Why are Catholics so disrespectful towards Francis -- and how to react?

[St_Francis]

For the first time today I looked on the web at EWTN Britain. I don’t know if it’s similar to EWTN USA.

I remember late pre- (and early post-) Vatican II. One example: the Mass used Latin pre-, but not post-. It was a tough transition for some to make (ironically, one reason some family members left the Catholic church).

More recently, and I think for good reasons, the status of the Latin Mass has been (re)-elevated. It is legitimate, and no sign of rebellion, for a parish to have a Latin Mass.

As an outsider now, it also seems clear that the ordinary, standard, regular, etc. language for Mass now continues to be (as Vatican II determined) the common language of the local people, for the obvious reason of enhanced understanding by all.

All in all, a good, fair, prudent state of affairs.

But then at EWTN Britain I see an article attempting to argue that now the Latin and vernacular Mass are equally ordinary, standard, regular, etc. Well, in legitimacy yes. But why chafe against the current Pope’s simple statement that a Latin Mass today is extraordinary rather than ordinary? Seems to be picking a fight for the sake of a fight.

See for yourself:
ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/card-burke-challenges-pope-s-relegation-of-latin-mass-to-an-exception

How about the ending of the article (bold as in original):

Comment

The equality between the ordinary rite and the extraordinary rite is unambiguous in Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum:

The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. T**hese two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.
**

How can the author overlook the first two sentences?:

The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.

Again, this is no longer my cat fight, but seems to me EWTN (Britain, at least) might have some bias.

Yes, this is an area in which I see Westerners being somewhat blind to the non-Western experience. I found this out by reading about the difficulties missionaries in non-Western areas had because the converts were so far away from understanding the Mass, which was then in Latin. --It also caused me to wonder about the fact that areas with Romance languages generally stayed Catholic, while areas whose languages were not based on Latin were more likely to become Protestant.–

(My next post was originally a continuation of this one, but became so general I separated them.)

 

[St_Francis]

Thing is, there used to be this saying: Pray, pay, and obey. It seems to have been common to enforce a rigid hierarchy of need to know (maybe this is what the Pope is thinking of?), in which the laity was instructed, for example, to offer up their sufferings, with no explanation or theological framework. I don’t know how true a description that was, but I have heard it from various people.

And I think this is what is disturbing some about some of what Pope Francis says. He wants to make a super-major change in discipline (as I understand it), and he doesn’t explain it. And this has been the case even with some of the previous popes.

The Pope is not God. We do not have to trust the Pope as we trust God.

 

[Convert_in_99]

We live in an age of anti-religious authority, fanned by the media. Remember, all the popes over the past 50 years or so have been trashed by many, including Catholics. I have long expected liberals to be criticizing popes, but in recent years the conservatives have been following the secular culture, too.

The difference between 1966 and now is that there is far, far more communication: through the Internet.

I urge you to limit time on social media and the news media. They are usually not informing you, but make their money by keeping everyone in a state of alarm. We feel much freer since we cancelled our subscription to the daily newspaper. I also strictly limit any time on alarmist Catholic websites. I need to cut back on CAF.

A good rule is to spend at least an hour on genuine spiritual reading, especially the Bible, for every 10 minutes online.

Yes I agree. Today everyone is criticizing the Pope, even “conservatives!” I would think that if conservatives tended towards keeping with our older traditions and customs that obedience to Church authority would be part of the package.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Our Lord had exactly zero good things to say about murmuring. We laity must trust the hierarchy! We are not theologians. We are not pastors, ministering to the divorced and remarried. We do not apply Amoris Laetitia - it is applied to us, if necessary. Fraternal correction, if any is needed, comes appropriately from the “fraternity” which is the Bishops in union with the Holy Father. When we speak against the Holy Father because he does not agree with us, we have a problem with humility and obedience. In principle, this exact process occurred in Germany in the 16th century.

When we murmur, gossip, opine, “pontificate” or otherwise seek anything beside understanding, we question Christ by questioning His Church. We are poisoned by the media age in which we must all have a voice, must all give our “valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.” The Church does not need valuable (name removed by moderator)ut - we need her valuable output.

 

[Hicks]

When we murmur, gossip, opine, “pontificate” or otherwise seek anything beside understanding, we question Christ by questioning His Church. We are poisoned by the media age in which we must all have a voice, must all give our “valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.” The Church does not need valuable (name removed by moderator)ut - we need her valuable output.

True, indeed. And the patrimony is well-defined and not subject to revision. Should anyone, even the Pope himself, seek to in any alter the teachings of the Catholic Church, they will break against the rock of Her authority. The Church is my Mother and Teacher, and the Pope must be in service of Her and Her Lord. I will give the Pope the respect and obedience due him by his office, but I will not be guilty of papolatry. Error is error, whoever teaches it.

 

[eddie_too]

although they may not have intended for it to be perceived as i perceive it, my impression of the four cardinals going public with their “dubia” is that it was an attempt to “strong arm” the pope in to doing what they wanted him to do.

perhaps their letter and their actions are very ambiguous and i am misunderstanding them?

i do not find amoris laetitia to be ambiguous. i see nothing in it that changes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. i find it to be a primarily pastoral document designed to encourage pastors to reach out to those estranged from the Church in order to help them find once again God’s merciful love.

i see nowhere in the document where it says that those in the state of mortal sin may now receive the Lord in communion worthily.

i see nowhere in the document where it says that adultery is not a grave, deadly, mortal sin.

i see nothing in it that attempts to refute the teachings of st. john paul or benedict XVI.

 

[eddie_too]

the burden of proof is upon those who accuse the pope of teaching in error.

i have read nothing from anyone that proves such an accusation.

making such an accusation with out proof may be considered a gravely immoral act. it certainly appears to be an action motivated by extreme hubris.

 

[Tommy999]

Although I am not Catholic, I like Pope Francis and think he has been a breath of fresh air for relations between the Catholic Church and the various Protestant faith traditions. One of the reasons I came to CAF in the first place was the welcoming tone and personality of Pope Francis that he has shown to different Protestant groups since he assumed the Papacy.

He makes me feel like a Christian brother rather than the enemy, which makes me open to learning more about Catholicism.

I think he is a liberal politically. I am not. In that respect, I wish he would focus on matters of faith and morals and working to spiritually strengthen the Christian faithful instead of talking about global warming and whether the US should build a wall at the border with Mexico or not.

In my opinion, the Catholics who are disrespectful of him are generally the ones who yearn for the procedural “days of yore” when the Mass was done only in Latin and Ad Orientem and when Protestants were considered heretics to be shunned or confronted on the battlefields of Europe.

Just my :twocents:

 

[patricius79]

Yes I agree. Today everyone is criticizing the Pope, even “conservatives!” I would think that if conservatives tended towards keeping with our older traditions and customs that obedience to Church authority would be part of the package.

Can one question some of the approaches of Pope Francis because of love and loyalty for him, and because of obedience to Church authority?

If Pope Francis said, for example, that one sometimes cannot keep the 6th Commandment without falling into further sin, could one question whether this is consistent with perennial Church teaching, and pray that the Pope clarify his meaning for the Church?

 

[St_Francis]

although they may not have intended for it to be perceived as i perceive it, my impression of the four cardinals going public with their “dubia” is that it was an attempt to “strong arm” the pope in to doing what they wanted him to do.

perhaps their letter and their actions are very ambiguous and i am misunderstanding them?

i do not find amoris laetitia to be ambiguous. i see nothing in it that changes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. i find it to be a primarily pastoral document designed to encourage pastors to reach out to those estranged from the Church in order to help them find once again God’s merciful love.

i see nowhere in the document where it says that those in the state of mortal sin may now receive the Lord in communion worthily.

i see nowhere in the document where it says that adultery is not a grave, deadly, mortal sin.

i see nothing in it that attempts to refute the teachings of st. john paul or benedict XVI.

The Church has always forbidden divorce and remarriage. A sacramental marriage cannot be severed except by death.

The Church has allowed people to request a decree of nullify, which determines whether at the time of the wedding the two people were in fact getting married sacramentally.

Without the decree of nullify and consequent blessing of the marriage in the Church, the two were considered to be committing adultery.

Pope Francis strongly implied that a D&R couple might be able, after consultation with a priest, to receive the Eucharist–which if taken unworthiness condemns the partaken to Hell–but did so in a footnote in an unclear way.

This issue had been previously addressed by the Vatican as the internal forum solution. The Vatican had forbidden the use of the internal forum solution because marriage is a public commitment, and so the solution must also be public. IMO, the Vatican is probably also concerned about the fact that people’s understandings may be wrong; their views slightly off; etc, which is why, for example, we don’t have members of teams being referees for games.

Although the Pope has said elsewhere that D&R cannot receive the Eucharist, he wrote in the footnote that
351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

As a footnote to his statement: Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351

So, the addition of the statement in the footnote that integration “in certain cases can include the help of the sacraments,” especially combined with his mention of the Eucharist’s not being “a prize for the perfect,” is confusing enough that bishops are unclear about what he means. as a result, some bishops are now permitting some reception of the Eucharist by D&R couples.

The accusation of strong-arming on your part goes too far, for more than one reason. First, what do the bishops want the Pope to follow? They want him to clarify something he said. It’s not that they want him to do something in particular, just to untangle a tangle which he has created.

Additionally, it is perfectly within the rights of the faithful to ask questions, and to have confusion such as this clarified. To say someone is “strong-arming” in this situation is highly inaccurate at best.

 

[St_Francis]

the burden of proof is upon those who accuse the pope of teaching in error.

i have read nothing from anyone that proves such an accusation.

making such an accusation with out proof may be considered a gravely immoral act. it certainly appears to be an action motivated by extreme hubris.

At this point, no one is accusing the Pope of teaching error, because it’s hard to say what the Pope is teaching. He has twice stated that the D&R fan not reçeive the Eucharist, but then approved the Argentinian bishops’ Rules permitting this.

Again, the Pope is not God; we can question him. Look at St Catherine of Sienna.

 

[carn]

Additionally, it is perfectly within the rights of the faithful to ask questions, and to have confusion such as this clarified. To say someone is “strong-arming” in this situation is highly inaccurate at best.

For cardinals it is even not only within their rights to ask question regarding from their prespective unclear issues in the Pope’s teaching, on can argue, that it is actually their duty:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P19.HTM

“Can. 349 The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college which provides for the election of the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of special law. The cardinals assist the Roman Pontiff either collegially when they are convoked to deal with questions of major importance, or individually when they help the Roman Pontiff through the various offices they perform, especially in the daily care of the universal Church.”

Cardinals have the duty to assist the Pope among other things in questions of major importance.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PU.HTM
“Can. 212
…
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

That means, that if Cardinal A one day gets knowledge of some formal teaching of the Pope concerning any important matter and the teaching does not add up from his knowledge and perspective with the rest of Church teaching, he has a duty to carefully and humbly consider the matter and if even after careful consideration and prayer the “does not add up” remains, he has a DUTY to send the Pope a letter aka:
“Your Holiness,
i humbly ask for your help; in document X you seem to say …; but from document Y it is known …; sorry, that i am that dumb, but i do not get it; for me there seems to be a contradiction; please help me understanding, especially why …
humbly
…”

Not doing such things after stumbling upon seemingly contradicting matter in a Pope’s teaching would be sinful of cardinal A; it is his duty due to being a cardinal.

Of course, how they do it, could be wrong.

But considering there are several months between AL publication and the dubia they at least did not hurry; that the 4 are usually in far different places and formulated a mutual request signed by all 4 indicates that they took some time to discuss the matter (one cannot draft such a letter in a few minutes and then just get an ok from the 3 others; they probably exchanged dozens or hundreds of messages and each checked each passage several times).

Hence, charity requires us to assume that they are trying to act within their duties.

 

[josh987654321]

He makes me feel like a Christian brother rather than the enemy, which makes me open to learning more about Catholicism.

I think he is a liberal politically. I am not. In that respect, I wish he would focus on matters of faith and morals and working to spiritually strengthen the Christian faithful instead of talking about global warming and whether the US should build a wall at the border with Mexico or not.

In my opinion, the Catholics who are disrespectful of him are generally the ones who yearn for the procedural “days of yore” when the Mass was done only in Latin and Ad Orientem and when Protestants were considered heretics to be shunned or confronted on the battlefields of Europe.

Just my :twocents:

Hi Tommy,

When I speak out against commemorating the 500th anniversary of the reformation with the Lutherans, it’s not because I don’t like Lutherans, or other protestants (Although I am very wary because I don’t know which protestant groups have gone all in favor of same sex marriage, abortion and the like) it’s simply because I believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that a schism from that Church is something to be sad about.

I own protestant books and many of them make some excellent points and many protestants do great things, I very much enjoy unity with my Protestant brothers and sisters where we are one on such issues, but when it comes to issues such as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity, I must part ways with my protestant brothers and sisters on those issues.

I have never experienced a pre-Vatican II Mass, so I don’t know what it was like before, but as for Latin, what a special and unitive thing to all know and speak the same language at Mass? no matter where in the world you are or what your native language is, to all hear, understand and speak the same language? (I would like a combination of Latin Mass, and a Mass in the native Language for those still learning Latin or who don’t know Latin, but it would be nice to have One Church, speaking One Language) I also wish communion was received on the tongue (I used to always receive in the hands, but have recently changed) as not only does it show more reverence to Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity, but it is also a good deterrent against those who seek to steal the host, which is easier done when people are receiving in the hands I believe. And I have heard the Priest used to face the altar and tabernacle, centralizing the Mass more on the Eucharist, rather than facing toward the people, which I think would also be nice. Nevertheless, I have never experienced it. So I don’t know.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[St_Francis]

Although I am not Catholic, I like Pope Francis and think he has been a breath of fresh air for relations between the Catholic Church and the various Protestant faith traditions. One of the reasons I came to CAF in the first place was the welcoming tone and personality of Pope Francis that he has shown to different Protestant groups since he assumed the Papacy.

He makes me feel like a Christian brother rather than the enemy, which makes me open to learning more about Catholicism.

I think he is a liberal politically. I am not. In that respect, I wish he would focus on matters of faith and morals and working to spiritually strengthen the Christian faithful instead of talking about global warming and whether the US should build a wall at the border with Mexico or not.

In my opinion, the Catholics who are disrespectful of him are generally the ones who yearn for the procedural “days of yore” when the Mass was done only in Latin and Ad Orientem and when Protestants were considered heretics to be shunned or confronted on the battlefields of Europe.

Just my :twocents:

WRT your last paragraph, the problem is that some see and express what’s happening as being disrespectful of the Pope. The Church has always had problems of ideas and actions, and there are a lot of people in the Church. It’s all like a process in which we endeavour together.

Consider a company which has a project to do. The person in charge has an idea of how to do it, and he tells the managers. They will question him, won’t they? They will ask for clarity of some points, make some suggestions about work distribution and the like. The head guy can’t be expected to know everything or to be absolutely clear to each manager, can he? So he *needs *the feedback to be more effective.

The Pope has said one thing and praised bishops who did another thing. These are facts. As a result, there is confusion. It is not disrespectful for the cardinals to do their job and give him feedback. It is not disrespectful to say, I don’t understand this.

As to your very last point, it’s absurd to think anyone wants to go back to a time of war between Christians! And I will be honest, I live in the Bible Belt and many a Protestant has declined to be friends with me or let our children be friends: why? Because they think I am wrong, that I am a heretic. But I don’t hold that against Protestants, esp. as I am lucky enough to know some who love the Lord sooooo much and so well. What some Catholics want is for something within the Church; they accept the outside world as it is.

 

[patricius79]

Cardinals have the duty to assist the Pope among other things in questions of major importance.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PU.HTM
“Can. 212
…
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

That means, that if Cardinal A one day gets knowledge of some formal teaching of the Pope concerning any important matter and the teaching does not add up from his knowledge and perspective with the rest of Church teaching, he has a duty to carefully and humbly consider the matter and if even after careful consideration and prayer the “does not add up” remains, he has a DUTY to send the Pope a letter aka:
“Your Holiness,
i humbly ask for your help; in document X you seem to say …; but from document Y it is known …; sorry, that i am that dumb, but i do not get it; for me there seems to be a contradiction; please help me understanding, especially why …
humbly
…”

Not doing such things after stumbling upon seemingly contradicting matter in a Pope’s teaching would be sinful of cardinal A; it is his duty due to being a cardinal.

Of course, how they do it, could be wrong.

But considering there are several months between AL publication and the dubia they at least did not hurry; that the 4 are usually in far different places and formulated a mutual request signed by all 4 indicates that they took some time to discuss the matter (one cannot draft such a letter in a few minutes and then just get an ok from the 3 others; they probably exchanged dozens or hundreds of messages and each checked each passage several times).

Hence, charity requires us to assume that they are trying to act within their duties.

In my opinion that is correct. It appears that they were very careful and respectful, and that they took their time. I don’t see how this is an attack on Pope Francis or the Papacy. It is simply doing their duty according to Church law, out of love for Jesus and Mary, and for the Pope, and for the clergy and Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

In my opinion that is correct. It appears that they were very careful and respectful, and that they took their time. I don’t see how this is an attack on Pope Francis or the Papacy. It is simply doing their duty according to Church law, out of love for Jesus and Mary, and for the Pope, and for the clergy and Church.

And nothing more, which is exactly all they should have done. And they will then humbly accept whatever answer His Holiness offers…and so will we as faithful Catholics.