The Pope Seems Different

[PrayforMallory]

Hi Mallory. My abject apologies. I was “funning” you a bit as my Gma. used to say. I keep forgetting my humour sometimes does not translate well into writing, or for that matter, usually not face to face either. But then I truly didn’t know “Old Catholics” was actually a break away sect of German Catholics. I’m older than dirt, but I don’t know everything. Again, my apologies.

What I love about the Old Catholics is that they upheld the whole Jansenist thing, and then they refused to accept Papal Infallibility, claiming they were the “True” Catholic Church.

Now their theology and practices are just crazy, like ordaining Sinead O’Connor.

Pretty much shows which side was right about Vatican I (obviously the Papal side).

It makes me wonder about the SSPX. The longer they stay on the outside rim of the Church, the longer they are vulnerable.

But, I don’t think that will happen, because they are so strict with tradition. The Old Catholics just wanted to be free to run their own show, because they were really half-Calvinist in their thinking.

Heh. Internet always makes everything seem so serious.

 

[piouswoman]

Really, I understand where you are coming from… but nonetheless, St. Paul’s advice for the young Church in no way justifies the simple and plain ignorance permeating this article.

How quickly we forget that the path of Our Lord was one that overlooked, and trampled upon, the religious boundaries of his day. It was he who said, “The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (symbolizing the religious divisions of the day) will you worship the Father… [but] in spirit and truth.” Though the Samaritans worship what they “do not know,” he affirms them (though they are cut off from the true religion of Judaism) in their intent.

The desire to worship, the need for it, is planted deep within the human heart. For the very same God has fathered us all, and made us in his own “image,” meaning that in each heart and soul is the spark of the divine, and there resides God himself. And so throughout history mankind has endeavored in variegated ways to celebrate this Mystery, to revere the God within. They have seen him in the stars and the trees, in men and animals, in bread and wine—and they have revered him, as is fitting, in ways many and beautiful.

Yet the central message has not changed: It affirms the unity of the human, natural, and divine elements, obscuring more and more the distinctions between them (think no farther than the Holy Eucharist!); it celebrates and lauds the virtue of love; encourages man in his ongoing search for truth; whispers of the heavenly current connecting all living things; gives hope through dark nights and frightening change; and speaks of the need for grace from outside of the fragile human ego to take us and transform us.

Christ, as God, is universal, and thus so is his way: that of faith, hope, and love. Christ is mankind perfected, and reveals to us the divine potential of the human race. And yet he is not telling us something new, only clarifying truths known long, long ago.

So we see “the essence of all religions is one; only their approach is different.” (Gandhi)

What advice of St. Paul’s to the young church are you referring to?

The post you made does not address basic Catechism and it demonstrates that your mind is modern. This is what the theologians who spurned St. Thomas Aquinas for modern philosophy have done to change the Church.

From our Catholic Catechism:

From the very beginning the Apostles exercised their authority and powers; these were signs of a very visible organization. They did not advise; they directed, as superior, and decided, as judges.

Thus St. Paul excommunicated the sinful Corinthian;and he commanded the Hebrews: “Obey your superiors, and be subject to them” (Heb. 13:17).

The Apostles and Fathers condemned* schism*. This fact implies a visible organization; for how can there be schism against an invisible body?

St. Paul urged the Corinthians: “By the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ…that there be no dissensions among you” (1 Cor. 1:10). And St. Cyprian in the third century wrote: “Whoever is separated from the Church is separated from the promises of Christ…One cannot have God as a Father who has not the Church as his mother”.

There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, so for you to quote Ghandi is very wrong indeed. This is just more proof that religious liberty practiced by the Church today is a total error, against Church Doctrine, and against the very words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[elts1956]

Really, I understand where you are coming from… but nonetheless, St. Paul’s advice for the young Church in no way justifies the simple and plain ignorance permeating this article.

How quickly we forget that the path of Our Lord was one that overlooked, and trampled upon, the religious boundaries of his day. It was he who said, “The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (symbolizing the religious divisions of the day) will you worship the Father… [but] in spirit and truth.” Though the Samaritans worship what they “do not know,” he affirms them (though they are cut off from the true religion of Judaism) in their intent.

The desire to worship, the need for it, is planted deep within the human heart. For the very same God has fathered us all, and made us in his own “image,” meaning that in each heart and soul is the spark of the divine, and there resides God himself. And so throughout history mankind has endeavored in variegated ways to celebrate this Mystery, to revere the God within. They have seen him in the stars and the trees, in men and animals, in bread and wine—and they have revered him, as is fitting, in ways many and beautiful.

Yet the central message has not changed: It affirms the unity of the human, natural, and divine elements, obscuring more and more the distinctions between them (think no farther than the Holy Eucharist!); it celebrates and lauds the virtue of love; encourages man in his ongoing search for truth; whispers of the heavenly current connecting all living things; gives hope through dark nights and frightening change; and speaks of the need for grace from outside of the fragile human ego to take us and transform us.

Christ, as God, is universal, and thus so is his way: that of faith, hope, and love. Christ is mankind perfected, and reveals to us the divine potential of the human race. And yet he is not telling us something new, only clarifying truths known long, long ago.

So we see “the essence of all religions is one; only their approach is different.” (Gandhi)

Beautiful, just beautiful.:harp:

 

[piouswoman]

Beautiful, just beautiful.:harp:

Why thank you elt!

 

[St_Aloysius]

Piouswoman:

There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, so for you to quote Ghandi is very wrong indeed.

Whom I quote is irrelevant if their words are true, as God is the author and source of all truth. Did you take so little then from the wisdom of Maimonides?

Piouswoman:

This is just more proof that religious liberty practiced by the Church today is a total error, against Church Doctrine, and against the very words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I am hardly orthodox by anyone’s standards, but I find a lot of humor in this: that not only do you accuse the infallible Church of your allegiance to be in “total err” and contradicting its own doctrine, but you (the condemner of schismatics) think the effective route to remedying this must logically lie within support of a highly schismatic organization…

O, what a tangled web we weave…

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Why thank you elt!

Actually, I do believe he was referring to St_Aloysius’ previous post, as that was the one elts1956 was quoting.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Beautiful, just beautiful.:harp:

I know the sentiment you are expressing.

But I can’t share it.

I don’t know what to say. That post obviously expresses religious indifferentism. That quote by Ghandi might as well say “All paths lead up to the same mountain.”

St. Pius X would have died before he would have said some of these things.

Did the martyrs think like this? If they felt the Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or these other religions could save somebody,in any way, or that the “elements of truth” in these religions could save them, would they have fought so hard for the spread of Christianity? If the above sentiment is true, is there a need for us to even preserve it? Maybe it is outdated, a medieval way of thinking that no longer has any relevance to “modern” man? Fortunately my faith is stronger these days, so I can still go to Mass and believe despite being presented with something totally irrational.

If Christianity does not exclusively save peoples’ souls then it has no functional purpose. The purpose of Christianity, at least for 1965 years, was not to make us better people just for the sake of it, it was to keep us out of hell.
I’m not saying this to argue with anyone. I don’t care about proving a point. What I’m saying is, that when I read some of these statements, I start subtly backsliding back into atheism.

I’m under the impression now, perhaps incorrectly, that the Church has historically done a 180. Suddenly, now it is no longer necessary to be Catholic. Why be it? I could just enjoy my life and have no worries. According to that post, I wouldn’t really be all that culpable.

It’s not out of any kind of bitterness or pride that I dissent, it’s because I’m completely confused and in a state of desperation. Maybe somebody can help me, I don’t know.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

It’s been explained before that the Catholic Church holds the FULLNESS (this being the operative word) of Truth. However, there are commonalities between ourselves and those of other faiths, if we are willing to look at them. We also need to approach the situation and the person without being judgmental or condemning, or we don’t win anyone to Catholicism. Take how Pope Benedict XVI has met with leaders of Islam, and he has first worked on agreeing with Islamic leaders concerning what they share IN COMMON with Catholicism. It is the acknowledging of the commonalities that eventually leads to working out the differences.

I’m not saying that we have to personally agree with something the pope may do, nor should we follow “blindly” (that being in the case where we are ORDERED to sin). But submission requires that we know that the Holy Spirit is with the Catholic Church, whether or not we fully comprehend a change in how Truth is understood, and that the Church is incapable of teaching error or institutionally defecting. After all, this was the promise of our Lord when He said to Peter, “You are Rock, and upon this Rock I shall build My Church.” A famous saint (can’t recall at the moment) once said something to the effect of “Where there is Peter, there is the Church; and where there is the Church, there is Christ.”

To remain in the Barque of Peter is to fully submit, in faith, to the knowledge that Christ will forever remain true to this promise and that the Holy Spirit prevents ANY doctrine or discipline from containing error or heresy. It has been stated, many times, that Truth does not change; it is our UNDERSTANDING of it over time that changes. The Church keeps the Truth, given by Christ to His Apostles and handed down through the succession of Peter and the Apostles, inerrant, but as it gains further insight into the Truth, the knowledge of Truth becomes clearer. A pope may state some facet of Truth in a different way than did a predecessor, but Truth itself remains unchanged.

 

[JReducation]

It’s been explained before that the Catholic Church holds the FULLNESS (this being the operative word) of Truth. However, there are commonalities between ourselves and those of other faiths, if we are willing to look at them. We also need to approach the situation and the person without being judgmental or condemning, or we don’t win anyone to Catholicism. Take how Pope Benedict XVI has met with leaders of Islam, and he has first worked on agreeing with Islamic leaders concerning what they share IN COMMON with Catholicism. It is the acknowledging of the commonalities that eventually leads to working out the differences.

I’m not saying that we have to personally agree with something the pope may do, nor should we follow “blindly” (that being in the case where we are ORDERED to sin). But submission requires that we know that the Holy Spirit is with the Catholic Church, whether or not we fully comprehend a change in how Truth is understood, and that the Church is incapable of teaching error or institutionally defecting. After all, this was the promise of our Lord when He said to Peter, “You are Rock, and upon this Rock I shall build My Church.” A famous saint (can’t recall at the moment) once said something to the effect of “Where there is Peter, there is the Church; and where there is the Church, there is Christ.”

To remain in the Barque of Peter is to fully submit, in faith, to the knowledge that Christ will forever remain true to this promise and that the Holy Spirit prevents ANY doctrine or discipline from containing error or heresy. It has been stated, many times, that Truth does not change; it is our UNDERSTANDING of it over time that changes. The Church keeps the Truth, given by Christ to His Apostles and handed down through the succession of Peter and the Apostles, inerrant, but as it gains further insight into the Truth, the knowledge of Truth becomes clearer. A pope may state some facet of Truth in a different way than did a predecessor, but Truth itself remains unchanged.

Excellent

JR

 

[JReducation]

I have never been clear on who started this rumour that the Church teaches that there is salvation outside the Church.

All that the Church has said is that there are rays of Catholicism found in other faiths and that the Spirit of Christ has used them as a means for salvation.

In other words, Christ continues to use the Church as a means for salvation. Without the Church, those rays would not be there.

The other position that the Church has explained is that charity requires that we deal with people of other faiths through dialogue, not fear or threat. This is what the statement of religious freedom about.

No one who comes to the faith unwillingly is really a believer. Men must make the journey willingly. Therefore, neither the Church nor the State can impose or impair the journey. The Church must facilitate it and the State must stay out of it by giving people freedom of religion.

These are not difficult concepts to understand. This is how my family and I came to the Church. We came freely by following good example of holy Catholics who were kind enough to answer our questions and wait patiently. They were also kind enough to admit that some of the things that we believed in Judaism were the same as they believed in Catholicism, such as the one true God of Abraham.

JR

 

[Jimmy_B]

Oh yes, I’ve noticed. God willing, if he says in good health, he’ll lead us out of the mess.

He is in my prayers daily.

 

[elts1956]

Really, I understand where you are coming from… but nonetheless, St. Paul’s advice for the young Church in no way justifies the simple and plain ignorance permeating this article.

How quickly we forget that the path of Our Lord was one that overlooked, and trampled upon, the religious boundaries of his day. It was he who said, “The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (symbolizing the religious divisions of the day) will you worship the Father… [but] in spirit and truth.” Though the Samaritans worship what they “do not know,” he affirms them (though they are cut off from the true religion of Judaism) in their intent.

The desire to worship, the need for it, is planted deep within the human heart. For the very same God has fathered us all, and made us in his own “image,” meaning that in each heart and soul is the spark of the divine, and there resides God himself. And so throughout history mankind has endeavored in variegated ways to celebrate this Mystery, to revere the God within. They have seen him in the stars and the trees, in men and animals, in bread and wine—and they have revered him, as is fitting, in ways many and beautiful.

Yet the central message has not changed: It affirms the unity of the human, natural, and divine elements, obscuring more and more the distinctions between them (think no farther than the Holy Eucharist!); it celebrates and lauds the virtue of love; encourages man in his ongoing search for truth; whispers of the heavenly current connecting all living things; gives hope through dark nights and frightening change; and speaks of the need for grace from outside of the fragile human ego to take us and transform us.

Christ, as God, is universal, and thus so is his way: that of faith, hope, and love. Christ is mankind perfected, and reveals to us the divine potential of the human race. And yet he is not telling us something new, only clarifying truths known long, long ago.

So we see “the essence of all religions is one; only their approach is different.” (Gandhi)

Beautiful, just beautiful. :harp:

 

[elts1956]

Why thank you elt!

Sorry PW, my fingers walked on the wrong keys. That post was meant for St_Aloysius

 

[piouswoman]

Sorry PW, my fingers walked on the wrong keys. That post was meant for St_Aloysius

I know, that was meant as no more than as a bit of humor on my part, elt…

 

[lizaanne]

***Just an aside, I actually wanted to do my exit thesis on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger, but was informed that I could not do so because it was “too controversial a topic around here.”

Welcome to Michigan

I’d love to read your paper! Do you have it available anywhere?

I too love our Dear Pope - I think he is EXACTLY what the Church needs right now.

~Liza

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think that he has changed. I did an extensive paper on The Theology of Joseph Ratzinger when I was a student at the seminary. I was perplexed by all of the talk that he had been a “liberal voice” at Vatican II, then had become an “arch-conservative”.
I read everything I could find by Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict and I came to the following conclusions:

1. He is BRILLIANT (and holy)!!
2. He was never a “liberal” nor is he now an “arch-conservative”, rather, he is Catholic!
3. He has always been the same level-headed, not-jumping-on-bandwagons kind of guy…he has always advocated Ressourcement - a return to the sources and has always had Augustinian leanings…in fact, his doctoral work, if I recall correctly, was on Augustine.
4. I agree with him 100% and love his work.
5. It is far better to read him than to read what other people say about him!
6. He is EXACTLY who we need at this time in history…and if folks had listened to him all along, well, let’s just say the world would be a much better place.
   Hooray for Pope Benedict XVI!
   My favorite Cardinal ratzinger quotation: “Truth is not decided by a majority vote”
   ***Just an aside, I actually wanted to do my exit thesis on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger, but was informed that I could not do so because it was “too controversial a topic around here.” :eek:

I don’t know if contraversial is the word that I would have chosen. However, having been in theology school and being in ministry I would say that it is very difficult to find readers for such a thesis, because Ratzinger did an interesting blend between Bonaventure and Augustine that requires a great deal of expertise in two areas of theology: Mystical Theology and Systematic Theology.

Maybe this is where the school’s authority are coming from when they use the word “contraversial”. To bring a committee of systematic theologians and mystical theologians together who can undestand his writing from the other branch’s perspective is difficult. Systematic theologians are looking for reason and logic. Mystical theologians are looking for the transcendent. Unless they understand each other’s language a reading of such a thesis can easily turn into a debate, which is not the purpose of a thesis committe.

Ratzinger himself had a difficult time getting his dissertation read for his doctorate degree. They had to find some serious scholars who were well versed in both branches of theology. That took some doing.

As a student of Ratzinger you probably know the story. It wasn’t until an order came from the higher authorities that the university decided to do the work and bring together the committee. They just didn’t think it was feasable. This may be the case at your school. It may not be feasable for them if they do not have the experts in the two domains of theology. I don’t mean sytematic and mystical theologians. They probably have those. I mean theologians who are experts in both fields. That’s an animal of a different colour and a rare one at that. We have very few of them.

JR

 

[piouswoman]

Whom I quote is irrelevant if their words are true, as God is the author and source of all truth. Did you take so little then from the wisdom of Maimonides?

I am hardly orthodox by anyone’s standards, but I find a lot of humor in this: that not only do you accuse the infallible Church of your allegiance to be in “total err” and contradicting its own doctrine, but you (the condemner of schismatics) think the effective route to remedying this must logically lie within support of a highly schismatic organization…

O, what a tangled web we weave…

As a traditional Catholic one* cannot* begin to make exceptions out of human respect…that is wrong and as PrayforMallory mentioned in her post, St. Pius X would of rather died than say these things. And not only St. Pope Pius X but all pre-conciliar popes, saints, martyrs (who shed blood defending the true Doctrines of our Faith) and Doctors of the Church. It is not easy to be a Catholic, having watered down ideas contrary to the teachings of Our Lord demonstrates that it is you and the modernists who have weaved a tangled web…

 

[piouswoman]

Christ, as God, is universal, and thus so is his way: that of faith, hope, and love. Christ is mankind perfected, and reveals to us the divine potential of the human race. And yet he is not telling us something new, only clarifying truths known long, long ago.

So we see “the essence of all religions is one; only their approach is different.” (Gandhi)

I am now going to address this part of your post. What you have said is quite serious error and not only shocking, but scandalous.

What you are saying when you state that “Christ is mankind perfected” is that man is God. Christ is not mankind perfected,** Christ is God**.

The **Catholic Faith and the Church **are Universal. The Catholic Church is the Church for everyone, whatever his race, color, economic condition, education, -for in the Church “there is not ‘Gentile and Jew’, ‘circumcised and uncircumcised’…,‘slave and freeman’, but Christ is all things and in all” (Col.3:11). Christ came to redeem all men; the Church is His Living Voice, His Mystical Body. Let us obey.

Our catechism says:

1. Christ Himself said that He is God. The *Jews *understood His claim literally and He was condemned to death for blasphemy, for making Himself the Son of God.

2.* **Christ *proved His claims by wonderful miracles, by phrophecies, by His knowledge of all things and by the holiness of His life.

1. The Apostles, the followers of Christ Himself, plainly taught that Christ is God and died in testimony of their faith.
2. The Church teaches that Jesus Christ is God.

**Why is Jesus Christ God? ** Jesus Christ is God because He is the only Son of God having the same divine nature as His Father.

Christ is called the “Word”. Just as the thought in our minds finds expression in a word, so the Son of God dwelling in the bosom of His Father was shown to the world when the Word became man.

Why is Jesus Christ Man? Jesus Christ is man, because He is the Son of the Blessed Virgin, and has a body and soul like ours.

Your belief that Christ is mankind perfected is erroneous…this is the what the “modern” Church is teaching and is contrary to Catholic Doctrine. Hence, the fight for the traditional Catholic Faith…

 

[pnewton]

I had a thought after reading the first page of this thread. Unfortuantely, I see this thread has been derailed, once again, by PW’s single-minded agenda of spreading the SSPX “gospel” to the wayward souls in the Catholic Church. I can see why Paul had women keep silent in the Church. I apologize to any of the truly pious women I might have offended.

The point I wanted to make, is if Benedict XVI has changed to a more pastoral role, lessening his push for return to traditionalism, there might be a reason. If we believe that the Chuch is led by the Holy Spirit, and it seems that even a conservative Pope continues to lead forward in the same direction, then only two answers exist.

He is being led by the Holy Spirit, therefore it is God who wants us to go the way we are going. We should all take the advice of Gamaliel lest we find ourselves fighting God.

He is not being led by the Holy Spirit. In this case one can cling to a remnant theory and seek a new pope out in some barn (a handful of choices), or one can reject the Catholic Church’s beliefe that Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit will guide us in truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against us (20,000 choices).

I do not trust Benedict XVI because of who he is, but I trust the Holy Spirit to use him as a vessel.

 

[piouswoman]

I had a thought after reading the first page of this thread. Unfortuantely, I see this thread has been derailed, once again, by PW’s single-minded agenda of spreading the SSPX “gospel” to the wayward souls in the Catholic Church. I can see why Paul had women keep silent in the Church. I apologize to any of the truly pious women I might have offended.

The point I wanted to make, is if Benedict XVI has changed to a more pastoral role, lessening his push for return to traditionalism, there might be a reason. If we believe that the Chuch is led by the Holy Spirit, and it seems that even a conservative Pope continues to lead forward in the same direction, then only two answers exist.

He is being led by the Holy Spirit, therefore it is God who wants us to go the way we are going. We should all take the advice of Gamaliel lest we find ourselves fighting God.

He is not being led by the Holy Spirit. In this case one can cling to a remnant theory and seek a new pope out in some barn (a handful of choices), or one can reject the Catholic Church’s beliefe that Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit will guide us in truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against us (20,000 choices).

I do not trust Benedict XVI because of who he is, but I trust the Holy Spirit to use him as a vessel.

Again, I am being accused of derailing a thread when all I am doing is answering posts…one cannot single-handedly derail, it takes two or more. As to St. Paul and women keeping silent in church, well, pnewton, things haven’t changed in the traditional church, women, and rightly so, still keep silent in church.
Keep in mind that it is right to defend the true Catholic faith, whether man or woman…sainthood was not limited to men now was it? I believe many women died defending the faith. I am but a poor sinner, yet I will not let that which is contrary to the faith go unnoticed, and I, as all Catholics have a duty to speak the truth and defend our faith.****