N
niceatheist
Guest
The way they’ve latched on to Benedict is weirdly like SSPX.
Why are there mutterings of discontent within the Catholic clergy towards our Pope?
- Status
B
Bithynian
Guest
I’m Chinese (born in Australia), and I have Catholic and Protestant relatives in China. From my conversations with them, most Chinese Catholics are taking a relatively nuanced position on the recent goings-on. Some are deeply unhappy for various reasons - some of which are understandable - but most are cautiously optimistic, if somewhat guarded.
I also think it worth highlighting that the state church is not a monolithic entity: there are in fact bishops, priests and laity who are extremely loyal to the Holy See and who, for a variety of reasons (some valid, some not), cannot participate in the underground church.
In particular, many first generation bishops and priests (i.e. those validly and licitly ordained) who joined the state church did not do so out of fear for their own personal safety, but to protect their congregants and ensure continuity of pastoral and sacramental care. It isn’t - as some portray - a simple, black-and-white decision of “state vs underground”: to choose the latter often meant abandoning the flock whose care had been committed to your charge.
Every Chinese Catholics understands that the situation is incredibly messy and fraught with issues, and most recognise that there is no pragmatic solution that will allow either side to emerge smelling like roses.
I also think it worth highlighting that the state church is not a monolithic entity: there are in fact bishops, priests and laity who are extremely loyal to the Holy See and who, for a variety of reasons (some valid, some not), cannot participate in the underground church.
In particular, many first generation bishops and priests (i.e. those validly and licitly ordained) who joined the state church did not do so out of fear for their own personal safety, but to protect their congregants and ensure continuity of pastoral and sacramental care. It isn’t - as some portray - a simple, black-and-white decision of “state vs underground”: to choose the latter often meant abandoning the flock whose care had been committed to your charge.
Every Chinese Catholics understands that the situation is incredibly messy and fraught with issues, and most recognise that there is no pragmatic solution that will allow either side to emerge smelling like roses.
B
Bithynian
Guest
These challenges have long been acknowledged in the Chinese Catholic community: for decades there’s been speculation and discussion about “what ifs” when it was inevitable that the canonical status of the state church needed resolution.
The Church itself has had much experience in resisting, negotiating and compromising with state inference in episcopal appointments throughout its history. Including when Odoacer and the Ostrogoths (Arian Christians) conquered Rome in the 6th century and began interfering in papal elections.
The Church has also had opportunity to reflect on the many difficult and uncomfortable agreements that Orthodox Churches have had to make with Soviet authorities over the past century.
In essence, the Church isn’t politically naive.
The Church itself has had much experience in resisting, negotiating and compromising with state inference in episcopal appointments throughout its history. Including when Odoacer and the Ostrogoths (Arian Christians) conquered Rome in the 6th century and began interfering in papal elections.
The Church has also had opportunity to reflect on the many difficult and uncomfortable agreements that Orthodox Churches have had to make with Soviet authorities over the past century.
In essence, the Church isn’t politically naive.
B
Bithynian
Guest
Most Chinese Catholics do not interpret their current problem (and its most optimal solution) as a black-and-white, either-or-problem.
I think it worth mentioning that the English-language news reporting around this issue has been very haphazard and much historical context and nuance has been lost through much simplification (and in some cases, misrepresentation).
I will say that the unity has been an overarching goal amongst Chinese Catholics - both state and underground - and the Holy See for several decades. In respect to this, Pope Francis has not been pursuing an idiosyncratic pastoral policy. And it’s important to note that most Chinese Catholics do not understand the Holy See’s decision to be political, administrative or diplomatic: it’s primarily pastoral.
Many of the Chinese Catholics who were forcibly swept up into the state church are, in fact, faithful and loyal Catholics. Many belong to families who have been Catholic since the faith was first preached in the 16th century by the Jesuits. Many of these families were forcibly divided between the state church and the underground church.
There has been an implication made here in this thread and elsewhere that Chinese Catholics in the state church took the wide gate and broad road by declining to join the underground church. To an extent, perhaps they did. But few non-Chinese have any sense of the tangible horror and death that was pervasive at the time of the state church’s founding in 1957: the Great Leap Forward began in 1958 and by the time of its conclusion in 1962, approximately 30-55 million Chinese had died (either by starvation or execution). Compare that to the 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust and the 80 million global totalities of WW2.
In addition, joining the state church was not a guarantor of safety. The actual wide gate and broad road was to completely abandon the faith. But those who joined the state church did not. Many of them wrestled significantly (often unsuccessfully) to preserve some tangible and legitimate expression of their faith in Christ and their communion with the Bishop of Rome. Pope Francis’ negotiation with the government were seen by many Chinese Catholics as a gesture of pastoral concern: “yes you have suffered greatly, yes you have kept alive the faith as best as you could, yes you have stumbled, yes the Bishop of Rome will not abandon you”.
In any case, I’m not inclined to enter into a protracted dispute over Pope Francis’ decision as otherwise I’ll be typing a 50,000 word thesis attempting to delineate the course of Chinese Catholic experience over the past 6 decades, and then speculating aimlessly about future “what ifs” and “but ifs” and “what abouts”.
If others are concerned for Chinese Catholics, the best they can do is pray for them.
I think it worth mentioning that the English-language news reporting around this issue has been very haphazard and much historical context and nuance has been lost through much simplification (and in some cases, misrepresentation).
I will say that the unity has been an overarching goal amongst Chinese Catholics - both state and underground - and the Holy See for several decades. In respect to this, Pope Francis has not been pursuing an idiosyncratic pastoral policy. And it’s important to note that most Chinese Catholics do not understand the Holy See’s decision to be political, administrative or diplomatic: it’s primarily pastoral.
Many of the Chinese Catholics who were forcibly swept up into the state church are, in fact, faithful and loyal Catholics. Many belong to families who have been Catholic since the faith was first preached in the 16th century by the Jesuits. Many of these families were forcibly divided between the state church and the underground church.
There has been an implication made here in this thread and elsewhere that Chinese Catholics in the state church took the wide gate and broad road by declining to join the underground church. To an extent, perhaps they did. But few non-Chinese have any sense of the tangible horror and death that was pervasive at the time of the state church’s founding in 1957: the Great Leap Forward began in 1958 and by the time of its conclusion in 1962, approximately 30-55 million Chinese had died (either by starvation or execution). Compare that to the 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust and the 80 million global totalities of WW2.
In addition, joining the state church was not a guarantor of safety. The actual wide gate and broad road was to completely abandon the faith. But those who joined the state church did not. Many of them wrestled significantly (often unsuccessfully) to preserve some tangible and legitimate expression of their faith in Christ and their communion with the Bishop of Rome. Pope Francis’ negotiation with the government were seen by many Chinese Catholics as a gesture of pastoral concern: “yes you have suffered greatly, yes you have kept alive the faith as best as you could, yes you have stumbled, yes the Bishop of Rome will not abandon you”.
In any case, I’m not inclined to enter into a protracted dispute over Pope Francis’ decision as otherwise I’ll be typing a 50,000 word thesis attempting to delineate the course of Chinese Catholic experience over the past 6 decades, and then speculating aimlessly about future “what ifs” and “but ifs” and “what abouts”.
If others are concerned for Chinese Catholics, the best they can do is pray for them.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
It should be said however that Auxiliary Bishop Robert Barron has made this exact statement on his YouTube channel, that hell is symbolic and may well be empty.
B
Bithynian
Guest
You’re definitely right that there’s still a great of concern by many people. I want to re-emphasise that Pope Francis’ recent moves should not be seen as a solution in itself, and neither he, nor the Holy See nor the Chinese Catholic community see the current state of all things as either desirable in themselves or the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal being a united Chinese Catholic community free of state interference and loyal to the Bishop of Rome alone.
But the issue has been at an impasse, barely progressing, for over 6 decades. There was, at some point, an expectation that the Communist government would go the way of the Soviet Union and collapse, and so negotiations with the government were put on the backburner. But 3 decades on since the fall of the USSR, that hope hasn’t come to fruition, and there are few signs suggestive of an imminent fall of Communist government.
In this respect, I think the Holy See finds that it cannot abide another 6 decades of inaction. At this stage, the uncorrupted faith is still within recent memory of the present generation of Chinese Catholics in the state church, and - in my thinking - the Holy See finds it necessary to stake out some visible position lest these Chinese Catholics be subjected to an entirely corrupted faith.
They absolutely revile Xi J(name removed by moderator)ing. Both my grandfathers were denounced as counter-revolutionaries and killed during the Great Leap Foward (when my mother and father were in their late childhood), and so there’s a deep strain of antipathy towards anything Communist that runs throughout the family.
Funnily enough, I remember as a teenager reading a very critical autobiography of Mao written by a dissident. The problem was that the book cover had a photo of Mao commonly used in Chinese propaganda (its portrayal on the cover was being used ironically), and my parents thought I was reading pro-communist literature. They threw the book out without even a warning!
(continued below)
But the issue has been at an impasse, barely progressing, for over 6 decades. There was, at some point, an expectation that the Communist government would go the way of the Soviet Union and collapse, and so negotiations with the government were put on the backburner. But 3 decades on since the fall of the USSR, that hope hasn’t come to fruition, and there are few signs suggestive of an imminent fall of Communist government.
In this respect, I think the Holy See finds that it cannot abide another 6 decades of inaction. At this stage, the uncorrupted faith is still within recent memory of the present generation of Chinese Catholics in the state church, and - in my thinking - the Holy See finds it necessary to stake out some visible position lest these Chinese Catholics be subjected to an entirely corrupted faith.
They absolutely revile Xi J(name removed by moderator)ing. Both my grandfathers were denounced as counter-revolutionaries and killed during the Great Leap Foward (when my mother and father were in their late childhood), and so there’s a deep strain of antipathy towards anything Communist that runs throughout the family.
Funnily enough, I remember as a teenager reading a very critical autobiography of Mao written by a dissident. The problem was that the book cover had a photo of Mao commonly used in Chinese propaganda (its portrayal on the cover was being used ironically), and my parents thought I was reading pro-communist literature. They threw the book out without even a warning!
(continued below)
B
Bithynian
Guest
This is a prickly issue. I don’t know enough about the current generation of bishops to offer any authoritative insight.
Part of the difficulty is that the general public (Chinese and global) are only ever shown the bishops in a light that’s flattering towards the Communist government. Few are privy to what happens behind closed doors where faithful bishops can speak quietly and honestly with faithful priests and faithful congregants.
My relatives (some in the state church, others underground) have noted to me that their experiences with current state church bishops have mostly (but not always) been positive. These clerics were largely raised by Catholic families, taught by priests and ordained by bishops who had lived prior to the state church and imbued them with strong memories of what the faith was like back then.
In this respect, these bishops (the ones my relatives have encountered, at least) tend to be very aware of the tragic circumstances that lie all around them, but they still fight the good fight as best as they can. But doubtless there are opportunistic and faithless bishops.
Part of the difficulty is that the general public (Chinese and global) are only ever shown the bishops in a light that’s flattering towards the Communist government. Few are privy to what happens behind closed doors where faithful bishops can speak quietly and honestly with faithful priests and faithful congregants.
My relatives (some in the state church, others underground) have noted to me that their experiences with current state church bishops have mostly (but not always) been positive. These clerics were largely raised by Catholic families, taught by priests and ordained by bishops who had lived prior to the state church and imbued them with strong memories of what the faith was like back then.
In this respect, these bishops (the ones my relatives have encountered, at least) tend to be very aware of the tragic circumstances that lie all around them, but they still fight the good fight as best as they can. But doubtless there are opportunistic and faithless bishops.
Last edited:
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
Sometimes I think he’s ok, but then he’ll go off the rails with statements like that. Sometimes in an effort to make himself sound smart he twists around doctrine and teachings.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
I agree. I like that Letter to a Suffering Church he wrote a few months back.
J
JimG
Guest
The most even handed discussion of the controversies about Pope Francis that I have read is The Francis Feud, by Karl Keating. In it he discusses several books that have been written about this papacy.
http://karlkeating.com/my-newest-book-guides-you-through-the-pope-francis-controversy/
http://karlkeating.com/my-newest-book-guides-you-through-the-pope-francis-controversy/
M
Maximus1
Guest
Unfortunately
Z
zgraf
Guest
There have always been those who didn’t like what the pope was saying.
If history is any indication of what will come, one should expect that in 30-40 years Pope Francis will be canonized also. So those who would voice public objection might want to keep a more “long-term view” in mind.
- 60 years ago some individuals publicly disagreed with Pope John XXIII.
- 50 years ago some people didn’t like Pope Paul VI’s teaching (Humanae vitae, etc.).
- 40 years ago some objected to the teachings of Pope John Paul II.
If history is any indication of what will come, one should expect that in 30-40 years Pope Francis will be canonized also. So those who would voice public objection might want to keep a more “long-term view” in mind.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
So really this has little to do with china, and more to do with the Pope not giving appropriate pats on the head to conservative Catholics, or as they seem to view themselves, “true Catholics”.
J
JSRG
Guest
If you are referring to the video I think you are, you are misrepresenting him. First, the claim you ascribe to him doesn’t make sense, how is something symbolic but empty? It’s either one or the other. But in any event, I do not recall him ever saying anything about it being symbolic. He claimed we could “reasonably hope” that hell was empty, but that was it.
But even if he did say what you claimed, that still wouldn’t be the “exact statement” that Francis supposedly made (a statement that doesn’t fit in with his other statements and was only reported by an old and possibly senile reporter who doesn’t take notes), which was a complete denial of hell.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Yes he did say that. Yet we can reasonably know that it is not empty from scripture itself. Judas Iscariot.
What he said goes against Our Lady of Fatima and most private revelation and the words of our Lord as well. Hell is not empty. If it is we in turn might as well live like pagans.
Emeraldlady
New member
Well now that is just not true at all! Sedevacantism peaked during the pontificate of St JPII. SSPX split in 1988. Most Holy Family Monastery split on publication of it’s thesis “101 Heresies of Anti-Pope John Paul II” . The ‘True Catholic Church’ even elected a Pope in 1998 ‘Pope’ Pius XIII.
The difference with todays dissenting Catholics is they don’t leave the Church anymore. They just dissent from within.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
Matthew 26:24
Unless you are promoting annihilation, this verse pretty much says where he was going.
Matthew 26:24
Unless you are promoting annihilation, this verse pretty much says where he was going.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Judas Iscariot? And of course other," of course they are in hell types."
Regardless of this passage or that prophesy, in isolation, the Church itself takes no position Judas Iscariot is condemned to hell or anyone else.
The simple way to know this can be gleaned from the liturgy each week at mass.
We all engage in a prayer for every soul, the living and the dead. This includes Judas. If Judas was condemned, his soul would be beyond hope and redemption, the prayer would include a superfluous element, and need to be amended. We Catholics have no typos or errant thoughts in our well written liturgy!
The truth is the Church indulges a range of thinking on the subject.
We have our fire and brim -stoners.
They string cite every passage they can that talks about " narrow roads" or fires, into a gauntlet of gotchas.
There are Universalists at the other extreme. The Church does not fall at either extreme, but it does issue a green light to hope for every soul. It entertains theologic ideas from it’s great thinkers, like Von Balthazar, that when Christ made his decent on Holy Saturday, his light threw open the gates of hell and Christ’s light, once present, is eternal.
Or the simple," All will be well, all will be well, and all manner of things will be well", of the great mystic, Blessed Julian of Norwich.
Like most, my thoughts have pondered every side of the mystery I could think of.
But
I ground myself in this idea. I think it harmful to imagine a jealous vengeful and as described by some, a psychotic God. We have listened to a lifetime of opinions of some who choose to identify God, in his perfection, with quite imperfect human characteristics. Which cannot be. God is love, and the final destination is Divine Union. The message becomes harmful if it creates fear and distance from a God who is represented as scary. Truth is every Catholic has experienced the non- sequitur. God is love, full of Mercy, has a plan for all of salvation, he so loved the " whole world" when he gave us his begotten son. Not just the gauntlet survivors he does not trip up. You cannot reconcile those extremes. I choose the GOD WINS idea. Jesus sacrifice for just a handful is to modest of an expectation for God’s stated will.
Regardless of this passage or that prophesy, in isolation, the Church itself takes no position Judas Iscariot is condemned to hell or anyone else.
The simple way to know this can be gleaned from the liturgy each week at mass.
We all engage in a prayer for every soul, the living and the dead. This includes Judas. If Judas was condemned, his soul would be beyond hope and redemption, the prayer would include a superfluous element, and need to be amended. We Catholics have no typos or errant thoughts in our well written liturgy!
The truth is the Church indulges a range of thinking on the subject.
We have our fire and brim -stoners.
They string cite every passage they can that talks about " narrow roads" or fires, into a gauntlet of gotchas.
There are Universalists at the other extreme. The Church does not fall at either extreme, but it does issue a green light to hope for every soul. It entertains theologic ideas from it’s great thinkers, like Von Balthazar, that when Christ made his decent on Holy Saturday, his light threw open the gates of hell and Christ’s light, once present, is eternal.
Or the simple," All will be well, all will be well, and all manner of things will be well", of the great mystic, Blessed Julian of Norwich.
Like most, my thoughts have pondered every side of the mystery I could think of.
But
I ground myself in this idea. I think it harmful to imagine a jealous vengeful and as described by some, a psychotic God. We have listened to a lifetime of opinions of some who choose to identify God, in his perfection, with quite imperfect human characteristics. Which cannot be. God is love, and the final destination is Divine Union. The message becomes harmful if it creates fear and distance from a God who is represented as scary. Truth is every Catholic has experienced the non- sequitur. God is love, full of Mercy, has a plan for all of salvation, he so loved the " whole world" when he gave us his begotten son. Not just the gauntlet survivors he does not trip up. You cannot reconcile those extremes. I choose the GOD WINS idea. Jesus sacrifice for just a handful is to modest of an expectation for God’s stated will.
Last edited:
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Jesus Himself implies he is in Hell. The Church cannot override what the Lord Himself said.
- Status