K
KSU
Guest
I don’t mind at all.
- Status
Z
zz912
Guest
I’m curious on this as well. What has been lacking in the Church for the last 2000 years?
K
KSU
Guest
What immediately comes to mind is that our perfection has been lacking, and that’s because of concupiscence. At least that’s my take on Col 1:24, viz:
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking* in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the Church…”
That said, we can only guess at what Pope Francis specifically has in mind regarding what it is that he doesn’t want to be slowed down about by “ultra-conservatives”. Not that we know if he even agrees with Morales Sola’s term.
So, we and JosieN will have to wait for specific answers to her questions.
- [1:24] What is lacking: although variously interpreted, this phrase does not imply that Christ’s atoning death on the cross was defective. It may refer to the apocalyptic concept of a quota of “messianic woes” to be endured before the end comes; cf. Mk 13:8, 19–20, 24 and the note on Mt 23:29–32. Others suggest that Paul’s mystical unity with Christ allowed him to call his own sufferings the afflictions of Christ. USCCB
E
edwest2
Guest
No, he did not use that term.
Ed
Ed
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
What do you mean?
E
edwest2
Guest
From the article:
"It was Morales who used the word “ultra-conservative” to describe internal resistance to the pope, and Francis said he “rejects conflict” with them.
“They do their job, and I do mine,” the pope said."
There are people who say no to everything. The Pope will let whoever that is have their say.
Ed
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Right the pope did not use the word but instead responded to it without correction. It isn’t as if the reporter said “what do you plan on doing about the miniature trolls that live under the Vatican” and then the pope had no idea what he was talking about…
D
Darryl1958
Guest
If the pope had responded by saying that ultra-conservatives is a misnomer, then it would at least be possible for the point being made that the pope never actually used the term ultra-conservative’. As soon as he answered by stating he will not be slowed down( by them) , he already concedes himself to the validity of the term that was being used.
And the same would hold true if the term being used was trolls He would acknowledge the existence of the trolls by stating that he won’t be slowed down by them.
Otherwise, he would have to give the reporter a quizzical look, and confide in him that ‘miniature trolls don’t exist outside of fairy tales, you know…?’
Z
zz912
Guest
K
KSU
Guest
"Speaking about opponents of his reforms in the Vatican, the Holy Father said they “do their job and I do mine… I repeat: I reject conflict.”
news.va/en/news/pope-francis-gives-interview-to-argentinian-news-2
The question becomes, what “ultra-conservatives” at the Vatican have the task of saying no to the Pope when their expertise dictates that they must do so? The first one that comes to mind is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Pope Francis did not use the term “ultra-conservatives”, nor would he with respect to the job of the CDF if he rejects conflict. And because there in no more “conservative” (i.e., orthodox) job at the Vatican or in the entire Church, it’s not correct to say the Pope validated or concurred with that term. He understood what the reporter was getting at and simply chose not to engage the reporter in a useless conflict over terminology.
Putting words in Pope Francis’ mouth is the secular media’s way of creating conflict and confusion in their never-ending attempts to soften opposition to sin. Controversy and sin is what it’s always about.
K
KSU
Guest
It does in a discussion of Catholic teaching.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
It actually doesn’t though, at least historically. St. Thomas Aquinas (so obviously St. Albert too) was a “liberal” in his day and age. Joseph Ratzinger was considered “progressive” in his early days as a theologian, as was Henri de Lubac. John Henry Newman was “liberal”. Romano Guardini was not a “conservative”. To name a few people. And all of them are orthodox.
I suppose in some circles, especially after some of the chaos post-Vatican II, “conservative” may have been synonymous with “orthodox” (hence von Balthasar and Rahner were considered “conservative” by some, which in many respects I think is laughable). But that is by no means universally the case.
K
KSU
Guest
I agree with you that meanings change. But take Ratzinger (B XVI), for example. He dared to explore and so, I suppose, he could be called progressive in that sense. Further, his constant critic, the notoriously progressive, dissident theologian Hans Kung, was a friend, so I take your point. In effect, he was “progressive” because he ate with tax collectors. On the other hand, would you call him progressive or conservative when he told it like it was at Regensburg?
I’d say conservative because a modern-day progressive wouldn’t be caught dead speaking truth to those whose true nature they can’t even say.Nevertheless, you will agree that in his writing and theology B XVI is undoubtedly considered the opposite of “progressive”. In fact, in some “progressive” circles he was openly hated for his orthodoxy because it was reflected in his official statements and writings. Almost always he would have walked over hot coals before saying or writing anything significant if it was theologically controversial or just confusing to Catholics.
Since VC II, in any case, a conservative clergyman means an orthodox clergyman to me.(An “ultra-conservative” may mean anybody someone may want to smear, including B XVI.)
O
otjm
Guest
Perhaps, or perhaps not.
If you want to see some fo the issues “under the hood”, read the book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, S,V.D.
It is a history of the Vatican 2 Council. And in it, some who were considered ultra conservative are named (and most have gone on to the next life).
Prior to the start of the history, when John 23 let it be known there was to be a council, there was an explicit movement to derail that.
When it did not get derailed, the most conservative element went to work on preparatory schemas.
Among the first to be considered were “Sources of Revelation”, “Preserving Pure the Deposit of Faith”, “Christian Moral Order”, and “Chastity, Matrimony, the Family and Virginity”.
These were fairly quickly dismissed by the bishops in attendance, and then the work began.
That is not to say that the most conservative element had no impact on the Council; it did. However, while it sought to lead and direct where the Council would go, it clearly did not.
Father Wiltgen was a communications point during the Council, so this is not some dry research tome years later; it was the product of his observations as the Council went forward.
P
Paganus
Guest
That’s good that he doesn’t cut off heads. Because Pope Francis cutting off heads would be really bad publicity.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
K
KSU
Guest
It’s difficult to follow you’re meaning because, with respect to Catholic teaching, Liberals by definition are not orthodox. That’s common knowledge.
For example, there are no self-described Liberal or Progressive Catholics in Congress who are orthodox with respect to Church teaching. They say something along the Church’s oft-rejected lines of, “I’m not for abortion or for SSM, etc., but I always vote for it because I refuse to force my beliefs on others.”
We both know that they are not telling the truth. They vote for it to get the funding and votes of people who do support abortion, etc… That’s Politics 101.
And please don’t come back at me with the line that Pope Francis is a well-known Liberal. Sure he is, but only insofar as some secular topics and procedure/policy are concerned, not with respect to Church teaching.
For example, he does not refute the idea that Global Warming might to some extent be man-made. But when the chips are down he also confirms the Church’s teaching that the scientific question about whether it’s true or not is none of the Church’s business. (I’ll concede that that may be due to the demand of the “ultra-conservative” CDF)
- Status