We know how the neo-traditionalists (neo-Protestants really) have turned on the pope because of his outerwear of all things and his folksy ways of saying things, but just wait as the post-catholics of the Church begin to really rip this pope apart for his orthodoxy. Even the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) is begrudgingly reporting that Pope Francis is no post-catholic. While the report is matter of fact, read the comments after it. As I post this there are only four, but WOW read them and you see how post-catholic their readers are! YOU CAN READ IT HERE AT THE NCR!
I've said all along that the neo-traditionalists (neo-Protestants really) and the post-catholics (heterdox heretics) are cut from the same cloth or are mirror images of each other but just in the opposite extreme.
The following is from the "Vatican Insider."
"Never be afraid of tenderness"
In this exclusive interview, Pope Francis speaks about Christmas,
hunger in the world, the suffering of children, the reform of the Roman
Curia, women cardinals, the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR),
and the upcoming visit to the Holy Land
“Christmas is God’s meeting with his people. It is also a consolation, a mystery of consolation,” Francis explains. “After the midnight mass I have often spent an hour or so alone in the chapel before celebrating the dawn mass. I felt a profound feeling of consolation and peace.” “On Christmas eve, my thoughts are above all with the Christians who live there, with those who are in difficulty, with the many people who have had to leave that land because of various problems,” the Pope adds, referring to the Holy Land.
On the subject of children’s suffering, Francis says: “When I come across a suffering child, the only prayer that comes to mind is the “why” prayer. Why Lord?” In response to the criticism he received after the publication of the “Evangelii Gaudium” from ultraconservatives in the US who accused him of being a “Marxist”, the Pope remarks: “Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.” But, he points out, “there is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church.”
Replying to a question on Christian unity, Francis referred to the “ecumenism of blood”: In some countries Christians are killed for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they are killed they are not asked whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Blood is mixed. To those who kill we are Christians.” Regarding the subject of remarried divorcees, Francis recalls that their exclusion from communion is “not a sanction” and confirms that these issues will be dealt with in greater depth at the next Synod.
Commenting on Curia reform, the Pope informs that in February his eight cardinal “advisers” will deliver their “first” concrete “suggestions”.
Francis flatly denies allegations that he intends to nominate women cardinals, stating: “I don’t know where any such an idea came from. Women in the Church must be valued not “clericalised”.”
MY FINAL COMMENTS: As you know I am clairvoyant but maybe not. How will the Synod on the Family in two years I think deal with the issue of Holy Communion to those who are divorced and remarried outside the Church? Our Holy Father, Francis, wants to help them and I think there are two ways this could be accomplished.
The first is going the route of the Orthodox Churches. You can look their method up for yourselves as I've already had a post on that. I think there is some merit to going this route.
The second, which I think is more likely, is to continue to use our current pastoral approach in terms of tribunals placing failed marriages on trial and determining if these marriages were valid as a Sacrament of the Church but expanding the grounds for annulments and the internal forum.
We have two ways of doing this today, the external and internal forums.
As it concerns the "external forum", an ecclesiastical trial of the failed marriage, we can certainly expand the grounds for annulments and state that Protestants who do not believe marriage is a Sacrament of the Church do not in fact have the Sacrament of Marriage precisely because of this heterodox or heretical belief. Thus this would simplify the annulment procedure for most divorced Protestants who wish to marry a Catholic or be received into the Church.
As it concerns the "internal forum" which may occur at the request of one who has tried and failed with the "external forum" because witnesses are dead or unwilling to cooperate, even the ex-spouse, the guidelines for this form of accommodation could be relaxed in a codified sort of way.
Currently with the "internal forum" the penitent him or herself must approach the priest within the Sacrament of Penance. They can only do so after having exhausted the annulment procedure or external forum and it is unsucessful due to the lack of evidence based usually on the lack of witness who knew what happened in the fail marriage and prior to the marriage during the courtship.
The penitent who has remarried outside of the Church tells the priest that they in good conscience believe that their existing, unrecognized marriage is good, holy and fruitful and there is no scandal in the community concerning their divorce and remarriage as no one knows. They have exhausted the annulment procedure to no avail and now they wish an internal solution through the Sacrament of Penance which is under the seal of Confession.
The priest, if he agrees, may communicate to them that if they return to the sacraments, this is a decision of conscience on their part and that they may receive absolution and Holy Communion as long as no scandal is given to the other Catholics who know of their situation in the parish.
They may be urged to go to another parish to receive Holy Communion rather than their existing parish. But the priest may not "con-validate" their current marriage as the decision of conscience rest with the penitent and the penitent alone will have to face their maker in terms of this internal, seal of the confession, private forum DECISION OF THEIR CONSCIENCE!
© All Rights Reserved
9 comments:
The speculation concerning women cardinals was based on two misunderstandings. Firstly, that a 'cardinal deacon' is a cardinal who is a deacon. In fact he is a bishop and when he attends at the papal throne he wears dalmatic and mitre. Secondly, that a 'lay cardinal' (the last one died in 1899) was a layman. In fact he was a cleric in Minor Orders. The first use of the term 'cardinal' dates from the first millennium and was originally applied to the seven deacons of the city of Rome. Later the term was used to describe the Roman clergy and the bishops of suburbicarian sees who elected the pope. From the 12th century non-Roman clergy could be made cardinals.
At no time was a lay person referred to as a cardinal, and since women may not be admitted to Holy Orders, they have never been eligible, even had the Code of Canon Law (1917 and 1983) not required that cardinals be at least priests.
One of the more bizarre conspiracy theories is that the 1917 ruling was deliberately enacted to exclude women. Unbelievable.
Good interview. Finally Francis is sounding like a Catholic Pope. He was clear, to the point and he said nothing that could be construed as heresy. But how Father, can you fault people who are disturbed by a pope who says things like " we can't obsess about abortion"? Or people who finally thought things in the Church were calming down a bit and see a pope from the first minute changing things. You must have been told in the seminary when you go into a new parish don't change anything for a least a year just watch and listen because it upsets people. When I see Jane Fonda and NARAL thanking the pope for being pro abortion I get upset. When I see all the media, that hates Catholicism, adoring this pope because he doesn't believe what the Church teaches yes I get upset. And Francis was wrong to say some of the things he said and the way he said the. He is the pope and his teaching must be clear at all times. That is not too much for a Catholic to expect of a Pope. That's part of the job and he has to realize this. I have no problem with him exercising his rightful authority in the correct manner. Example: if he wishes to allow women to be included in the mandatum of Holy Thursday, which I disagree with, he he formally changed it I would accept that. But he didn't. He did what liberals do, he violated Church rubrics because he wanted to. He should do what he thinks is best for the Church but in a prudent way. He has no prudence but maybe he is learning. As for you Father, you are the one calling people names like "neo-Protestant" etc. It's beneath a priest to name call. I have been provocative on purpose numerous times to see how you would react. You need to learn prudence and charity yourself. You are a good priest but you still have things to learn when dealing with people who disagree with you.
I don't pretend to know the strategy of this pope but I think he knows what he is doing even with remarks that can be manipulated against him. Did Pope Benedict ever, ever, ever have as much press as this pope is attracting, especially for his down-to-earth manner of speaking, which I admit sometimes comes across as not nuanced in a way that it should be. But then clarification comes and continues to come.
He has always stated that he is a son of the Church and when he confuses us with his too many off-the-cuff remarks he says look to the Catechism for clarification. Even the press is admitting this now!
It is his pastoral approach that is winning souls back to the Church and opening the Church to others to inquire about us.
I'm shocked at traditionalist Catholics and their verbal contempt for the pope. This is heterodox as well as the drivel from the left about him.
I don't consider terms like "neo-protestant," Leftist, right wing, traditionalist, progressive, etc. as name-calling. They are useful generalizations which define more quickly a perceived world view for the purposes of discussion/polemics. These are, in fact, generalizations because no two people of the same ideological leaning are exactly alike, but it is ball park. The generalizations usually get more clearly defined in the course of the discussion. Like, I wrote Anon 2 off initially as a closet liberal. Over time, I find he is far more nuanced than that and he only makes me swear at the computer sometimes now. See…that is progress.
THIS JUST IN FROM THE LEFT---
"we will no longer ask for women priests. Instead we will demand that sisters and nuns be allowed to be included in the sacrament of Holy Orders"
Anonymous,
When did pope Francis say what you've quoted him as saying: "we can't obsess about abortion"? I don't believe he has ever said that, and I think it is very dangerous to quote him as having said these words unless you can cite a source.
THIS JUST IN FROM THE LEFT---
"we will no longer ask for women priests. Instead we will demand that sisters and nuns be allowed to be included in the sacrament of Holy Orders"
I know this is sarcasm but I don't get it. Calling on Fr. Lombardi for clarification.
I will take your comment as a compliment, Gene. =)
By the way, I would have thought that the computer merited swearing at on its own terms (without any help from me). At least that has been my experience with those infernal machines.
I have learned enough about computers to be amazed that they work as well as they do, but even so, exasperation still comes over me at times(especially when I'm at work and have to get something done within a certain time frame).
As far as Anon2 being a liberal, I never got that impression. I consider myself to be situated toward the conservative side of the spectrum with some moderation and nuance on certain things.
After reading the lives of a number of saints, it occurred to me that(especially by modern standards) they were conservative in all things except love. They were liberal in love. This love had the effect of tempering what could have been taken as harshness
and preserving charity and accessibility in their relationships with others.
Post a Comment