Vatican II All Over Again

[Sirach2]

Interesting advice, Sirach2.

Let me move to #4. Your parish. Of course, you meant the parish where I attend mass each week. But isn’t CAF a part of our spiritual community, too? Don’t we have an opportunity here to interact with many, many people who have questions, comments, concerns and an earnest desire to learn more about the Catholic faith?

Interact? Express concerns about the Catholic faith?
Or offer one’s critique of the way our Pontiff has chosen to speak and act. That’s not concern, that’s nebbing over what you have no control over, and results in gossip about how another “should” act according to one’s personal wisdom which is wiser than the one being critiqued.

If you want to interact with this community, do you really believe criticizing the pope is “interaction?” Of course you do! I never expected you to agree, but maybe some day, if enough people express their concerns over your “concern” maybe you’ll hear them.

JReducation:

Sometimes, we take on ourselves burdens and responsibilities that are not ours to take on. Our task is to take on what the pope says that we should take on. Anything else that is not directed at us can and should be left alone. Otherwise we run the risk of doing the same thing as the media; that is, being on constant watch. That’s no way to live the spiritual life.

 

[pnewton]

Andy-

These are silly questions, and they are uncalled for.

It is obvious to anyone who bothers to read that Catholic news outlets and bloggers …

Since the “uncalled for” question was answered by an appeal to common knowledge fallacy, I believe it to be a valid question. Chatter does not mean the Pope was ambiguous. It is equally possible that most papal statements result in chatter (they do) or that people read what they want to read in a statement regardless of ambiguity (they do).

More to the point, those with a bias, be it NARAL or a journalist, will deliberately misconstrue what is said. For such a person, it is hardly possible to speak without one’s words being twisted. Catholics have no business getting a papal message from NARAL and very little getting the message from secular media. You think in America we would have learned this about journalism by now. Add to this the point that JR makes. We have an enemy. He was a liar from the beginning. Are we going to fault God for being ambiguous because this same enemy twisted God’s words in the desert of temptation?

Anyone who thinks he know better than the pope how to speak might be a little naïve on how readily the press can spin statements. The pope can surely make mistakes in judgment, but the only way he can keep from being perceived as ambiguous, “liberal” or “conservative”, is to sit tight and keep his mouth shut. That isn’t going to happen.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why be so concerned about how others interpret the pope?

Because so many of those “others” are Catholics, that’s why.

 

[OraLabora]

Because so many of those “others” are Catholics, that’s why.

…often trying to act way above their pay grade

 

[zab]

…often trying to act way above their pay grade

 

[Jaysuitical]

Nevermind, I looked it up, the fifth Marian dogma is co-redemptirx.

Why do you think it would “cause the corporate media to turn on him ferociously”?

Marian teachings are the red flag of ‘medievalism’ for the theologians & figures to whom they look for their cues. The addition of the Marian chapter to the Pastoral Constitution in 1964 was, if I read the history right, the start of their attempt to proclaim that the ‘Conciliar’ Church was in opposition to the old papal, authoritarian Church.

 

[severus68]

…often trying to act way above their pay grade

 

[Brendan_64]

We have an enemy. He was a liar from the beginning. Are we going to fault God for being ambiguous because this same enemy twisted God’s words in the desert of temptation?

 

[felsguy]

If the thread troubles you or makes you mad, feel free to find others that are more to your liking. There’s no sense falling into sin because of a thread on the Internet, ya know?

ALL that has really been said in this thread is that the media and** LIBERAL**, cafeteria Catholics who are lukewarm at best about their allegiance to the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church seem to be having a field day with much of what Francis has said and done over the past six months or so.

Expressions of concern and hopes that the Holy Father will learn to speak in terms that the media and the low information consumers of religious news (atheists, homosexuals, etc.) will be able to absorb in small chunks have been offered.

What fascinates me is how strident some have become in responding to those who have expressed these concerns and hopes.

After Vatican II, liberal theologians, priests and laity attempted to introduce all sorts of ideas and nonsense into the Church and they cited “the Spirit of Vatican II” in support of their novelties - liturgical dance, the ordination of women, you name it. If there was an agenda item that some group wanted to advance, Vatican II was somehow implicated as having given permission for the change. It took John Paul 25 years to undo the damage - primarily by naming orthodox, conservative bishops and cardinals.

The same thing seems to be happening to Francis as liberals everywhere come out of the woodwork to embrace a Pope who seems to pooh-pooh to tired rules of the Catholic Church.

In reality Francis is as orthodox as they come (as best I can tell so far) - BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE WORLD IS HEARING. They get their catechesis from a headline in USA Today.

For that reason, some (myself included) have expressed concern and the hope that Francis will learn how to pack more into his soundbites. That’s all. My bet is that he will realize that he’s being misquoted, and will learn how to speak in ways that even liberals cannot misunderstand.

Finally, if you could quote a single post wherein the Holy Father is attacked personally, I would be happy to address it.

I note the frequent use of the category “liberals” in this discussion. It seems to mean different things to different people. To help clarify things, may I ask you to give your definition of this label. Otherwise I and other readers will have to make our own assumptions about how you are using it. That would be somewhat ironic, given this lengthy discussion about interpreting or misinterpreting “ambiguous” statements of our Holy Father.

.

 

[clem456]

…often trying to act way above their pay grade

Somehow this reply reminds me of this…

 

[Brendan_64]

I note the frequent use of the category “liberals” in this discussion. It seems to mean different things to different people.

Too often the term ‘liberal’ is used to try to undermine anyone who disagrees with someone who considers himself to be of a ‘conservative’ nature. Call someone a ‘liberal’ and you can assume the moral high-ground.

 

[felsguy]

Too often the term ‘liberal’ is used to try to undermine anyone who disagrees with someone who considers himself to be of a ‘conservative’ nature. Call someone a ‘liberal’ and you can assume the moral high-ground.

Yes, I know that the term is sometimes used that way but that is not always the case. The term has a commonly accepted meaning when used in the context of US and European politics, parenting, traffic enforcement, spending money, and even when measuring ingredients while cooking. I don’t sense the same clarity when the term is used in CAF and other “religious” discussions which is why I aked the poster for his particular definition.

.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yes, I know that the term is sometimes used that way but that is not always the case.
The term has a commonly accepted meaning when used in the context of US and European politics, parenting, traffic enforcement, spending money, and even when measuring ingredients while cooking. I don’t sense the same clarity when the term is use in CAF and other “religious” discussions which is why I aked the poster for his particular definition.
.

I think these term are often used by some Catholics who are of a certain political persuasion who seek to give their personal political persuasion some sort of theological justification.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interact? Express concerns about the Catholic faith?
Or offer one’s critique of the way our Pontiff has chosen to speak and act. That’s not concern, that’s nebbing over what you have no control over, and results in gossip about how another “should” act according to one’s personal wisdom which is wiser than the one being critiqued.

If you want to interact with this community, do you really believe criticizing the pope is “interaction?” Of course you do! I never expected you to agree, but maybe some day, if enough people express their concerns over your “concern” maybe you’ll hear them.

Um…this is my first and last thread in the Traditional Catholicism subforum.

Why don’t you stop by the Apologetics forum sometime, and I’ll show you why I have over 10,000 posts, okay? :yup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I note the frequent use of the category “liberals” in this discussion. It seems to mean different things to different people. To help clarify things, may I ask you to give your definition of this label. Otherwise I and other readers will have to make our own assumptions about how you are using it. That would be somewhat ironic, given this lengthy discussion about interpreting or misinterpreting “ambiguous” statements of our Holy Father.

.

Sure. I kinda like the distinctions posted on the Catholic Answers home page in an article just a few days ago by staffer Todd Aglialoro. I’ve posted his definitions before…here is a snippet from his piece:

Survey Says…
Todd Aglialoro
catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/survey-says

“And so we speak of religious liberalism and religious conservatism as comprising certain characteristics:

“Liberalism: Places limited importance on regular worship-observance and on strict adherence to doctrine and morals. Stresses God’s immanence and temporal religious goods (kindness toward others, stewardship of creation). Open to change in belief and practice as the times may require.

“Conservatism: Sees regular worship-observance and assent to theological and moral dogmas as essential. Stresses God’s transcendence and eternal religious goods (sanctity, salvation). Resistant to change in belief and practice, preferring to “conserve” what it has.

“According to this scheme, Catholicism is a conservative religion. Its principal aim is eternal, its doctrines immutable, its founding duty to hold fast to what it received. This analysis says nothing about Catholic politics, about the spiritual styles of individual Catholics, or about legitimate ways in which Catholicism also speaks of God’s immanence, preaches temporal works, and undergoes change over time. But it’s a handy way of making fundamental—and important—distinctions. It also reveals a natural affinity between Catholicism and other religious-conservative groups: the Orthodox churches, many Evangelical Protestants, Conservative and Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, and Islam.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Too often the term ‘liberal’ is used to try to undermine anyone who disagrees with someone who considers himself to be of a ‘conservative’ nature. Call someone a ‘liberal’ and you can assume the moral high-ground.

Yes, I know that the term is sometimes used that way but that is not always the case. The term has a commonly accepted meaning when used in the context of US and European politics, parenting, traffic enforcement, spending money, and even when measuring ingredients while cooking. I don’t sense the same clarity when the term is used in CAF and other “religious” discussions which is why I aked the poster for his particular definition.

See post #232 above. Thanks.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think these term are often used by some Catholics who are of a certain political persuasion who seek to give their personal political persuasion some sort of theological justification.

It is used because it is easier than typing “those Catholics who promote and/or tolerate such acts as abortion and gay ‘marriage’.” It also connects it with an ideological motivation (on the part of these Catholics) because that is very often the reason they support such things. Sometimes people support things because they thing, “Gee, this politician guy is kinda nice,” but other times it goes quite a bit further than that.

 

[felsguy]

I think these term are often used by some Catholics who are of a certain political persuasion who seek to give their personal political persuasion some sort of theological justification.

Yes I am sure that is sometimes the case. But the meaning of the term as used in religious contexts can run the gamut from heretical, dissident, disobedient to open, contemporary, nonjudgmental, and many things in between. In fairness to the OP and his considerable investment of thought and time in this thread and to get the most accurate understanding of his opinion, I would rather not jump to any immediate conclusion about how he is using it.

.

 

[Brendan_64]

It is used because it is easier than typing “those Catholics who promote and/or tolerate such acts as abortion and gay ‘marriage’.” It also connects it with an ideological motivation (on the part of these Catholics) because that is very often the reason they support such things. Sometimes people support things because they thing, “Gee, this politician guy is kinda nice,” but other times it goes quite a bit further than that.

It makes a bit of a nonsense though when someone is, for example, ‘theologically conservative’ and ‘socially liberal’.

The terms conservative and liberal belong in politics and add nothing other than obfuscation and misconception when they are used to describe a person’s position with regard to his Faith…

We do not choose to join a ‘camp’. We do not say, “I am a conservative Catholic”, or “I am a liberal Catholic” therefore I will adopt the appropriate standpoints on liturgy, morality, social teaching etc.

It simply doesn’t make any sense to apply such terms with regards to our Faith. These terms belong within the sphere of secular politics and not within our Faith.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It makes a bit of a nonsense though when someone is, for example, ‘theologically conservative’ and ‘socially liberal’.

The terms conservative and liberal belong in politics and add nothing other than obfuscation and misconception when they are used to describe a person’s position with regard to his Faith…

We do not choose to join a ‘camp’. We do not say, “I am a conservative Catholic”, or “I am a liberal Catholic” therefore I will adopt the appropriate standpoints on liturgy, morality, social teaching etc.

But that is what very often happens, in fact, whether or not it should. These terms are not prescriptive of what shall henceforth be true, they are descriptive of what has–at least up to now, now being relative–occurred.