to the Magisterium imply putting Christ above all things, including oneself. That, in itself, professes oneself to be “imperfect”.
A faithful catholic, who is “perfect”, is not possible, and is in fact a contradiction.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes Christian Pharisaism is a strange thing.It is a spritualised version of the ritual purity they attempted. We transferred it from outward deeds to inner grace.
That is, a sort of ritual sacramental obsession with purity.
So those sinners who regularly go to confession, Communion, not remarried or divorced and do Sunday Mass are the new perfect. Sure, we sin but we get it regularly cleaned up and its only venial so we still have grace and can go to Communion. We are perfect Christians, while imperfect men.
Its all nonsense of course. We are neither.
We can never be perfect followers of Jesus nor of our humanity…though called to do both. Surely.
We can never say we have done enough for God or our neighbour.
B
Brendan
Guest
You make a claim about what is the ‘new perfect’, where did this definition come from?
Do you hold that if someone is going to confession regularly, that they would declare themselves to be perfect followers of Christ. It would seem not, if they feel they have need of confession.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I agree.
I find that part of the problem is that simply asking what the Pope could mean turns into a flame broil around here. “How dare you criticize”, "Obviously if you are asking you must be one of the bad guys’, etc. I surely don’t remember that with Pope St. John Paul II or Pope Emeritus Benedict. Heck, people went out of their way to be kind and gentle when Catholics had trouble understanding what they (or Pope Paul VI, etc.) meant. I’ve been around here for more than 13 years now, and people who routinely bashed the Pope, the bishops, the Catholic people, and Catholic teachings, were treated better than people who ‘dare’ to ‘question’ something which confuses them now. What happened?
Where is the mercy around here?
I mean, the Pope says he is saddened by these people, whoever they are. So why on earth are there people who not only come on and start accusing others, “you must have a guilty conscience, you must act like that yourself, it looks like so-and-so is just like that” etc., but instead of treating them like the Pope with sadness and prayer, treat them with accusations of ‘bashing’, of rigidity, of criticism and being a 'bad Catholic" etc.?
And. . . might we need to hold up a mirror now and then? Exactly who are the people who think they are perfect Catholics? Are they the ones who are trying to ask for clarity when they get confused over something which once was clear (I’m not saying that necessarily that means that the ‘earlier’ was good and the new bad. If that were the case, then there would be no need to question)? Or, strange thought, is there a touch of that ‘I think I’m a perfect Catholic’ lurking behind the people who are so quick to condemn others for their ‘failures’ and their sins as perceived by the condemners?
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
Look Folks, let me provide some perspective here.
Pope Francis has a style, according to his friends back in his archdiocese, of ambiguity and subtlety that then allows liberal bishops to go hog wild.
Speeches like this one are loaded with subtlety, which has been proven by other speeches in comparison.
What he has said here is fine on one level, but there seems to always be s subtext, of which he is known for.
The evidence for this is that when the Pope is not subtle, but in-your-face, he uses the same or similar language. He used the same or similar language to refer to Cardinal Burke and the other Cardinals. He uses the same and similar language when he bashed “conservative” Catholics.
There is a history of this, well documented.
Here is a disparaging remark against devotional Catholics:
Cardinal Burke said that when we hear the Pope calling them “rigid” or “fundamentalist” or “self-absorbed,” they must not become intimidated or discouraged, but adhere even more strongly to the teachings of the faith.
The Pope’s insults are so frequent, the obvious ones, have resulted in a compilation called “The Pope Francis Little Book of Insults,” a project with well over a 100 entries and growing weekly.
It is obvious and provable that the Pope is saddened by Catholics who are loyal and devout and hold to the historic teachings, and to the truth of that faith, and to which disagree with him, of whom his accuses as thinking themselves perfect like the Pharisees (which is direct accusation of his). The overt language of the Pope in his 100s of direct insults show him to despise those who do not agree with him.
Why are those people Pharisees? Because they hold to the faith that a person cannot receive communion if remarried without an annulment, or who are cohabiting, are two reason for his insults.
That is a very brief background to what has been happening.
Pope Francis has a style, according to his friends back in his archdiocese, of ambiguity and subtlety that then allows liberal bishops to go hog wild.
Speeches like this one are loaded with subtlety, which has been proven by other speeches in comparison.
What he has said here is fine on one level, but there seems to always be s subtext, of which he is known for.
The evidence for this is that when the Pope is not subtle, but in-your-face, he uses the same or similar language. He used the same or similar language to refer to Cardinal Burke and the other Cardinals. He uses the same and similar language when he bashed “conservative” Catholics.
There is a history of this, well documented.
Here is a disparaging remark against devotional Catholics:
And in homily after homily castigating faithful adherents of the Catholic faith as “obsessed,” “doctors of the law,” “neo-pelagian,” “self-absorbed,” “restorationist,” “fundamentalist,” “rigid,” “ideological,” “hypocritical,” and much more.
Cardinal Burke said that when we hear the Pope calling them “rigid” or “fundamentalist” or “self-absorbed,” they must not become intimidated or discouraged, but adhere even more strongly to the teachings of the faith.
The Pope’s insults are so frequent, the obvious ones, have resulted in a compilation called “The Pope Francis Little Book of Insults,” a project with well over a 100 entries and growing weekly.
It is obvious and provable that the Pope is saddened by Catholics who are loyal and devout and hold to the historic teachings, and to the truth of that faith, and to which disagree with him, of whom his accuses as thinking themselves perfect like the Pharisees (which is direct accusation of his). The overt language of the Pope in his 100s of direct insults show him to despise those who do not agree with him.
Why are those people Pharisees? Because they hold to the faith that a person cannot receive communion if remarried without an annulment, or who are cohabiting, are two reason for his insults.
That is a very brief background to what has been happening.
J
James248
Guest
So apparently Paul and Catherine of Siena weren’t being faithful to God or their respective popes when they set them straight…
P
pianistclare
Guest
Like posts about the Slaves Of Mary and BroIgnatius aren’t a distracting tangent.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Didn’t have internet then.So apparently Paul and Catherine of Siena weren’t being faithful to God or their respective popes when they set them straight…
Jim
J
Joe_5859
Guest
The key difference between them and us is that they brought their criticism directly to the pope. They weren’t complaining about him to others.So apparently Paul and Catherine of Siena weren’t being faithful to God or their respective popes when they set them straight…
I do think there is place for constructive criticism, but I don’t think any of us are in a place to really give it, unless there are some close collaborators of the Pope on the forum that I don’t know about.
I also think we have to be on guard for letting every single news story puff up a certain narrative that pits the pope against a certain group of Catholics. How does that help anyone? Take this story for example. Why not just take what the Pope said at face value and look at it as an opportunity to die to self and grow in holiness? Instead, we try to read between the lines and it becomes just one more example to us of how the Pope doesn’t like us. And then the next story will be another example. And then another. Until we feel it is so obvious no one can possibly deny it. And yet it ultimately comes down to a series of quotes that could be interpreted in more than one way.
At best, it’s not fruitful for us to go down such a path. At worst we will find ourselves opposed to the Holy Father. Now, I know that any man who is Pope is not going to be perfect. There is no such thing as a sinless pope. But i think we’d be far better off erring on the side of being supportive.
We should look at Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Muller. The press tried to bait them into publicly criticizing the pope but they have long refused to take the bait. I think that’s a good example to follow.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Is this an exam or a discussion?
I am making observations and joining dots. If you cannot see the forest for the trees I am painting that is fine.
It seems fairly patent that many on CAF believe those denied Communion are lost to God while they are romping in his grace.
That is spiritual pharisaism in my opinion - if you don’t get it that’s fine.
However Pope Francis fairly clearly sees it much the same way so I appear to be in good company - or not - depending on your view of the Pope.
B
Brendan
Guest
Of course it is a discussion. As such, if one proposes a definition, it is not against the rules of a discussion to enquire as to the source.
I have yet to hear of anyone on CAF who holds that someone denied Communion cannot repent and seek out confession.
What, that someone who is sinful should seek repentance and confession. That is simply Church teaching, not some sort of spiritual Pharaseeism. If anything, since the Pharasees denied that they were in sin, any spiritual Pharaseeism would occur on the part of those who do the same now.
Since the Pope is speaking about those who make claims of perfection, that would exclude those who admit they are in sin and seek reconcillation with God. In other words, those who regularly seek out confession.
P
PluniaZ
Guest
J
James248
Guest
What’s the dinference?Didn’t have internet then.
Jim
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I don’t think the Pope was quite that categorically explicit in his discussion.
Excomunication has been used in the past to aid Catholics in their struggle to become holy.
I’ve personally benefited from having a priest at a Christmas vigil Mass tell those assisting that they should refrain from approaching for communion if they had: he gave a list of thinks we should consider and one of the items on the list was failing to assist at Holy Mass regularly. He advised those of us who needed to address any of these issues to come to confession and then to return to communion.
I’d played hooky from Mass in my early adult years and his directive led me to confession. I’m still not perfect, but, thanks to Father, I have a bit more guidance and direction as I continue to be a work in progress.
J
James248
Guest
*difference
J
James248
Guest
Funny how you mention Cardinals Burke and Miller. They’re taking heat on this very forum.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Brendon I think you have personal issues as you seem to be on another planet here.
When a child simply describes things as they self-evidently are there really is no point in the Emporer or his advisors retorting “prove I wear no clothes”
.To ask the question is to already deny the reality and expose one’s set position.
Like the alcoholic one “explanation” is already too many and a 1000 never enough.
Pretty much like the 4-1=3 Cardinals who are “confused.”
So no I am not defining anything.
I am describing more clearly what many people already see but perhaps do not have clear words for.
A bit like the following picture. You either see the effect or you cant.
Its not about “defining” anything my friend.
God bless, be careful of the OCD kicking in with the temptation to trivial last words…
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2750&pictureid=19132
- Status