Pope Francis: “We Are Not Living an Era of Change but a Change of Era”
 |
10-11-2015 - Year XXII - Num. 198
|
Francis to the National Ecclesial Congress: the traits of Christian humanism
Vatican City, 10 November 2015 (VIS) – Following his brief visit to Prato, the Pope travelled by helicopter to Florence, where he was received by the cardinal archbishop Giuseppe Betori, and by the other civil and religious authorities. He transferred by car to the Baptistery dedicated to St. John the Baptist in the square before the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, and paused a moment before the painting “The White Crucifixion”, currently on display in the “Divine Beauty” exhibition in Palazzo Strozzi. From there, he proceeded to Santa Maria del Fiore on foot to meet with the participants in the Fifth National Ecclesial Congress, dedicated this year to the theme “In Jesus Christ, the new humanism”. In the cathedral, where the 2,500 participants were gathered, he was greeted by Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, president of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) and archbishop of Genoa, along with Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia of Turin and Bishop Nunzio Galantino, secretary of the CEI.The Pope gave an address focusing on the theme of the Congress, extensive extracts of which are published below, in which he spoke about the features of Christian humanism and the temptations to which the Church is exposed. “We can speak about humanism only by starting from the centrality of Jesus, discovering in Him the features of the authentic face of man. And the contemplation of the face of the dead and risen Jesus that recomposes our humanity, fragmented as it may be by the hardships of life, or marked by sin. We must not domesticate the power of the face of Christ. The face is the image of His transcendence. … I do not wish here to draw an abstract image of the 'new humanism', a certain idea of man, but to present with simplicity some features of Christian humanism, which is that of the sentiments, the mind of Jesus Christ. These are not abstract temporary sensations but rather represent the warm interior force that makes us able to live and to make decisions”: “The first sentiment is humility. … The obsession with preserving one's own glory and 'dignity', one's own influence, must not form part of our sentiments. We must seek God's glory, that does not coincide with ours. God's glory that shines in the humility of the stable in Bethlehem or in the dishonour of Christ's cross always surprises us”. “Another sentiment is selflessness. “Another of Jesus Christ's sentiments is beatitude. The Christian is blessed. … In the Beatitudes, the Lord shows us the path. By taking it, we human beings can arrive at the most authentically human and divine happiness. … For the great saints, beatitude is about humiliation and poverty. But also in the most humble of our people there is much of this beatitude: it is that of he who knows the richness of solidarity, of sharing also the little he possesses. … The beatitudes we read in the Gospel begin with a blessing and end with a promise of consolation. They introduce us to a path of possible greatness, that of the spirit, and when the spirit is ready all the rest comes by itself”. “Humility, selflessness, beatitude … they also say something to the Italian Church that today meets to walk together, setting an example of synodality. These features tell us that we must not be obsessed with power, even when this assumes the appearance of a useful or functional power in the social image of the Church. If the Church does not assume Jesus' mind, she is disorientated and loses her way. A Church with these three features – humility, selflessness and beatitude – is a Church that recognises the action of the Lord in the world, in culture, in the daily life of the people. I have said this more than once, and I will repeat it again today to you: 'I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security'”. “However, we know that there are many temptations we must resist. I will present you at least two of them. The first is that of Pelagianism, which leads the Church not to be humble, selfless and blessed. … Often it leads us even to assuming a style of control, of hardness, normativity. Rules give to the Pelagian the security of feeling superior, of having a precise orientation. In this it finds its strength, not in the soft breath of the Spirit. Faced with the ills or the problems of the Church, it is useless to seek solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of outdated forms and conduct that have no capacity for meaning, even culturally. Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts and uncertainties, but it is living, it knows how to disturb and to encourage. Its face is not rigid, it has a body that moves and develops, it has tender flesh; Christian doctrine is called Jesus Christ”. “A second temptation is the gnosticism that leads us to place our trust in logical and clear reasoning that, however, loses the tenderness of our brother's flesh. … The difference between Christian transcendence and any other form of gnostic spiritualism resides in the mystery of the Incarnation. Not putting into practice, not leading the Word to reality, means building on sand, remaining in the pure idea and degenerating into intimisms that do not bear fruit, that render its dynamism sterile”. “The Italian Church has great saints whose examples help live faith with humility, generosity and joy, from St. Francis of Assisi to St. Philip Neri. But let us also think of invented characters such as Don Camillo and Peppone. I am struck by how, in the stories of Guareschi, the prayer of a good pastor unites with evident closeness to the people”. “But then, you will ask, what must we do? What is the Pope asking of us? It is up to you to decide: people and pastor together. And I invite you, again, simply to contemplate the Ecce Homo above us”. “I ask the bishops to be pastors. Nothing more: pastors. May this be your joy: 'I am a pastor'. It will be the people, your flock, who support you. … May nothing and no-one remove from you the joy of being supported by your people. As pastors, do not be preachers of complex doctrines, but rather announcers of Christ, Who died and rose again for us. Focus on the essential, the kerygma. There is nothing more solid, profound and sure than this announcement. But may it be all the people of God who announce the Gospel, people and pastors”. “I recommend all the Italian Church what I indicated in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium: the social inclusion of the poor, who occupy a special place in the People of God, and the capacity for encounter and dialogue to promote friendship and in your country, in search of the common good”. “May God protect the Church in Italy from any kind of surrogate of power, image and money. Evangelical poverty is creative, it welcomes, supports and is rich in hope. The mother Church … recognises all her abandoned, oppressed and weary children. And this has always been one of your virtues, as you are well aware that the Lord shed his blood not for some, for few or for many, but for all”. “I also recommend, in a special way, the capacity for dialogue and encounter. Dialogue is not negotiation. Negotiating is bargaining to obtain your own piece of the common 'pie'. That is not what I mean. Instead it is seeking the common good for all”. “May the Church be a leaven for dialogue, encounter, unity. Indeed, our very formulations of faith are the fruit of dialogue and encounter between different cultures, communities and claims. We must not be afraid of dialogue; on the contrary, it is precisely comparison and criticism that helps us to preserve theology from being transformed into ideology. Also remember that the best way to engage in dialogue is not that of speaking and discussing, but rather of doing something together, of constructing something, of making projects: not alone, among Catholics, but along with all people of goodwill”. “But the Church also knows how to give a clear answer to the threats that emerge within public debate: this is one of the forms of specific contributions that the faithful offer to the construction of common society. Believers are citizens. … I appeal above all to the young: overcome apathy. … Do not look down on life from the balcony, but rather get involved, immerse yourselves in broad social and political dialogue. … Our times require us to live problems as challenges and not as obstacles: the Lord is active and at work in the world. … Wherever you are, never construct walls or frontiers, but instead open squares and field hospitals”. “I would like a restless Italian Church, ever closer to the abandoned, the forgotten, the imperfect. I wish for a joyful Church with the face of a mother, who understands, accompanies and caresses. May you too dream of this Church, believe in her, innovate freely. The Christian humanism that you are called upon to live radically affirms that dignity of every person as Son of God, establishes between all human beings a fundamental fraternity, teaches to understand work, to inhabit creation as our common home, and provides reasons for joy and humour, even in a life that is often very hard”. Following his encounter with the representatives of the ecclesial congress, shortly before midday, the Pope went to the Basilica of the Santissima Annunziata to pray the Angelus with various sick and disabled people, after which he lunched with the poor in the San Francesco Poverino refectory. |
He made his remarks today in Florence, Italy:
Pope Francis has strongly outlined anew a comprehensive vision for the future of the Catholic church, forcefully telling an emblematic meeting of the entire Italian church community here that our times require a deeply merciful Catholicism that is unafraid of change.In a 49-minute speech to a decennial national conference of the Italian church — which is bringing together some 2,200 people from 220 dioceses to this historic renaissance city for five days — Francis said Catholics must realize: “We are not living an era of change but a change of era.”“Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally,” the pontiff said at one point during his remarks.“Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives — but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened,” said the pope. “It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh: it is called Jesus Christ.”“The reform of the church then, and the church is semper reformanda … does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures,” he continued. “It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit — so that all will be possible with genius and creativity.”
81 comments:
Utter humanistic/socialist garbage. "Christian humanism" is a contradiction in terms. This man is a disaster for the Church, the Faith, and believers everywhere.
"Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives — but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened,” said the pope. “It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh: it is called Jesus Christ.”
OK Father AJM, I know that because of Matt 16:18 the Church won't fall apart. But just what does the Pope mean? Doesn't he get that to throw around such language with doctrine can make him look like he is trying to change it?
Also, just what are his intentions here? Back pre-Vatican II, from what I have gathered, teaching the faith was straight forward and most Catholics had some rudimentary knowledge of the faith from Baltimore Catechism teaching, enough they could explain in simple terms to non-Catholics what their faith meant, or a teaching/doctrine. Now, post Vatican II, it's like no one can explain the Catholic faith, and instead it's more like syncretism, "fuzzy Jesus" Catholicism, etc. So for the Pope to say it, then how can one even fathom to explain to people interested in becoming Catholic, when he says the Faith is not a closed system? If everything changes, then nothing is solid.
I tell you father, it is extraordinarily hard NOT to stoop to the level of the Katholic Krazies, and the lack of faith and despairing laments expressed by the Catholic blogospehere and certain people on here.
Can you give something here to explain this quote above?
Francis, like all liberals believe it's his way or the highway. I truly believe he will not rest until he imposes his personal agenda on the Church. He will not be content to just call up adulterers and tell them privately that it's ok to commit sacraligeous communions. The arrogance of the liberal is to shove their beliefs down people's throats. Francis is no different. He will teach publicly as pope that any Catholc living in adultery who wants to receive communion can do so without amendment of life. I predict he will also state that these people aren't living in adultery. So then the attack on marriage, penance, the Eucharist will be complete. Then he will probably move onto Holy Orders. He will get rid of celibacy and ignoring the real problems in the Church will just make them worse. God help us. God is our only hope not that man who live ostentatious humility.
Because of course holding on to Tradition and the teachings of the Deposit of Faith handed down from Christ and the Apostles have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Let's just toss out all that old doctrinal stuff, and that downer stuff like sin and repentance, and instead embrace mercy, meaning everyone is to be affirmed in their sinful ways. Like, totally rad man! Such a with it Church. Unfortunately, Pope Francis wants to turn the Church into something I have no interest in being a part of.
Julian, stop despairing. If your faith can be shaken by a bad pope or a blogger or a rad trad, mad trad, trad behaving badly and not a glad trat, then you need to examine what your faith is based on. This is the time to man-up. Get with it.
I vehemently disagree with the pope. We need to pray for the scales to fall from his eyes.
In light of these papal comments, I would recommend that everyone listen to this sermon, which addresses the question whether we have the faith of our fathers. It might help with the tendency to despondency to hear that there are priests who will speak the truth plainly despite what is happening in the Holy Church.
Christian humanism is in the tradition of Erasmus and St Thomas More. It was being taught in universities at the beginning of the 16th century. It is not heretical per se.
Should the Pope teach heresy (not that I suggest he will do) then he will be deposed. There is precedent.
Fine. In the name of Pope Francis I demand an end to the oppressive Socialist and Oligarchic regulatory regimes that control Western civilization. Practically this means we must cut back the Federal (and State) budgets by 40% to re-align government spending to just what funds are raised each year by taxes minus 4% so as to pay down the Federal and State debt obligations.
Change must also be had by radically altering the political and cultural climate by breaking up all monopolies in the financial, medical, and media cartels in favor of democratizing banks, medical industries and media outlets - devolving them back to independent operators rather than fiefs controlled by a small elite.
Radically reducing the size and scope of government and the size and reach of big business and big finance, we must also radically change the legal system to de-fang prosecutors and increase personal liability for all public servants and former oligarchs so the poor and middle class can sue them for personal damages. No more ought public employees hide behind their union or government status to avoid civil penalties.
Change - it's what we can believe in!
As far as the Church is concerned, we must force a radical change in seminarian and religious house formation and formation personnel. All must submit to the mandatum. The CDF must be empowered to defrock and remove from office anyone who preaches heresy or causes scandal.
He wants radical change - the above would be as radical and positive a flip of the pancake as one can imagine.
That ol' Christian humanism didn't work out too we'll for More, now, did it? LOL!
At the big UN climate summit in Paris, all the Chicken Little's are wringing their hands and tearing their hair because the public does not take them seriously. They are whining and crying about "the end of life on earth," mass extinctions, etc...never mind there has been no measurable global warming in 20 years, the polar ice caps are thickening, and more and more evidence is against it. But, for those of you who think the essence of the Christian life is loving the earth, you may be reminded, once again, that global warming, nuclear war, some deadly virus, white dwarf, or Christ's return, the earth is passing away and has no ultimate eternal meaning in salvation history. So, folks, repent and believe the Gospel. That is, and always has been, the path to salvation.
More's a Saint. I'd say just about everything in his way of life worked out well enough...
"...It is not useful to search for solutions...in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally," the pontiff said at one point during his remarks.
Hmmm...I wonder what the Pope means by "obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally?"
Does he mean Doctrine? Tradition with a capital T or small t? Devotions? "Save the Liturgy, save the world?"
Nobody whines better than Eugene.
Unfortunately, Pope Francis sees the world through the warped world of Peronism. I survived Paul VI I will survive this big=time lefty whose mission appears to be crapping on the Faithful who actually come to Mass and pay the bills, so he can be LOVED by the Church haters.
Obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being culturally significant...like monogamy, heterosexuality, marriage, a work ethic, productivity, obeying the law, a sense of duty, worshipping God, and believing in God. Yep, all that obsolete stuff. Go for it, Pope.
“As pastors, do not be preachers of complex doctrines, but rather announcers of Christ…”
"Please, let us avoid 'remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits that make us feel safe"
Why doesn’t he tell us exactly which structures give us a false sense of security? Which rules make us harsh judges? He seems to be speaking in code, which is a dangerous thing for a man who should be honest. He instructs not to preach in complex doctrines but he is doing worse. He preaches in unclear an imprecise language that causes more confusion. Church rules are not complex because the Ten Commandments are pretty straightforward rules. No one needs a PhD in theology to read and understand them. Unlike the Pope’s plea which seems to be: “Question everything and accept nothing.”
I think Pope Francis lacks confidence in the mercy and forgiveness of the confessional. He has nightmares about “mean little monsters in black robes” in the confessional. It seems to me that he thinks that only he and his Jesuit brothers possess the ability to be merciful. Maybe that’s because his idea of compassion is not offering absolution for the sin committed but he wants to tell people: “Don’t worry about that behavior because it’s not really a sin.”
Mike
The Church and society have always benefitted greatly from "looking back" to the past for direction, inspiration. That is, from remembering our roots. The 'look back' yielded the Renaissance, for starters.
It seems the Holy Father is, sadly, given to a trajectory of thought which looks to innovation as a modus operandi: “Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally,” the pontiff said at one point during his remarks."
Perhaps I am misunderstanding his emphasis, but the Catholic Church is who she is precisely because she conserves her (Apostolic) identity and is therefore countercultural. Her identity in Jesus Christ gives meaning and direction to her mission, and in that sense mission is identity. Is Pope Francis saying that? Unfortunately, far too many churchmen seem to think that rootless innovation is the Church's identity. Reformation, in the sense of return to our roots, a return guided by the Holy Spirit, is a viable trajectory. Reformation 'away from' is useless and only leads to splintering.
So then, what in blazes does the Holy Father mean by genius and creativity? Frankly, if we're talking more "creativity" of the liturgical abuse kind, then let's just say 'no' and be true conservers of Tradition.
“Any comment that is vitriolic and disrespectful of . . . Pope Francis . . . will not be posted!”
And yet, here we go again—for the umpteenth time.
Ok, it's time for the gloves to come off.
My crystal ball tells me that this speech is the final straw and that certain prelates are going to be more aggressive and vocal in opposing this nonsense. The crack about fundamentalism is clearly a mean spirited attack on Cardinal Burke who said that if upholding the doctrine of the Church is perceived as fundamentalist then he is proud to be labeled as such.
Francis is clearly not a towering intellect and he has real issues with the Catholic Faith. What is he trying to say?!
He says to the bishops "be shepherds ". Well the first and most important duty of a shepherd is to protect his sheep. The second important duty is to feed the sheep. Both of which Christ said that the apostles are supposed to be doing. Christ NEVER said for the apostles to smell like the sheep.
Francis keeps talking about change, change change. He goes on to make what he clearly believes to be profound that doctrine is Christ. Does he mean the Christ of the Gospels who is the same yesterday today and forever. Does he mean the same Christ who said a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Does he mean the same Christ who said a woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery. Does he mean the same Christ who said to the woman caught in adultery "your sins are forgive but stop committing this sin". Because that's the Christ I know.
Francis clearly has emotional or mental issues. He has a personal agenda which he is determined to impose on others. We need the cardinals and bishops to publicly oppose this man and the consequences be damned. Do we stand with Christ or some guy from Argentina whose canonical election as pope is questionable.
Emotional or mental issues.
Now we are descending to the realms of blogosphere diagnosis.
Yes, fasten your seatbelts. The Barcalounger Barracudas are schooling for another frenzy...
I don't see that there are radtrads at all. I think they were simply more on to it then the rest and they called it like it is. They didn't accept the constant refrain that Francis was being taken out of context or that he was being misinterpreted. IIn fact, what the media was reporting was correct all the time: they reported what Francis actually said but many were just not prepared to accept that a pope would say such things. I mean it just seems to me that the scales have finally fallen from a few people's eyes. If anyone likes to examine what the Pope has been saying from the getgo it has been liberal to say the least, certainly not in the mould of Pope St John Paul II The Great or Pope Benedict.
What the Trads have seen since Vatican II is the steady decline of the Church until it has reached the point where we are a Church completely divided and more than half of the Church is decidely not Catholic. The Trads have also had the benefit of Catholic prophecy which has foretold all of this. Of course many conservatives dismiss and regard these prophecies more or less as fairytales but they forget that these are the prophecies of the saints and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Things will get worse before they get better, but they will get better and we need to spend a lot more time in personal prayer to overcome the devil who is accountable for all the meyhem. The prayer to St Michael the Archangel should be especially invoked in these days. That prayer was instituted by Pope Leo XIII who had a vision of the devil telling Our Lord he would overcome the Church and defeat Her. That prayer was once said after every Mass and now only after the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, except in a few parishes where priests say it after the Ordinary Form as well. St Michael the Archangel defend us in the day of battle ...
If no one knows what he means and who he's talking about as the bad guys - and no one does - then in follows that ANY side can co-opt the Holy Father's words to their own corner.
I choose to interpret the Pope's words as directed not at conservative traditionalists but at the powers that be hic et nunc in today's world. It's not right-wing conservative traditionalists who run the Church in Europe or the Western world. It's not right-wing conservative traditionalists who rule the financial, economic, governmental, and social world....so it follows that we're not the ones polluting the globe, abusing people, or creating the throw-away culture.
The conventional wisdom is that the "older brother" is conservatives. I wouldn't be so sure or so quick "to judge"! He's measuring a shoe size and it definitely doesn't fit us.
So the syllogism is
1) the secular, liberal "progressive" world secular and Catholic Loves Pope Francis and hold him up as a moral authority (*thinking he's their friend and our enemy).
2) He's actually painting them as the bad guys responsible for poverty, pollution, and poison.
3) If we connect the dots he's scribbling, we can show that they not we fit the bill and hence, since they declare their allegiance to him, they need to obey their moral leader or be faithless.
In the absence of clarity, what other course of action is there?
Francis has talked about a programme of reform. He hasn't specified what it is. It is possible that he is a liberal who is determined to push the Church in a new direction but is being thwarted, not just by the Curia, but it would appear by a majority of the bishops.
As Pope, he cannot of course change doctrine; but he must realize that the option of retaining doctrine yet 'discerning' it in practice (which means setting it aside) is not an option either.
WE Gladstone was referred to as 'an old man in a hurry.' I get the same impression regarding Pope Francis - his petulant comments regarding those who oppose him are without recent precedent and I find them deeply disturbing. I still tend to the opinion that he is not up to the job. If I'm still around at the end of this pontificate, I will essay an 'I told you so'.
I do appreciate many of the efforts of Pope Francis, cleaning up the financial institutions, calling out the clergy who are more interested in their careers instead of living their vocation. I have been patient and listened to the words of Pope Francis without the media filter, while I appreciate much of what the he is doing, I find myself being in a state of constant confusion. As I see it one of the main functions of the Petrine ministry is unity, the Pope as a point of unity must speak and teach clearly to reassure the faithful. Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict spoke with a clear voice of truth, giving the faithful a steadfast assurance of the truth of Jesus Christ and His Church. Mercy is most definitely a defining attribute of our Lord, but this must be accompanied by conversion of heart, the willingness of the repentant to "go and sin no more" even though we fail miserable we understand that we must continue to fight the good fight relying on Gods grace, love and mercy to attain heaven. I am not hearing this very clearly from Pope Francis, and this concerns me. When he says the Catholics and the Church must change, what is he saying, I do get most of what is saying, but then here comes the curve ball. The faithful need to hear clearly what and how the Church must change to understand, ambiguity is as clear a mud. I am a Catholic and as such I do believe the Holy Spirit gave us Pope Francis for a reason, trying to discern the reasons so far has been the challenge for me so far. I will continue to be patient and pray for the Holy Father.
Perhaps the HS gave us Francis as a chastisement for the increasing apostasy of the Church's Bishops and Priests.
Blogger Gerbert d' Aurillac said... I am a Catholic and as such I do believe the Holy Spirit gave us Pope Francis for a reason, trying to discern the reasons so far has been the challenge for me so far. I will continue to be patient and pray for the Holy Father,
This is part of the problem, that there are Catholics who hold such views. A perfect example of the collapse of catechesis since the latest ecumenical council.
Where do ideas like this come from?
It is not now, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Holy Ghost directly gives us any particular pope, except perhaps for Saint Peter, who was chosen directly by Christ, and presumably the Holy Ghost concurred.
If it were the case that popes are picked directly by the Holy Ghost, that would mean the profligate John XII, who reportedly died in the arms of another man's wife, was the direct choice of God.
It would also mean that sometimes the Holy Ghost picked his favorite candidate through intrigue, bribery, physical fighting, et cetera.
Don't people realize that the history of the papacy includes such things?
Does the Holy Ghost work through simony? Good Lord.
The Pope is now calling for Catholics to "disavow conservatism and fundamentalism." This can only mean one thing, and I think it is time we quit defending the indefensible and understand that Christian belief and the Catholic Church are under attack from within and from the very highest level...the Pope himself. Catholics everywhere are going to have to decide whether they will remain in a Church that seems to be increasingly a tool of Leftist social doctrine and which has failed miserably to preach the Gospel of repentance and belief. Can the Magisterium survive this new assault, the groundwork for which has been laid for decades through unbelieving Priests and Bishops in their pastoral practice and personal lives, and through an anemic theology which has been heavy on social programs and social propaganda and light on eschatological preaching and teaching? I think the issue is in doubt, but I and other protestants who came to the Church to escape this very thing have a lot of soul searching to do. Even my protestant friends and colleagues who teach at seminaries and Divinity schools (and who are still believers) are shaking their heads. One asked me on the phone the other day, "So, where the Hell do you go now...East, SSPX, some independent Calvinist group, what?" I said I would just wait a while and see. I have no idea.
DJR, yes, but the passive and permissive will of God can certainly allow us to choose such a Pope. That is tantamount to the HS allowing it. Scripture is full of God's judgement on the Church, as it were, through such historical events. This in no way imputes blame or evil to God.
Does the following prayer enter into the discussion as to whether the Holy Ghost "gives us" a Pope?
From the Traditional Roman Liturgy (Good Friday prayer):
"Let us pray also for our most holy Pope N., that our God and Lord, *******who chose him to the order of the episcopacy,******* may preserve him in health and safety, for the good of His holy Church, to govern the holy people of God."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
Nope. It sure doesn't.
Um, no.
Marc said..."Mark, Nope. It sure doesn't. "
Why?
I add the following from the Novus Ordo Good Friday Intercessory Prayer for the Pope:
"For the Pope:
Let us pray
For our Holy Father, Pope ____________
That God who chose him to be bishop
May give him health and strength
To guide and govern God’s holy people.
Almighty and eternal God,
You guide all things by your word,
You govern all Christian people.
*******In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us.*******
Under his leadership deepen our faith
And make us better Christians.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen."
Our Lord told His apostles "I will be with you until the end of age" this is His promise to the Church, Jesus also tells us "the gate of hell shall not draw her in" the Church is protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, if not it is a institution of man and has no ability to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful, this of course is contrary to both Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture. All the Popes good and bad where placed in the office of St. Peter by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is what was necessary for the Church at that time and place. Even the most infamous, Pope Alexander VI for all his short comings and sinful life, did many good things for Rome and the people of the Papal States, he was there for a reason. I think we need to stop using terms conservative or liberal, they do not apply correctly to the Church, and we all know that fundamentalism can be dangerous because it causes blindness. I believe Pope Francis is making us feel uncomfortable for a reason, to get us moving, acting and living as Catholics should, living the Gospel, he wants us to get out of our comfort zones, get our hands dirty, bring the love and mercy of Christ to the world especially the poor, poor financially and the poor in spirit need to feel and see the love of Christ. When I pray the prayer of St. Francis I see what the Holy Father intends. If the Church is the one great hope for humanity then the humanity in the Church must live it fully, not just in our comfort zones, we need to do more than just praying for the less fortunate, more than giving money, we need to touch there lives in a real way, just a Jesus has touched our lives.
There have been all kinds of persons elected to the papacy, some of saints and some of them scoundrels. The Holy Spirit is the guarantor that no Pope will err in matters of faith and morals.
The Pope is there to serve God and the Church by his faithful witness. If he were to not do so by his promulgating error then effectively, if not in actuality, he would have vacated his position. The Holy Spirit, who also moves within the Church would guide and direct those who He wills to do so, to corrective action. This corrective action would come in the election of a subsequent Pope.
Things are done and events unfold according to the freedom God has given human beings. However, the Divine being, who created all things and knows all, is always present to guide and bring things into conformance with His Holy Will, the just and proper end of things being always present before Him, and with no things or actions beyond His Power and control to resolve to their just and proper resoluton.
As the saying goes,"When God commands, even Caesar must obey". And so, at Caesar's command, a census was called, and in accordance with the design and will of God, as was foretold, the Word became incarnate in the city of Bethlehem. "All went to be enrolled, each to his own town. And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,a to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son." (Luke2)
It was the pagan Cyrus released the Jewish people from their exile in Babylon.
"I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says God Almighty." (Isaiah 45:13)
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
my thoughts higher than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)
Mark,
It's a simple matter of textual analysis. The prayer in your original post says merely that God chose the person to be raised to the episcopate.
Marc, I failed to provide the second half of the Traditional Good Friday prayer in question. Mea culpa.
But the part that I offered here declared of the Pope, "that our God and Lord, who chose him to the order of the episcopacy,..."
Then we have the prayer for the Pope from the Novus Ordo Good Friday Liturgy that includes the following:
"Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people. "*******In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us.*******"
The Good Friday Liturgy (Novus Ordo) informs us that God has "chosen for us" our Pope.
That is an official prayer of the Church. "In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us."
Mark Thomas
Mark, if the Holy Ghost chooses the pope, what happened around 1955 to cause the Holy Ghost to start hating the Church so much that He has seen fit to select all the popes since then? Or is the Holy Ghost just really bad at selecting popes? And if the Holy Ghost chooses the pope, doesn't that nullify the Church's teaching on free will?
In recognition of reality, I think they should change the prayer now to say, "In your love, protect us from the Pope that has been chosen for us."
Gerbert, what flavor Koolaid is that you are drinking?
My understanding is the same as George's that "the Holy Spirit is the guarantor that no Pope will err in matters of faith and morals".
Also, I can't agree with Marc I think St John Paul II The Great and Pope Benedict were very holy men and did great things for the Church. Both suffered greatly for the Church. Pope John 23rd called the Council, which he himself thought should be shut down and Paul VI gave us Humanae Vitae. The pope is perfect. We can see that Peter denied Our Lord three times but he was still chosen to be Pope.
Pope John Paul II The Great spent his pontificate fighting against communism, promoting devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady, not to mention his unstinting promotion of the right to life of the unborn and fight against liberation theology.
Pope Benedict's outstanding intellect is well known and we should be eternally grateful to him for summorum pontificum without which we would not have the growth in the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. He is a gentle saintly man who is sorely missed.
Also, Marc, you must be very careful when saying about the Holy Spirit such as: "what happened around 1955 to cause the Holy Ghost to start hating the Church so much that He has seen fit to select all the popes since then?" I realise you haven't meant that seriously but it is very risky to mention the Holy Spirit in any negative way such as this, even in jest because it could fall under blasphemy which is: The term blasphemy may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” The term can be applied to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to God. It is also attributing some evil to God, or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him.
My understanding is the same as George's that "the Holy Spirit is the guarantor that no Pope will err in matters of faith and morals".
Also, I can't agree with Marc I think St John Paul II The Great and Pope Benedict were very holy men and did great things for the Church. Both suffered greatly for the Church. Pope John 23rd called the Council, which he himself thought should be shut down and Paul VI gave us Humanae Vitae. No Pope is perfect. We can see that Peter denied Our Lord three times but he was still chosen to be Pope.
Pope John Paul II The Great spent his pontificate fighting against communism, promoting devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady, not to mention his unstinting promotion of the right to life of the unborn and fight against liberation theology.
Pope Benedict's outstanding intellect is well known and we should be eternally grateful to him for summorum pontificum without which we would not have the growth in the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. He is a gentle saintly man who is sorely missed.
Also, Marc, you must be very careful when saying about the Holy Spirit such as: "what happened around 1955 to cause the Holy Ghost to start hating the Church so much that He has seen fit to select all the popes since then?" I realise you haven't meant that seriously but it is very risky to mention the Holy Spirit in any negative way such as this, even in jest because it could fall under blasphemy which is: The term blasphemy may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” The term can be applied to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to God. It is also attributing some evil to God, or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him.
Augustine (and Calvin) remind us that God's will is often passive and permissive...the Holy Spirit may not directly "choose" a Pope, but the HS will allow us to screw up royally because of pride, apostasy, disobedience, etc. Marc is theologically correct in what he says. He in no way attributes evil to God.
Gene, you think this statement of Marc is okay: "what happened around 1955 to cause the Holy Ghost to start hating the Church so much that He has seen fit to select all the popes since then? Or is the Holy Ghost just really bad at selecting popes?"
I think it borders on blasphemy and to me is another example of someone who hasn't been catechised in the Faith correctly. If he had been he wouldn't make such statements even in jest. It could be seen as taking the Lord's name in vein. I don't think you've really thought it through.
Jan, in my view, it is blasphemous to suggest that the Holy Ghost would've selected the popes since Pius XII.
Well, his remark was satirical...and, he does have a point. Imputing the active will of God to such actions as choosing a Pope or world leader, etc. goes both ways. If he directly chooses one, then He must also directly choose another...like Hitler or the Borgias. That is why we have such doctrines as the "permissive will of God." He allows us to screw up. I know Marc and his devotion to our Lord and Savior and his distress over what is going on in the Church. I also know that he is better catechized and instructed in the Catholic Faith than most. I can forgive (even enjoy) his critical comments because they are well-intended as instruction and warning to us.
The definition of blasphemy includes the assigning to God of attributes not properly assigned to him. Those of you who dare to suggest that God directly selects the pope are blaspheming against God -- that would be the case even if the popes that you are suggesting were directly selected were good popes since you would in any case be assigning to God an attribute not properly attributable to him.
I have countered your blasphemous statements by pointing out how ridiculous they are. Since it is not the case that the Holy Ghost directly selects the pope, my suggestion that his failures in doing so wisely over the last 60 years is not a statement of an actual attribute, but a comment on a non-existent possible world, which demonstrates more clearly the nonsensical nature of your claims.
It is not "taking the Lord's name in vein (sic)" to have a discussion of his proper attributes, especially when one is doing so in response to blasphemy, as I have done here.
This conversation has taken a ridiculous and sanctimonious turn, in my opinion. I'm simply suggesting that, if you want to think that the Holy Ghost directly chooses the bishop of Rome, then you must be able to explain why he has seen fit to select these men (including John Paul "the Great") of the last 60 years who are hell-bent on destroying the Church.
And, Jan, my problem is not a lack of catechesis -- my problem is an overabundance of catechesis.
"Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people. "*******In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us.*******"
The Good Friday Liturgy (Novus Ordo) informs us that God has "chosen for us" our Pope.
That is an official prayer of the Church. "In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us."
Mark Thomas
November 12, 2015 at 7:41 PM
Marc said..."Mark, if the Holy Ghost chooses the pope, what happened around 1955 to cause the Holy Ghost to start hating the Church so much that He has seen fit to select all the popes since then? Or is the Holy Ghost just really bad at selecting popes? And if the Holy Ghost chooses the pope, doesn't that nullify the Church's teaching on free will?
"In recognition of reality, I think they should change the prayer now to say, "In your love, protect us from the Pope that has been chosen for us."
Marc, all that I can say is that among the Church's official prayers is the Novus Ordo's Good Friday prayer for the Pope.
"Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people. "*******In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us.*******"
The liturgy is free from error. Correct?
God, according to the Good Friday Roman Liturgy (Novus Ordo), has "chosen for us" a Pope.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
"The liturgy is free from error. Correct?"
Incorrect. As one example, do you remember that time that the Novus Ordo had the words "for all" instead of "for many" for some decades and that was determined to be erroneous?
Besides, if God has chosen the pope for us, then we surely have no need to pray _for_ the pope. What God does is always correct and infallible. If God has directly chosen the pope for us, then our prayers for the pope are superfluous.
The liturgy is free from error. Correct?
God, according to the Good Friday Roman Liturgy (Novus Ordo), has "chosen for us" a Pope. Pax. Mark Thomas
It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that God directly chooses any particular person to be pope (except for Saint Peter, obviously).
God has instituted the papacy. The man elected to the papacy is therefore "chosen" by God's permissive will, as someone stated above.
The words of the liturgy have to be understood in the way the Catholic Church understands Herself. Not all expressions are meant to be taken 100% literally.
I belong to an eparchy of the Ruthenian Rite. In our rite, we have a memorial service for the dead called a panikhida.
At one point in the prayers, addressed to God, we state, "For you alone are without sin."
Is that a 100% literal statement?
No.
The Holy Theotokos is also without sin. So are the angels in Heaven.
Thus, the statement in the panikhida is not a literal statement and should be understood within the context of the Catholic Faith.
Same thing for the revised Good Friday liturgy of the Roman Rite.
If we were to believe that the Holy Spirit directly chooses the popes, then we would have to believe that He chose the immoral John XII.
We would also have to believe He chose popes who bought their office.
We would also have to believe that God wanted the papacy to be vacant during those times in the history of the Church where there was a gap of many months, sometimes years, between popes.
We would also have to believe that God chose popes who He knew would be dead within a matter of days. We've had nearly a dozen popes who died within four weeks of their election.
And, of course, we would also have to believe that God positively willed the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, as there would not be any other way for God to personally choose Pope Francis while Pope Benedict was alive. Ditto for Saint Celestine and his successor.
No Koolaid Gene, I appreciate your insight, but I do think you are blinded by fundamentalism of how you think things should be viewed. Pope Francis is putting into action those very things St Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict kept exhorting us to do. While the Church herself must be vigilant of modernism, it is foolish to simple oppose modernism with nothing more than admonishment, the world is turning away and simple not paying attention any more. This means the Church must engage society in a different way, St Pope John Paul II shares this with us in his call to the New Evangelization, it in not enough just to be good Catholics, the Church must be an image of Christ in the world in a real and present way. Soon just as in the early Church we will be called to martyrs for the faith, and that blood will again be the seeds of the Church. The world is changing fast, in many ways it is getting out of control, anarchy is on our door step, all the preaching in the world won't turn the tide of relativism if that preaching is not put into action and witnessed by the world, the truths of our faith have to move from the academic discourse to physical reality.
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;
O
Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
This ancient prayer is more relative today than any time in human history, take it to heart.
Marc, the Church's Sacred Liturgy (liturgies, Eastern and Western) is free from error. The Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council declared that "the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows."
Should Liturgy contain errors (false teachings), then the Church and Her teachings are not spotless. Errors in Liturgy mean that the Catholic Church neither possesses nor teaches the fullness of Truth.
Marc, your "fall all" and "for many" example pertains to the realm of translation.
The Church's Good Friday Liturgy (Novus Ordo) offers a prayer for the Roman Pontiff. Said prayer exhorts us to beseech "Almighty and eternal God" to "protect the Pope you have chosen for us."
That concept, that "Almighty and eternal God," has "chosen for us" a Pope is either true or false. As that prayer is a liturgical prayer of the True Church, I believe that the prayer in question contains God's Truth.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Marc,
Mark,
You're free to believe all of that if you like. Maybe God chose Francis to demonstrate the falsity of the papacy or some other such thing. If that's what you're suggesting, then you might have a point. Francis is doing a bang-up job of proving how terrible popes can be.
DJR said..."The words of the liturgy have to be understood in the way the Catholic Church understands Herself. Not all expressions are meant to be taken 100% literally."
DJR, in regard to Liturgy, among its functions is that of teaching the Faith. Liturgy cannot possibly teach errors. Liturgy does not contain errors.
As to the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer that I cited, I have never heard the Church proclaim that we are not to take said prayer for the Pope in non-literal fashion.
Why would the Church compose a Good Friday Intercessory Prayer that is not to be taken literally?
I have never heard such a thing as you introduced in regard to the Prayer for the Pope.
DJR, please understand that the following is not meant to be nasty. On Good Friday 2016 A.D., millions of Catholics will attend the Good Friday Novus Ordo Liturgy. They will hear the following prayer:
"Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people. "*******In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us.*******"
Are they to be expected to debate at that time whether the above prayer is literal?
DJR, again, I have never heard anybody within the Church introduce the notion that the Good Friday prayer in question is not meant necessarily to be taken literally.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR..."And, of course, we would also have to believe that God positively willed the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, as there would not be any other way for God to personally choose Pope Francis while Pope Benedict was alive. Ditto for Saint Celestine and his successor."
DJR, whether God willed Pope Benedict XVI's resignation is a question separate from the notion that God may have granted us this or that Pope.
God, for example, had chosen Jonas for a mission that Jonas attempted to thwart.
Despite his having been chosen by God to serve Him as a Prophet, Jonas, at times, worked against God.
Saint Peter, for example, chosen by Jesus to serve as our first Roman Pontiff, acted at times against God.
A person may act against God even though God has chosen said person to serve Him in a certain capacity.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Besides, if God has chosen the pope for us, then we surely have no need to pray _for_ the pope. What God does is always correct and infallible. If God has directly chosen the pope for us, then our prayers for the pope are superfluous."
Why? Are we not called to pray for each other? God has throughout history chosen men and men to serve Him in various capacities. Did the Faithful during those times not pray for the people in question?
God had chosen Saint Paul to serve Him. During his time on earth as God's servant, did the Faithful not pray for Saint Paul? Were prayers at that time for Saint Paul superfluous?
From about 33 A.D. to 67 A.D., were prayers for Saint Peter, chosen as Roman Pontiff by Jesus Christ, superfluous?
Marc, as you know, Satan does not cease to attempt to destroy people who have been chosen to serve God.
Satan works overtime to destroy us. Satan most definitely works overtime to attempt to ruin people whom God has elevated to high office.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Marc said..."Mark, You're free to believe all of that if you like. Maybe God chose Francis to demonstrate the falsity of the papacy or some other such thing. If that's what you're suggesting, then you might have a point. Francis is doing a bang-up job of proving how terrible popes can be."
Pope Francis' Pontificate may "fail", if you will. That, of course, doesn't have anything to do with whether God has "chosen for us" a Pope.
Marc, you addressed the following to a different poster:
"This conversation has taken a ridiculous and sanctimonious turn, in my opinion. I'm simply suggesting that, if you want to think that the Holy Ghost directly chooses the bishop of Rome, then you must be able to explain why he has seen fit to select these men (including John Paul "the Great") of the last 60 years who are hell-bent on destroying the Church."
Marc, I don't believe any of the Popes in question were determined to destroy the Church. Popes throughout history have made decisions that proved positive and negative for the Church.
Pope Venerable Pius XII, for example, tapped Monsignor Bugnini to reform the Roman Liturgy. That proved to be a terrible decision.
Pope Venerable Pius XII enacted radical liturgical reforms. He altered the Church's Eucharistic Fast. He launched the Church into the Ecumenical Movement. He threw in with the United Nations.
In many ways, Pope Venerable Pius XII's Pontificate failed to boost the Church. Does that mean that he was determined to destroy the Church?
Do Pope Blessed Paul VI's "failures" mean that he attempted to destroy the Church?
Marc, I believe that in many ways our recent Popes have enacted policies that have not benefitted the Church. But I don't believe that our recent Popes were out to attack and destroy the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said...DJR, in regard to Liturgy, among its functions is that of teaching the Faith. Liturgy cannot possibly teach errors. Liturgy does not contain errors. DJR, again, I have never heard anybody within the Church introduce the notion that the Good Friday prayer in question is not meant necessarily to be taken literally.
The liturgy does not contain errors. The error is in your understanding of what is meant by the words you quoted.
No different from the Bible in that respect. The Bible contains statements such as "all have sinned." Protestants use that verse as a proof text against the Immaculate Conception.
Pope Benedict XVI has publicly stated that the Holy Ghost does not personally pick popes, thus putting his statement in direct opposition to your misunderstanding.
The Holy Spirit does not directly pick popes, and the words you cited are not meant to indicate that.
I repeat what I said above. Do you take the words of the Catholic panikhida service literally, "You alone are without sin"?
What about the Immaculate Conception?
DJR, again, I have never heard anybody within the Church introduce the notion that the Good Friday prayer in question is not meant necessarily to be taken literally.
Two articles (below) quickly gleaned from the Internet. Both of them are priests, and both of them state that God does not directly choose popes.
God chooses popes in the manner that He has instituted the papacy and ratifies whatever choice is made. That choice may, or may not, be what He wants, but He permits it.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/does-the-holy-spirit-choose-the-pope
So we listen, but imperfectly. Cardinal Ratzinger was right: it’s false to say that the Spirit will simply dictate to each cardinal what name to write down on the ballot.
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=524858&language=en
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 12-31-2007:
God does not pick the pope personally and directly. The pope is chosen by the college of cardinals.
Why would the Church compose a Good Friday Intercessory Prayer that is not to be taken literally?
The Church has composed a prayer for the dead that is said by all Greek Catholics that is addressed to God, and that prayer states: "For you ALONE are without sin."
We pray this prayer on a regular basis for the deceased.
Do you take that statement literally? How?
Do you deny the existence of the Immaculate Conception? Have the good angels sinned?
Gerbert....interesting Freudian slip there..."this prayer is more RELATIVE today than any time in human history." Indeed, thanks to Francis. Belief and good theology are not "fundamentalism."
Mark, can suggest some reason(s) why God would directly choose a pope who would lead the Church into error?
DJR..."Two articles (below) quickly gleaned from the Internet. Both of them are priests, and both of them state that God does not directly choose popes.
God chooses popes in the manner that He has instituted the papacy and ratifies whatever choice is made. That choice may, or may not, be what He wants, but He permits it.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/does-the-holy-spirit-choose-the-pope
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=524858&language=en "
DJR, thank you for the links. I will read the two articles in question.
=====================================================
DJR said..."The Church has composed a prayer for the dead that is said by all Greek Catholics that is addressed to God, and that prayer states: "For you ALONE are without sin." We pray this prayer on a regular basis for the deceased. Do you take that statement literally? How? Do you deny the existence of the Immaculate Conception? Have the good angels sinned?"
DJR, I appreciate that example. All I know is that I have never heard it taught that the Good Friday Novus Ordo Intercessory Prayer for the Pope is not to be taken literally.
I don't have any reason to doubt the literal nature of the Roman Liturgical prayer in question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."The liturgy does not contain errors. The error is in your understanding of what is meant by the words you quoted."
DJR, we agree that the liturgy does not contain errors.
Therefore, we disagree on the understanding of the following prayer:
"Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people. "*******In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us.*******"
You contend that the prayer ("chosen for us") was composed to reflect a non-literal meaning. I don't have any reason to believe that such is the case. I have never encountered any declaration from the Magisterium that such is the case.
----------------------------------------------
DJR said..."Pope Benedict XVI has publicly stated that the Holy Ghost does not personally pick popes, thus putting his statement in direct opposition to your misunderstanding. The Holy Spirit does not directly pick popes, and the words you cited are not meant to indicate that."
DJR, my understanding is that you reference dates to 1997 A.D., offered by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict XVI.
Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion in question was just that...his opinion.
My understanding is that he said the following: "I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!"
Again, the above was his opinion.
I can only refer to the Church's official prayer (Novus Ordo liturgy) in which we beseech God to "protect the Pope you have chosen for us."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Marc said..."Mark, can suggest some reason(s) why God would directly choose a pope who would lead the Church into error?"
What error has the Church proposed to the Faithful? Example or examples please. Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, your question to me demonstrates that you are not living in reality. Therefore, we do not share the predicate common ground necessary to continue this conversation. Take care.
I am sorry, Marc and Jean, but I believe you are both converts to the Faith and, as such, you have obviously not been properly catechised. As anyone catechised before Vatican II knows, holy fear of God prevents one from speaking of the Trinity and in fact anything sacred and holy in jest. Going on to attempt to justify it is adding to the blasphemy, which as Marc clearly states "is assigning to God of attributes not properly assigned to him"
Therefore saying that the Holy Spirit hates the Church, even in a satirical manner, is saying that hate can be attributed to the Holy Spirt. Not to forget either that he who sins against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven, so you are both on dangerous territory but if you wish to persist in it that is your choice but you can't say you were in ignorance any longer.
Ah, yes, the hubris of the cradle Catholic. We all know how well the cradles were catechized. That's why they're all still in the Church and none have left at all. And that's why everything has been going so well over the last few decades.
Get over yourself, Jan.
Marc, take a good, long, hard look at yourself and you may just see the pride that is preventing you admitting when you are wrong. Perhaps reading what is contained in a proper examination of conscience of sins committed under the second Commandment may begin to enlighten you.
"Despite his having been chosen by God to serve Him as a Prophet, Jonas, at times, worked against God."
In the end, he still had to do God's will though.
Marc: "As one example, do you remember that time that the Novus Ordo had the words "for all" instead of "for many" for some decades and that was determined to be erroneous?"
Mark: "Marc, your 'fall[for] all' and "for many" example pertains to the realm of translation."
No,Mark, it is an important distinction. It is not just translation.
There are many sites on the Internet that explain this.
The “for many” accurately translates the words our Savior spoke at the Last Supper. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, we read, "... for this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, to be poured out in behalf of MANY for the forgiveness of sins” (26:27-28). Likewise, in the Gospel of St. Mark, Jesus said, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of MANY” (14:24). Both the original Greek texts of the Gospels as well as the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament employ the word “polloi” meaning “many.”
The Roman Missal (1570, 1969, 2000) and even in earlier texts of the Mass, the official Latin text for the words of consecration of the wine uses the phrase, “pro multis,” which is rendered “for many.” Because the words of consecration are the efficacious words of Our Lord, we must translate them as precisely as possible.
The “for many” signifies that while Christ died for all, “many” accept the gift but there are those who reject His gift of redemption and salvation.
For the edification of Marc
I. THE NAME OF THE LORD IS HOLY
2142 The second commandment prescribes respect for the Lord's name. Like the first commandment, it belongs to the virtue of religion and more particularly it governs our use of speech in sacred matters.
2143 Among all the words of Revelation, there is one which is unique: the revealed name of God. God confides his name to those who believe in him; he reveals himself to them in his personal mystery. The gift of a name belongs to the order of trust and intimacy. "The Lord's name is holy." For this reason man must not abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and glorify it.74
2144 Respect for his name is an expression of the respect owed to the mystery of God himself and to the whole sacred reality it evokes. The sense of the sacred is part of the virtue of religion:
...
2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints.
And from the Baltimore Catechism:
225. What are we commanded by the second commandment?
By the second commandment we are commanded always to speak with reverence of God, of the saints ...
233. What is blasphemy?
Blasphemy is insulting language which expresses contempt for God, either directly or through His saints and holy things.
Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they may blaspheme; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Ghost never has forgiveness, but will be guilty of an everlasting sin. (Mark 3:28-30)
Jan, let me try to reboot this conversation. I appreciate that you are concerned about what I said, but you completely misread it. I suspect that English is not your first language, which might be the problem. Anyway, I did not suggest, as you imagine, that the Holy Ghost can hate the Church. In fact, I suggested the opposite. Perhaps you find my rhetorical technique to be blasphemous -- I disagree.
Now, my problem with you here is your sanctimonious presumption in that you pridefully assert that a convert cannot possibly be properly catechized and then audaciously presume to write to me about examining my pride smacks of hypocrisy. All of this is based on your inability to comprehend what I wrote and your insistence that it be viewed through your myopic lens.
Again, I appreciate what I'm sure is your legitimate concern for my soul.
Marc, I comprehended exactly what you were saying but I merely pointed out to you that you should not be drawing the Holy Spirit into your argument in the manner that you did. It is not sanctimonious to state the obvious, which is that you were seemingly unaware that Catholics should be in fear and awe of God's name - as the catechism clearly points out both before and after the Council - if you had been aware of it you would have couched your statement in different terms.
Jan, I stand by what I wrote. It's obvious you didn't understand it since you continue to impute to my question the exact opposite of its rhetorical effect. It's also obvious that you care about this way more than I do. So...
I'm done talking to you about this. Go ahead and have the last word, if you like.
Mark Thomas said: DJR, my understanding is that you reference dates to 1997 A.D., offered by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, not Pope Benedict XVI.
Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion in question was just that...his opinion.
I can only refer to the Church's official prayer (Novus Ordo liturgy) in which we beseech God to "protect the Pope you have chosen for us."
Yes, but it was an opinion given at the time that that prayer existed.
That prayer was the official prayer of the Church at the time then Cardinal Ratzinger offered that opinion, which means that an educated cardinal of high rank in the Church, one whose education in these matters surely surpasses both yours and mine, could read those lines and still come to his conclusion (or "opinion," if you will) that the Holy Ghost DOES NOT directly choose popes.
Popes are NOT directly chosen by the Holy Ghost, and nowhere does the Church teach that. The prayer you reference does not teach that either, because it is not meant to be understood in the way you allege.
You have a person as respectable as Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, telling you that, and he is as capable of reading that prayer as either one of us.
The two priests I cited say the same thing, and I assume they are aware of the Church's official prayers.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, that Good Friday prayer has the same nonliteral import as the panikhida prayer, said constantly in my parish and hundreds of others.
We say to God, "You alone are without sin," even though we believe unequivocally that the Holy Theotokos is also without sin, along with the angels in Heaven.
Mark Thomas said...You contend that the prayer ("chosen for us") was composed to reflect a non-literal meaning. I don't have any reason to believe that such is the case. I have never encountered any declaration from the Magisterium that such is the case.
Have you encountered any declaration from the Magisterium that told you that the prayer in question was composed to reflect a literal meaning?
If not, why do you do so, when there is no Magisterial teaching that tells you to?
If you contend that the teaching of the Magisterium is that the prayer is literal, then you must also contend that then Cardinal Ratzinger contradicted the Magisterium of the Church.
He does not believe that prayer to be literal, as is obvious from his public statements regarding the election of a pope.
What do you think his rationale would be for contradicting the Magisterium on this matter?
So that you might understand and learn, Marc, what you were trying to say Benedict XVI said it in this manner: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked”.
DJR said..."Mark Thomas said...You contend that the prayer ("chosen for us") was composed to reflect a non-literal meaning. I don't have any reason to believe that such is the case. I have never encountered any declaration from the Magisterium that such is the case."
We have reached the point where after one hears/reads a liturgical prayer, we must stop to question whether said prayer is to be taken literally? We must consult Holy See documents to determine, for example, whether a prayer that says that God has chosen for us a Pope has been declared a literal prayer?
Again, DJR, I have never heard of such a thing.
All I know is that there is a liturgical prayer that asks us to beseech God to protect our Pope whom God had "chosen for us."
DJR said..."If you contend that the teaching of the Magisterium is that the prayer is literal, then you must also contend that then Cardinal Ratzinger contradicted the Magisterium of the Church. He does not believe that prayer to be literal, as is obvious from his public statements regarding the election of a pope. What do you think his rationale would be for contradicting the Magisterium on this matter?"
That is a question for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. All that I know is that the Roman Good Friday Novus Ordo Liturgy offers the following prayer:
"Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people. "*******In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us.*******"
"Almighty and eternal God...protect the Pope you have chosen for us."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark: "Marc, your 'fall[for] all' and "for many" example pertains to the realm of translation."
George said..."No,Mark, it is an important distinction. It is not just translation."
George, I agree that "pro omnibus" (for all) was a poor translation. My meaning was that liturgy serves (among various purposes) to teach the Faith.
While "for all" was a poor translation, that did not signify that the liturgy taught error in the theological sense.
The Holy See issued the following letter in that regard. Excerpts:
Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Prot. n. 467/05/L
Rome, October 17, 2006
Your Eminence / Your Excellency,
1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation "for all", "per tutti", or equivalents.
2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared.
Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).
3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:
d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
Devotedly Yours in Christ,
Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark:
"While 'for all' was a poor translation, that did not signify that the liturgy taught error in the theological sense."
Well, "for all" is not a problem if one acknowledges the implicit qualifier " but many do not accept the gift of salvation". Because there are those in the pews who do not do this however, it can be for them confusing and misleading(at least for those paying attention to what they are praying). And at any rate, "for many" was used by Christ Himself.
One can legitimatley differ about what "chosen" means.
There are different levels of Church teaching. "De fide" and "Fides ecclesiastica" are the highest level and are infallible teachings.
Prayers are not in themselves teachings. The prayers you refer to are not part of the infallible teaching of the Church.
Many Church teachings come under the below:
Sententia certa -Church teachings which the Magisterium clearly decided for, albeit without claiming infallibility.
sententia communis -teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research.
sententia probabilis-teachings with low degree of certainty.
Until the Immaculate Conception was infallibly proclaimed, a Catholic was not required to accept and believe in it, although many did.
Mark Thomas said... We have reached the point where after one hears/reads a liturgical prayer, we must stop to question whether said prayer is to be taken literally? We must consult Holy See documents to determine, for example, whether a prayer that says that God has chosen for us a Pope has been declared a literal prayer?
It's very easy. All we have to do is take into consideration the entirety of the teaching of the Church regarding the matter.
You're going at it backwards.
You're attempting to extrapolate a teaching of the Church from a prayer that the Church uses (and you want to take literally) instead of looking at the prayer in light of Church teaching.
The Church does NOT teach that popes are personally chosen by the Holy Ghost; hence, any prayer that you encounter that suggests to your mind that He does do so would thus have to be looked at in such a light.
The exact same reasoning that I, in the Byzantine Rite, do not take the panikhida prayer literally with regards to who has sinned, for to do so would be to deny the teaching of the Church on the Immaculate Conception.
I assume that you would not take the panikhida prayer, which is a formal prayer of the Catholic Church, literally?
The fallacy in your thinking is demonstrated by other prayers that the Church has promulgated.
The revised Roman Rite for the ordination of a priest has the following oration, officially promulgated by the Catholic Church, said by the bishop: "My dear people, let us pray that God, the all powerful Father, will pour out abundantly the gifts of Heaven in these, His servants, whom He has chosen for the office of priest."
You can find that statement on page 9 here:
http://www.diocesepvd.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Priesthood-Ordination-Program-2013.pdf
If your view were correct, not only would all popes be directly chosen by God, but all priests would be also (at least those ordained using this rite), even the homosexuals that have been ordained to the priesthood using this rite.
The statement, referencing God, reads: "whom He has chosen..."
You think that God directly wills that every single man who enters the priesthood should actually be a priest? Even the homosexuals? Even active homosexuals?
If that is the case, why have popes promulgated rules that are meant to deny the priesthood to homosexuals (Pope St. John XXIII and Pope Benedict XVI)?
The oration by the bishop, officially promulgated by the Catholic Church, states that God has chosen those men to be priests.
And we know for a fact that there are homosexuals who have been ordained as priests.
If you're right, that means God chooses homosexuals as priests, presumably even some who are sexually active, and the popes who promulgated rules to keep them out of the priesthood are actually going against God's will. And we know this because we have a prayer in our ordination ritual that, taken literally, states that God Himself has chosen them to be priests, and the Magisterium has never told you that that statement is not to be taken literally.
Hopefully you can see that your understanding of this issue poses serious problems.
Mark Thomas said... All that I know is that the Roman Good Friday Novus Ordo Liturgy offers the following prayer:
"Almighty and eternal God, You guide all things by your word, You govern all Christian people. "*******In your love protect the Pope you have chosen for us.*******"
"Almighty and eternal God...protect the Pope you have chosen for us."
The question is not what the prayer says, as there is no dispute as to what it says.
The question is: What does it mean?
And the answer is that that prayer does not mean that popes are chosen directly by God. It is a generalization, nothing more.
The choice of pope is ratified by God, naturally, and in that way it can be said that He has chosen a particular person as pope. But the idea that popes are directly chosen by God is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
The history of the papacy bears this out, as there have been highly questionable elections in the past, and some of the candidates have been less than sterling.
Your understanding is similar to that of the Protestants when considering Sacred Scripture. They take statements from the Bible, decide on the literalness, and then accuse Catholics of contradicting the Bible.
Not that this carries any theological weight, but I agree, generally speaking, with the sentiments expressed by this well known Catholic writer.
She states that the belief that the Holy Ghost directly chooses popes is a "superstition."
Maureen Mullarkey November 17, 2015
One thing for which we can be grateful to Pope Francis: His pontificate puts paid to the superstition that our popes are chosen by the Holy Spirit. That could only be believable if we are willing to say that the Spirit operates like a one-eyed Odin, setting his dogs loose at conclaves.
Post a Comment