Of course as Catholics we are required to be charitable to everyone not just the holy Roman Pontiff.
To fail to give the holy Roman Pontiff respect and obedience in the areas of faith and morals, to include his supreme right to legislate for the Church, would be a mortal sin if the failure is a result of knowing the truth about popes, and with full consent of the will, one violates this requirement and to magnify the mortal sin, one tries to get others to join him/her.
In terms of a lack of charity (love) shown to the papacy in general and any particular pope, this too is a mortal sin! Serious matter is involved. All Catholics should know that a lack of charity shown anyone is a sin and then to show that lack of charity with the full consent of the will qualifies as a mortal sin and fodder for confession.
Now this doesn't mean we like every aspect of a particular papacy and we might charitably disagree with this, that and the other.
My own opinion about Pope Francis is that His Holiness is the pope we need at this time and the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church through His Holiness in these perilous times. No pope as no human being is perfect on this side of life, but all of us are called to perfection and when we find ourselves in heaven, we will be made perfect by God's grace.
With Pope Francis, there have been what, in my most humble opinion, have been tactical errors. His disdain for protocol and the cultural trappings of the Bishop of Rome have been a mistake. His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church in Rome with its Roman Bishop must respect the culture of this institution even though the Bishop of Rome is also the Supreme Pontiff and Pastor of the Church universal.
The Bishop of Rome inherits a culture of kings, the trappings of the court. In the redeemed sense, the majesty of the monarchy is applied to Jesus and the Church even in Biblical times. We refer to Christ as King, Our Blessed Mother as Queen, heaven as the Kingdom of God and the trappings of the court clothe the Most Holy Trinity and the Queen of Heaven and the subjects who are redeemed in heaven. Crowns, royal robes and the like are images of heaven and have seared our collective imagination of heaven not just in Rome but throughout the world.
While there have been despots in the monarchy and dictators throughout the world, especially in Argentina and other parts of South and Central America, these images are not a part of the European, redeemed culture of monarchy that is included in Christian iconography and art and the trappings of the papacy, of bishops and of the Liturgy.
Thus the liturgical and other accoutrements of papacy to include frilly albs, ornate Roman Chasubles,
and the formal wear of the pope in non-liturgical settings should be respected and embraced as Pope Benedict modeled.
Pope Francis would still be hailed as a populist and would still be an object of infatuation with the secular press even if he dressed the way Pope Benedict did. Keep in mind, that Pope Francis is often compared to Pope St. John XXIII. They are similar in looks and personality. However, Pope St. John XXIII embraced the trappings of the papacy and did not imposed his more casual personality upon the institution of the papacy.
Other than the ambiguities of Pope Francis when he speaks off-the-cuff and the terrible mistakes His Holiness has made in doing so, there is much to admire about the current papacy and office holder.
Just as Pope Francis changed the style of the papacy and imposed his own idiosyncrasies upon it over night, so too will the next Pontiff recover that which has been lost and overnight too.
But with that said, I like what John Nolan had to say about Pope Francis' Easter Triuduum celebrations and about the Holy Father himself:
Before people start hurling brickbats at the papal liturgies they might ask themselves some questions:
1. How many parishes used Latin for the services on Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday?
2. In how many parishes was the Exsultet sung in full, using the time-honoured chant? ICEL now has a decent translation which is set to this tone.
3. How many Catholics in the English-speaking world heard the Passion sung as it should be?
4. How many have heard the Easter Introit 'Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum' and the Sequence 'Victimae Paschali laudes' not just yesterday but in their lifetimes? Precious few, I expect.
5. How many parishes used the Plainchant Mass I (Lux et origo) which is proper to Eastertide? It doesn't take a trained schola to sing it.
The vast majority of British or American Catholics will have found what went on in Rome bafflingly unfamiliar. They couldn't even join in the Pater Noster or Credo III. Fr McDonald cheerfully admits that his parishioners would revolt if presented with a Latin OF, although he has the musical resources to do it. What lamentable philistinism and ignorance!
To read some of the comments one might have thought the Pope had celebrated Mass in a sombrero accompanied by guitar-strumming gauchos. This is the third Triduum he has celebrated and if he was going to change things he would have done it by now. Liturgical and musical standards in St Peter's have improved greatly since JP II's day.
Pray for the Holy Father, and for God's sake give him a break!
April 6, 2015 at 4:17 AM
16 comments:
I have no duty to listen or obey any priest, bishop, cardinal and yes pope who teaches anything contrary to the revealed truth and timeless decide teachings of the Church To even discuss the possibility of allowing divorced Catholics living in adultrey who will not pick up their cross, amend their lives and receive sacramental absolution to receive Holy Communion in an objective state of mortal sin and try to pass this off as mercy is evil. Some things aren't open to discussion. Are we going to discuss if there are 2 sacraments or 4 or 7, do I hear eight. It's evil and contrary to the very words of Christ himself.
You may be a papist, I am a Catholic. The pope is not some monolithic God-like figure walking on earth. He is a servant to revealed truth. His duty is not to impose his own personal preferences on anything. His duty is to uphold the faith and make sure the bishops around the world are doing the same. Period. Is he correcting the bishops in Germany who are in open revolt? No. Is he correcting universities like Georgetown which teach and encourage dissent to Church teaching? No. He is worried about trees and whether or not priests are riding around in expensive cars.
Francis has made his papacy all about himself. Newsflash, mercy and humility didn't begin with him. Living out the Gospel didn't begin with him. It's not about him. It's about Jesus and not about what He would do but what He did. Jesus showed kindness to the adulteress woman but told her to STOP committing this SIN. Now we are being told that we can't call adultrey what it is, adultrey. That's what Cardinal Kasper keeps saying and the pope has not corrected him but made him the principal speaker to this farce of a synod. Yet faithful voices like Cardinal Burke are publicly humiliated and held up to ridicule. I am not standing by a man who would do those things. I am standing with Christ and the teachings of His Church.
In explaining the faith to a child, quoting Augustine or Aquinas must give way to a simpler manner of explanation. Similarly, when offering the truths and graces of the Catholic Church to impoverished congregants, certain allowances must be made according to their capacity of reception. This, essentially, was the pastoral approach of Father/Cardinal Bergoglio. Offer the faith in the measure and style that the receiver can receive.
The challenge for him now is that he has a global audience, which includes everything from highly educated pro-life activists in North America, to highly shame-conscious Catholics in West and East Africa. How does he now successfully apply his pastoral style to a global congregation, especially when everyone is watching and analyzing not only what he says, but even what he wears?
Thank you Fr. Martin Luther! You help us to understand the root of Protestanti as well as schism. I code to be Catholic which entails being a papist and bishopist. But I inderstand how you Protestants work. Next you will be doing away with Holy a Orders and claim there are just two sacraments, baptism and eucharist but of course without Holy Orders there is no Eucharist.
"Thank you Fr. Martin Luther! You help us to understand the root of Protestanti as well as schism. I code to be Catholic which entails being a papist and bishopist. But I inderstand how you Protestants work. Next you will be doing away with Holy a Orders and claim there are just two sacraments, baptism and eucharist but of course without Holy Orders there is no Eucharist."
What are you talking about? Again you are probablly very nice but not the brightest bulb in the marquee. You just pull things out of thin air. Amazing
Anonymous,
While I am not entirely unsympathetic to some of your comments, it must be admitted that it is not a solemnly defined doctrine that only those free of mortal sin may receive Holy Communion. There is an argument, although a weak one, but certainly not heretical, in favor of administering Holy Communion as a remedy for sin and a cause of repentance.
Further, I do not know of any instances in which the Holy Father has suggested the possibility of a new sacramental marriage while another spouse still lives.
As I have stated before what is possible is for a Catholic who has attempted the external forum of an annulment which hits a road block over a legal technicality may request an internal (confessional) solution which is basically a decision of conscience. The priest should point out that if the person returns to receiving Communion they should do so where no public scandal is given. I would also recommend that the priest tell the person that they and they alone will be held accountable before God for this decision of conscience.
Apart from that a Catholic could make a perfect contrition, recieve Holy Communion and then go to confession.
Teaching that sacrilege is somehow acceptable is heresy and implicitly denies the teaching of Christ and the Church on the indissolubility of marriage. When will you Neo-Cons stop doing backflips to rationalize the actions of this man. When you are standing alone before your maker and being judged do you really think all this nonsense is going to save you.
'I give you thanks, Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, who have been pleased to nourish me, a sinner and your unworthy servant, with the precious Body and Blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: this through no merits of mine, but due solely to the graciousness of your mercy.
And I pray that this Holy Communion may not be for me an offence to be punished, but a saving plea for forgiveness. May it be for me the armour of faith and the shield of good will. May it cancel my faults, destroy concupiscence and carnal passion, increase charity and patience, humility and obedience and all the virtues, may it be a firm defence against the snares of all my enemies, both visible and invisible, the complete calming of my impulses, both of the flesh and of the spirit, a firm adherence to you, the one true God, and the joyful completion of my life's course.' (Prayer of St Thomas Aquinas)
Thus for St Thomas the Eucharist is 'intercessio salutaris ad veniam' and 'vitiorum meorum evacuatio'. In the Roman Missal we have 'prosit mihi ad tutamentum mentis et corporis, et ad medelam percipiendam'.
A safeguard and a healing remedy, not a reward for the righteous.
"A safeguard and a healing remedy, not a reward for the righteous."
The Devil can quote scripture and also St. Thomas. To rationalize sacrilege as something merciful is EVIL. Then why should anyone have to go to confession? Is confession suddenly not necessary? If adulterers don't have to confess, receive absolution for their sins and amend their lives, then why do I, why do you? Are adulterers special sinners. There is a way they can receive Communion by following the words of Christ and stop committing that sin. Catholicism is for the heroic. Pick up the cross no matter how heavy and carry it, Christ did, Our Lady did, the saints did. St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher gave their blood. Did they die in vain?!
Anonymous,
Do you believe yourself to be worthy to receive Holy Communion?
Anon, I think you misunderstand John Nolan's point, almost invert it. Even after all of the prayers of the Mass thus far and Confession we plead that entering into Communion does not condemn us due to some careless oversight or willful omission but is a remedy. We quote the Centurion, that we are not worthy He should enter under our roof yet we have the Faith and Hope in the remedy.
"Anon, I think you misunderstand John Nolan's point, almost invert it. Even after all of the prayers of the Mass thus far and Confession we plead that entering into Communion does not condemn us due to some careless oversight or willful omission but is a remedy."
OMG yes willful omission of sin when receiving communion if knowingly in a state of mortal sin condemns you. Did you ever read St. Paul.
It is good to go the confession regularly even for venial sins.
My prayer:
I offer you O Christ, all my sins which I have comitted to be consumed in the furnace of your Divine Love. I offer all those good works I have done to be taken by your Angel into Heaven to be joined with your perfect Sacrifice so as to make what I offer also acceptable to the Divine Father.
Those who stand in front of the herd and yell 'stop' are not haters. Those who are indifferent to the spiritual state of soul of people who consider communion merely a ritual of communal acceptance and not actual communion with the Lord, are not lovers of humanity.
JB, that is a good point and one of the unexpected things that drove me to change parishes.
"While I am not entirely unsympathetic to some of your comments, it must be admitted that it is not a solemnly defined doctrine that only those free of mortal sin may receive Holy Communion. There is an argument, although a weak one, but certainly not heretical, in favor of administering Holy Communion as a remedy for sin and a cause of repentance."
The above contradicts Sacred Scripture, which tells us that those in mortal sin who receive Holy Communion eat and drink damnation to themselves.
Post a Comment