The Horror: This is Why Catholic Traditionalist Fear Pope Francis

[trickster]

Not to be critical but the adage that “Pope is ALWAYS right” is no longer a tenable position in light of historical evidence. One can accept that the Pope is ALWAYS right when he teaches using his Papal authority but in terms of his decision making and evaluating the situation, he does not have infallibility.

The case of Pope Honorious in the history of the Catholic faith unfortunately destroys any possibility of a Pope ALWAYS being right.

I think the problem for many is that in light of that historical evidence, it is hard to just trust that the Pope is always going to make the best and optimal decision. One Pope (Honorious) thought he made the right decision and got plastered with the label heretic by his successors and an ecumenical council. Since we have not given an oath of allegiance to a way of life like that of the Franciscans or other order, we do have this doubt whether the Pope is really saying the right things at the right time in the right way (when it is said outside his teaching office).

The only other duty we as the faithful have is to obey the Pope. But that requires the Pope to make a legislative decree or a command. His opinions in interviews are not things we are bound to obey and therefore simply accept either.

Only thing I can think of at this moment is not mentioning the problems with the Pope’s words outside of the exercise of his office in order to protect the good name of the Pope. But that is not exactly possible when the words are already everywhere. At that point all you can do is to try and salvage the words by trying to show why its Catholic and not a departure from the position of the Catholic Church for millenniums. But there can be honest difficulty (mostly due to ambiguity in words and phrases) in convincingly doing so with some of the things that were said. That is why there is criticism.

So I think there is a sense among many that Pope Francis, while completely Orthodox just like any other Pope we had (including Pope Honorious), did give ammunition for those who want to depart from Church teaching through his words in interviews. Can his interview be interpreted in a completely Orthodox manner? Yes, but with great difficulty. Can it be interpreted in an incorrect manner to support agendas? Yes, in a much more simpler way. That is the problem.

I agree with your assesements about the pope always being right…I would be interested in hearing JR’s response. I didn’t take his phrase literally as that would be blind following and that is not what Fransican life is about… it is in fact not catholic to pretend to believe everything that the Holy Father says…we can debate, reflect, engage with the pope on these things; this includes JPII’s theology of the body, and Benedict’s work…they are not speaking in terms of infallibility and Benedict was very clear on saying he was talking in his own terms and not as pope. I think that is what Francis is doing and doing so in such a refreshing and charismatic way.

I agree with you also that many will use the popes remark to promote their agenda’s but in fairness to the mainstream media channels, I did hear the reporters say over and over that what francis said is not a departure from catholic teaching BUT rather a more down to earth conversation with a non-academic, a non-vatican bureaucrat and so forth…and that - like this posted article says is what captured people’s imagination and heart…and that is always a good thing…that is clearly the Holy Spirit working amongst us…through our pope.

Just an opinon…

Bruce
Trickster

 

[trickster]

I think you are right, that there are a goodly number of people who feel, at the lest, that he has stepped on their toes; some feel he has abandoned them.

From what I have observed, however, that seems to have two sources (at least).

One is that far, far too many people are getting their information from the public secular press. That we still don’t understand the operations and processes, as well as prejudices, of the secular public press enough to know that they will never get something right about the Church, is what - I would say astounding, but that doesn’t seem to really encompass it. I have watched for a few months now as the press gives a sound bite, people go through a knee jerk reaction, and then we (at least some of us) find out what he really said.

The second source is what I alluded to in my first comment - the lack of critical thinking. For those who are not familiar with what that means (I presume you are), it involves the ability to look at a n issue from several viewpoints, rather than just one; it involcves stepping out of linear thinking, to ask questions which often clarify matters fairly quickly. I do not fault anyone who has not been trained to think critically, and many, if not most, have not. But lacking a critical approach and engaging in linear thinking causes untold sorts of problems - leading among other problems, to a READY! FIRE! (and then maybe, AIM!).

Where am I going with that? Let’s go back to pre-Vatican 2, basically Baltimore Catechism days - we were taught that the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church in matters of Faith and Morals. Without going down the rabbit hole of exactly how far that extends to what the Holy Father says, let’s just agree that if the Holy Spirit is still in charge, then we will not get a Pope who is making comments that are outside the accepted boundaries of Faith and Morals. That, for a start, would or should cause people who read something in the public secular press to say - Hmmm, this sounds hinkey to me, and it is from the public secular press; I wonder if they have done their usual sound bite extraction from his talk, taken things out of context, and maybe left me with something less than the truth about the statement?

Bravo for that perspective

 

[graciew]

some feel he has abandoned them.

I may be wrong, but behind this feeling of being abandoned,even when one is not,there is also passion in what we do. And even when there may be a misunderstanding,lack of information,or whatever else,what I can rescue is the love involved.
When one is involved passionately in any arena serving,and I am talking about common people of good will,one makes other people’s struggles our own,and the most important issue of all. And we can become very sensitive,especially when we have been kind of overworking. I think it is only just human.
When we overcome this feeling of abandonment and can reconnect to Jesus, everything falls back in place.
So I just want to rescue the love of those who serve,from volunteers to Pope and give thanks.

 

[jmcdzzz]

I don’t think I’ve had anyone sum up this issue as well as you just did. Many people will say “The last two popes were scholars,” but that doesn’t mean much.

Thank you for your clear, charitable commentary.

I agree with you both. Although I had to look up “didactic” and “hortatory.” I could tell what they were from the context, but I had to verify.

 

[kozlosap]

To quote an old TV ad, “When BrotherJR writes, we all should/need to listen and take to heart!”

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Hi Credo in Deum… I am curious about what you say about being called to things that are “not norm” in the church…what do you mean by that?

Yes; “not the norm” are things which are pre-Vatican II.

What do you mean by the hoopla I would take it that you mean public reaction to the style of Francis? Is that where you are coming from?

Yes.

personally - from a progressive perspective - believe that the Holy Spirit guides us in our unique ways…I would think that ‘not norm’ would in fact be very normal for Catholics following the spirit…I too am called to a “not norm” calling and that is the development of aboriginal theological frameworks to put indigenous spirituality in conversation with catholicism…so I am interested in your sense.

My sense is best described as: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”–Summorum Pontificum

 

[TimothyH]

I agree with your assesements about the pope always being right…I would be interested in hearing JR’s response. I didn’t take his phrase literally as that would be blind following and that is not what Fransican life is about… it is in fact not catholic to pretend to believe everything that the Holy Father says…we can debate, reflect, engage with the pope on these things; this includes JPII’s theology of the body, and Benedict’s work…they are not speaking in terms of infallibility and Benedict was very clear on saying he was talking in his own terms and not as pope. I think that is what Francis is doing and doing so in such a refreshing and charismatic way.

I agree with you also that many will use the popes remark to promote their agenda’s but in fairness to the mainstream media channels, I did hear the reporters say over and over that what francis said is not a departure from catholic teaching BUT rather a more down to earth conversation with a non-academic, a non-vatican bureaucrat and so forth…and that - like this posted article says is what captured people’s imagination and heart…and that is always a good thing…that is clearly the Holy Spirit working amongst us…through our pope.

Just an opinon…

Bruce
Trickster

It is above our pay grade to “debate, reflect, engage with the pope on these things.”

The man has been a consecrated religious for over 50 years. He has a doctorate, has been a college professor and speaks eight languages. He was two term president of the Argentine Conference of Bishops and has been Archbishop of one of the largest Archdiocese in South America. He was a Superior General of the Jesuits for his region. He was on the Roman Curia where he was head of five different congregations including the Congregation for the Divine Worship. And he came in second to Pope Benedict XVI in the last papal election!!!

Ordinary people don’t debate and engage a man like this in matters of faith and morals. We learn from them. To presume to debate or question this man’s teaching on matters of faith or Church governance is utter arrogance. Everyone is enamoured with the man’s humility but no one seems to want to emulate it.

And Brother Jay said very clearly that accepting that the Pope is ALWAYS right and that we are ALWAYS wrong is EXACTLY what Franciscan life is all about. That is exactly what he said. It is not “pretending” but obedience. Franciscans are vowed to obedience, and consecrated religious Franciscans are more Catholic than you and I put together will ever be.

-Tim-

 

[Jaberwocky]

It is above our pay grade to “debate, reflect, engage with the pope on these things.”

The man has been a consecrated religious for over 50 years. He has a doctorate, has been a college professor and speaks eight languages. He was two term president of the Argentine Conference of Bishops and has been Archbishop of one of the largest Archdiocese in South America. He was a Superior General of the Jesuits for his region. He was on the Roman Curia where he was head of five different congregations including the Congregation for the Divine Worship. And he came in second to Pope Benedict XVI in the last papal election!!!

Ordinary people don’t debate and engage a man like this in matters of faith and morals. We learn from them. To presume to debate or question this man’s teaching on matters of faith or Church governance is utter arrogance. Everyone is enamoured with the man’s humility but no one seems to want to emulate it.

And Brother Jay said very clearly that accepting that the Pope is ALWAYS right and that we are ALWAYS wrong is EXACTLY what Franciscan life is all about. That is exactly what he said. It is not “pretending” but obedience. Franciscans are vowed to obedience, and consecrated religious Franciscans are more Catholic than you and I put together will ever be.

-Tim-

Can you explain how we can continue to hold your bolded sections in light of what I wrote before as lay persons (those who have not sworn and oath as Franciscans have done)?

It should be said that you are also attacking a straw-man. The question is not about the Orthodoxy of papal teaching. The question is specifically about the style of language used in interviews. The Orthodoxy of papal teaching is protected by the charism of infallibility. The interview style and decision making process is not.

 

[trickster]

My sense is best described as: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”–Summorum Pontificum

I respect totally where you are coming from and I don’t find your thinking out of the norm…what the church held in the past, she still does, and you are free to live by what the pre-vatican II council church are you not? The only stipulation is that those who feel comfort and are spiritually nourished by old forms of catholicism respect the new forms…just as i - who love the new forms and am a very much a post vatican II catholic must respect the choice of our brothers and sisters to do thing the old way… as an aboriginal person you can appreciate my natural respect for elders and for "old ways of doing things’…not sure where I am going with this credo…so I will pass the conversation back to you

bruce ferguson
trickster.

 

[trickster]

It is above our pay grade to “debate, reflect, engage with the pope on these things.”

The man has been a consecrated religious for over 50 years. He has a doctorate, has been a college professor and speaks eight languages. He was two term president of the Argentine Conference of Bishops and has been Archbishop of one of the largest Archdiocese in South America. He was a Superior General of the Jesuits for his region. He was on the Roman Curia where he was head of five different congregations including the Congregation for the Divine Worship. And he came in second to Pope Benedict XVI in the last papal election!!!

Ordinary people don’t debate and engage a man like this in matters of faith and morals. We learn from them. To presume to debate or question this man’s teaching on matters of faith or Church governance is utter arrogance. Everyone is enamoured with the man’s humility but no one seems to want to emulate it.

And Brother Jay said very clearly that accepting that the Pope is ALWAYS right and that we are ALWAYS wrong is EXACTLY what Franciscan life is all about. That is exactly what he said. It is not “pretending” but obedience. Franciscans are vowed to obedience, and consecrated religious Franciscans are more Catholic than you and I put together will ever be.

-Tim-

Hi Tim…you were on a roll there Quite a strong answer, so let me come back at you on your points. I was responding to another poster who disagreed that we should always agree with the pope, he mentions Pope Honorius (the somthing"th") … and the notion of “infallibility”… like John XXIII was the last pope who spoke in terms of infallibility…the rest is up for discussion…JP II even talked about his writing as a proposal, Benedict made it clear that he was not talking as infallible but simply as a fellow pilgrim…so my response to this poster was that I wasn’t sure if JR was as literal as this poster took him… .I have read Jr’s postings over a number of years and usually he is balanced in his responses…so I just assumed a strong black and white statement was not meant to be taken literally.

I don’t pretend to understands the inner world of JR…and certainly who cannot help BUT respect a background like that…but I think Tim, we should never be intimidated or think it is above our pay grade to “think”, to be prepared to be wrong…by creating arguements…academics - like JR as a professor actually invite and enjoy encouraging people to think for themselves. I don’t feel intimidated to make a statement and back it up the best I can to the bishops, cardinals or the pope himself and here’s why.

These people are my shepherds. Pure and simple, I trust them enough to make mistakes, to try and extend my thinking and leave that thinking to the responses of theologians and others, as you may know much of my thinking has been subject to conservative catholics here in Catholic Answers…so in taking positions, or in providing critical analysis, you are actually developing your own thinking.

I stand corrected on the life of the Fransiscans if what you say is true; I am not one…but I have the sense that there is no vows to unquestioning faith, just obedience…can you help me on that one…cause my sense is that the church would rather have us express our doubts cause doubts can be a greater invitation to dig deeper and learn…

Thats pretty well all for now… back to you Tim and I look forward to your thinking on this as always.

Trickster
bruce ferguson

 

[trickster]

Can you explain how we can continue to hold your bolded sections in light of what I wrote before as lay persons (those who have not sworn and oath as Franciscans have done)?

It should be said that you are also attacking a straw-man. The question is not about the Orthodoxy of papal teaching. The question is specifically about the style of language used in interviews. The Orthodoxy of papal teaching is protected by the charism of infallibility. The interview style and decision making process is not.

Exactly and when not speaking in the charism of infallibility, you and I - indeed the “ordinary people” are equal in Christ to the pope, our opinions matter and we should respectfully engage in dialogue as the pope may not always bat a hundred. So I tend to agree with you… I also understand Tim…but I think that he is creating a world view that is hierarchial and we - again are not worthy to engage the pope… we might as well bring the Popes carriage a tri-level crown back…

bruce
Trickster

 

[Jaberwocky]

Exactly and when not speaking in the charism of infallibility, you and I - indeed the “ordinary people” are equal in Christ to the pope, our opinions matter and we should respectfully engage in dialogue as the pope may not always bat a hundred. So I tend to agree with you… I also understand Tim…but I think that he is creating a world view that is hierarchial and we - again are not worthy to engage the pope… we might as well bring the Popes carriage a tri-level crown back…

bruce
Trickster

I must admit that I do see some merit in the words of TimothyH and JReducation.

In a sense, the Holy father is a father figure to us. We, although adults in age, are spiritual children of the Church under the guidance of the Holy father. This suggests that we can get some insight on what our behavior should be from the family model.

In a family, it would seem reasonable that the children trust the judgement of their parents in both knowledge and decision making. Now there is of course evidence that parents do make bad decisions. But that does not give the children reason to not obey or respect their judgement once they have decided on it with finality. It would be unreasonable to suggest that children simply rebel against their parents when until they are convinced that the judgement of the parents is correct. At the same time, it also requires that children initially speak up raising the concerns regarding a particular decision/judgement. The parent will then take it in to account and finalize the decision at which point the child must surrender.

Applying this here, we are still children and the Pope, our spiritual father, has made known his style of language in an implicit way. We can indeed raise concerns about this style since we see confusion among many and some taking advantage of it to incorrectly portray his teachings.

So it seems reasonable to raise objections at this stage. If the Pope says, I understand your concerns but I am going to roll with my style, then yes, the discussion is over and we must obey and respect his decision. But that has not happened yet. One can therefore respectfully raise concerns about the language style.

At the end of the day, we are not looking to disobey or disrespect. We are looking to understand or raise concerns to our spiritual father. When done in that spirit, I think it can be helpful to both parties. The Pope himself can make an informed decision and we ourselves can grow in understanding.

In a forum thread like this, there is obviously not going to be an informing of the Holy father. So these threads can be seen as discussions of spiritual children about what they find troubling. They comfort each other by pin-pointing what they see as the problem. Identifying the problem that causes distress can be very relieving (because then one knows its not something worse).

Therefore I think there is some merit to their arguments. But I also think they fail to take in to account that intermediate stage where its possible to raise concerns for the betterment of our spiritual father as well as the spiritual children.

 

[TimothyH]

The arrogance on these threads lately is breathtaking.

That so many laymen would presume to question any Pope’s teaching on so many things, let alone question a man with his qualifications, is simply spectacular to me. How it is all couched as some abstract difference with the man’s “interview style” leaves me wondering what fantasy world some here live in. There was a time when everybody loved the Pope, a more traditional time when no one would dare question his teaching. We hadn’t yet become so arrogant and sure of ourselves.

I know Cisco engineers and database administrators with fewer qualifications in their respective field who command more respect when they speak than some of you give this man. We give more respect to college football coaches.

No one is perfect but the man’s qualifications and experience alone, not to mention the fact that he is the Vicar of Christ on earth, commands enough respect that we shut our mouths and L-I-S-T-E-N when he speaks.

No matter how bad it gets here on the Traditional Catholicism forum, it pales in comparison to what some are saying in the philosophy forum. They absolutely win the prize.

-Tim-

 

[Jaberwocky]

The arrogance on these threads lately is breathtaking.

That so many laymen would presume to question any Pope’s teaching on so many things, let alone question a man with his qualifications, is simply spectacular to me. How it is all couched as some abstract difference with the man’s “interview style” leaves me wondering what fantasy world some here live in. There was a time when everybody loved the Pope, a more traditional time when no one would dare question his teaching. We hadn’t yet become so arrogant and sure of ourselves.

I know Cisco engineers and database administrators with fewer qualifications in their respective field who command more respect when they speak than some of you give this man. We give more respect to college football coaches.

No one is perfect but the man’s qualifications and experience alone, not to mention the fact that he is the Vicar of Christ on earth, commands enough respect that we shut our mouths and L-I-S-T-E-N when he speaks.

No matter how bad it gets here on the Traditional Catholicism forum, it pales in comparison to what some are saying in the philosophy forum. They absolutely win the prize.

-Tim-

Why do you keep attacking a straw man? Do you consider the “interview style” of Pope Francis as part of his teaching as well? Because if you do not, then why do you keep saying people here are questioning his teaching?

 

[OraLabora]

Why do you keep attacking a straw man? Do you consider the “interview style” of Pope Francis as part of his teaching as well? Because if you do not, then why do you keep saying people here are questioning his teaching?

Perhaps because some of us sense that attacking his “interview style” is a veiled way of expressing discomfort with the man himself, as well as his message.

I think he is intelligent enough to know exactly how and what to say, and deal with the fallout that may result from it. Face it’s not his “interview style” that is making some people uncomfortable, it’s the message itself.

This is a man who knew enough about how and what to say to run a clandestine network in some of the most difficult years in Argentina, to save people from “disappearing” under the military junta; who managed to substitute himself for another priest to get close to one of the generals of the junta to get information from him, and managed to sneak people to safety in the trunk of his car.

I fully expect that in the interview he weighed his words carefully, and said what he believes needed to be said.

This is the man the cardinals wanted to elect. I expect they want him to say what he thinks needs to be said, as well.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Perhaps because some of us sense that attacking his “interview style” is a veiled way of expressing discomfort with the man himself, as well as his message.

I think he is intelligent enough to know exactly how and what to say, and deal with the fallout that may result from it. Face it’s not his “interview style” that is making some people uncomfortable, it’s the message itself.

This is a man who knew enough about how and what to say to run a clandestine network in some of the most difficult years in Argentina, to save people from “disappearing” under the military junta; who managed to substitute himself for another priest to get close to one of the generals of the junta to get information from him, and managed to sneak people to safety in the trunk of his car.

I fully expect that in the interview he weighed his words carefully, and said what he believes needed to be said.

This is the man the cardinals wanted to elect. I expect they want him to say what he thinks needs to be said, as well.

Now is this not the very definition of rash judgement that Church doctrine warns about? You are presuming that those who raise concerns on the language style in interviews have issues with actual content. Is that a judgement you can make about another? Why not simply engage in the discussion on the level of what is been discussed rather than assume what you do not know?

On the matter of carefully weighing his words, did he weigh in the reaction by NARAL for an example as a possibility?

I think the entire reason why these threads tend to get hostile is because you and many others as you said engage in rash judgement of those who raise valid concerns on the language style in interviews.

 

[otjm]

Now is this not the very definition of rash judgement that Church doctrine warns about? You are presuming that those who raise concerns on the language style in interviews have issues with actual content. Is that a judgement you can make about another? Why not simply engage in the discussion on the level of what is been discussed rather than assume what you do not know?

On the matter of carefully weighing his words, did he weigh in the reaction by NARAL for an example as a possibility?

I think the entire reason why these threads tend to get hostile is because you and many others as you said engage in rash judgement of those who raise valid concerns on the language style in interviews.

Have you actually read the full length interviews and the full length articles in which the Pope has spoken? Have you read the full length speeches he has given?

If so, how many?

I have been reading what he has actually said, and not the news snippets taking a single line out of context.

The reason I ask, is because of your comment about NARAL; so I ask again, have you actually read what he has been saying?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Have you actually read the full length interviews and the full length articles in which the Pope has spoken? Have you read the full length speeches he has given?

If so, how many?

I have been reading what he has actually said, and not the news snippets taking a single line out of context.

The reason I ask, is because of your comment about NARAL; so I ask again, have you actually read what he has been saying?

I have read the entire interview few times now and I also read his daily homilies, speeches and letters. I think it is safe to say that for any person who is not well catechized, the interview reads as if God’s love and mercy are in contention with Doctrine, Dogma, Moral laws and disciplines. That is why NARAL and probably many others in the media saw the Pope’s interview as revolutionary.

I really do not see how or why one needs to defend the language style of the Pope. If this was a doctrinal truth that he will always use efficient language and right language at all times, I at least understand. But there is no such guarantee and yet we have everyone trying to justify it. Why?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I respect totally where you are coming from and I don’t find your thinking out of the norm…what the church held in the past, she still does, and you are free to live by what the pre-vatican II council church are you not? The only stipulation is that those who feel comfort and are spiritually nourished by old forms of catholicism respect the new forms…just as i - who love the new forms and am a very much a post vatican II catholic must respect the choice of our brothers and sisters to do thing the old way… as an aboriginal person you can appreciate my natural respect for elders and for "old ways of doing things’…not sure where I am going with this credo…so I will pass the conversation back to you

bruce ferguson
trickster.

No need Bruce. I think we’ve gone as far as we can right now. I agree that there should be mutual respect and I do not doubt the validity of the council. I personally feel though that the true spirit of the council was and has been lost for some time; obscured by the extremes perpetuated by both those who love change for the sake of change and those who are opposed to all change. Right now I feel all one can do is pray and show charity to both sides in the hopes that we will one day stop and ask; what does God will?
Until that day.

God Bless.

 

[AndyP2010]

I really do not see how or why one needs to defend the language style of the Pope. If this was a doctrinal truth that he will always use efficient language and right language at all times, I at least understand. But there is no such guarantee and yet we have everyone trying to justify it. Why?

First of all Jaberwocky, Randy and McCall I want to apologize for the tone I have taken in some of these discussions.

 I think what we have here with Francis is a classical case of projections.  You see with BXVI we had what many of us felt was a known commodity.  All of us then projected what we believed about him onto the things he said.  Like him or not most people saw him the same way as very orthodox and conservative.  So even if many liberal catholics and the press were often unfair in their assessments even they could still accurately predict gist of any doctrinal statements.  The condom story caused so much of a stir because it went against what so many people thought they knew.  
 So now we have Francis and for many people he became a blank slate.  All of us have been free to project what kind of man we may hope, fear, or want him to be.  This of course would explain why there are often many different interpretations of what he is saying.  Our understanding of what he is saying, won't settle down until we start to get and accurate view of who he is.

Andy