What Do We Know About Pope Francis?

[DiscerningCatholic]

Personally, I really dislike their coverage of just about anything

 

For the record I attend Latin Mass, and I would consider myself fairly Traditional. 

 

I would not ever recommend them as a reliable source for actual Catholic information. Earlier, they were deleting any positive comments about Pope Francis.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I know that he's the first pope whom we can refer to with this  :pope2:  this   :pope3:  or this  :mex:.  

Haha no disrespect intended though.  But actually EWTN has some info on him:

 

http://www.ewtn.com/popefrancis/election/biography.asp

 

I posted this in the other thread but this link has some information about him, too. :)

 

http://www.catholicnews.com/jpii/cardinals/0501841.htm

[mortify]

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/03/sandro-magister-on-new-pope.html

 

===QUOTE===

 

ROME, March 13, 2013 - By electing as pope at the fourth scrutiny the archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the conclave has made a move as surprising as it is brilliant.

Surprising for those - almost everyone - who had not noticed, during the preceding days, the effective appearance of his name in the conversations among the cardinals. His relatively advanced age, 76 years and three months, led him to be classified more among the great electors than among the possible elect.

In the conclave of 2005 the opposite had happened for him. Bergoglio was one of the most decisive supporters of the appointment of Joseph Ratzinger as pope. And instead he found himself voted for, against his own will, precisely by those who wanted to block the appointment of Benedict XVI.

The fact remains that both one and the other became pope. Bergoglio with the unprecedented name of Francis.

A name that reflects his humble life. Having become archbishop of Buenos Aires 1998, he left empty the sumptuous episcopal residence next to the cathedral. He went to live in an apartment a short distance away, together with another elderly bishop. In the evening he was the one who saw to the cooking. He rarely rode in cars, getting around by bus in the cassock of an ordinary priest.

But he is also a man who knows how to govern. With firmness and against the tide. He is a Jesuit - the first to have become pope - and during the terrible 1970's, when the dictatorship was raging and some of his confrères were ready to embrace the rifle and apply the lessons of Marx, he energetically opposed the tendency as provincial of the Society of Jesus in Argentina.

He has always carefully kept his distance from the Roman curia. It is certain that he will want it to be lean, clean, and loyal.

He is a pastor of sound doctrine and of concrete realism. To the Argentines reduced to hunger he has given much more than bread. He has urged them to pick the catechism back up again. That of the ten commandments and of the beatitudes. “This is the way of Jesus,” he would say. And one who follows Jesus understands that “trampling the dignity of a woman, of a man, of a child, of an elderly person is a grave sin that cries out to heaven,” and therefore decides to do it no more.

The simplicity of his vision makes itself felt in his holiness of life. With his few and simple first words as pope he immediately won over the crowd packed into St. Peter's Square. He had them pray in silence.

And he also had them pray for his predecessor, Benedict XVI, whom he did not call “pope,” but “bishop.”

The surprise is only beginning

[Era Might]

30 Days interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires

 

"The priests clericalize the laity and the laity beg us to be clericalized… It really is sinful abetment. And to think that baptism alone could suffice. I’m thinking of those Christian communities in Japan that remained without priests for more than two hundred years. When the missionaries returned they found them all baptized, all validly married for the Church and all their dead had had a Catholic funeral. The faith had remained intact through the gifts of grace that had gladdened the life of a laity who had received only baptism and had also lived their apostolic mission in virtue of baptism alone. One must not be afraid of depending only on His tenderness…"

 

This is a very important and pressing issue in Latin America. I travel often to Central America and one time I was there I was in a rural area, and I went to Sunday Mass expecting...well, Sunday Mass. I never imagined that there was no priest there. It was a service, roughly like a liturgy, all led by the local Catholic lay people, mainly women. I thought on the one hand it was beautiful that they survived without a priest, but also I was saddened that the Roman Catholic system of priesthood is such a clerical system attached to college formation, institutional attachment, etc. There is no reason why some local married men of that area cannot be formed to maturity in the Gospel and function as priests. The priesthood does not have to be a clerical system...the Apostles went to no college. But the priesthood system we have now is, as then-Cardinal Bergoglio says, woefully clericalizing. It would be much better, rather than creating an institutional system where people are dependent on clerical priests, to return to a model of priesthood that is about maturity in the Gospel, rather than maturity in academic advancement.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

The Roman Catholic Church in Latin America is losing influence fast. Protestant groups and agnosticism seem to be the biggest winners at the moment.

 

Here is a 2005 article on the problems facing the Church in the region:

 

Fewer Catholics in Latin America

 

Perhaps a Latin American Pope can help to revitalize the Church in that part of the world.

[Era Might]

The Roman Catholic Church in Latin America is losing influence fast. Protestant groups and agnosticism seem to be the biggest winners at the moment.

 

Here is a 2005 article on the problems facing the Church in the region:

 

Fewer Catholics in Latin America

 

Perhaps a Latin American Pope can help to revitalize the Church in that part of the world.

 

Of course. The so-called first world has been trying to "develop" Latin America for quite some time now, exporting its institutional social model (schools, hospitals, charities, etc). But Latin America is not the United States, and the institutional model has not worked in the context of Latin American poverty. The clerical priesthood is part of the West's fascination with institutionalizing the Gospel, whereas other Protestant groups in the area adapt more effectively to the de-centralized, de-institutionalized dimension of Latin American society. The Western institutional model is not the only Christian model...and looking for more flexible models in the ancient history of the church would go a long way to strengthening the Latin American churches.

[Apotheoun]

Of course. The so-called first world has been trying to "develop" Latin America for quite some time now, exporting its institutional social model (schools, hospitals, charities, etc). But Latin America is not the United States, and the institutional model has not worked in the context of Latin American poverty. The clerical priesthood is part of the West's fascination with institutionalizing the Gospel, whereas other Protestant groups in the area adapt more effectively to the de-centralized, de-institutionalized dimension of Latin American society. The Western institutional model is not the only Christian model...and looking for more flexible models in the ancient history of the church would go a long way to strengthening the Latin American churches.

The Orthodox Church has also been doing well in Latin America (about 80,000 Guatemalans converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago) and it is a hierarchical Church, so I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "institutional." That said, Eastern Christians do not view the Church as an institution, but instead see it as the body of Christ organized for the worship of Almighty God and the salvation of souls.

[Era Might]

The Orthodox Church has also been doing well in Latin America (about 80,000 Guatemalans converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago) and it is a hierarchical Church, so I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "institutional." That said, Eastern Christians do not view the Church as an institution, but instead see it as the body of Christ organized for the worship of Almighty God and the salvation of souls.

 

Hierarchy is not synonomous with institution. Of course, institutional religion can succeed in Latin America...Catholicism took root in Latin America, obviously. But the seeds of the institution's destruction were sowed because institutions are maintained through power and status quo. When the Spanish social institutions fell, so did the power of the ecclesial institutions in Latin America. When the Tsar fell, so too did orthodoxy. That is not to say that the people gave up their religion...the people in Latin America always maintained a lively faith not bordered in by the institution...they had their saints, their devotions, their traditions. But Christianity as we know it over the last 2,000 years is the fruit of Christian ascension in temporal power, whereas the early Christian models were the fruit of Christian alienation from power. The last few centuries have been the gradual throwing off of Western political and religious institutions (monarchy, clericalism, etc.). Christianity is struggling to find a place in a society where it is an anachronism.

[Apotheoun]

Hierarchy is not synonomous with institution. Of course, institutional religion can succeed in Latin America...Catholicism took root in Latin America, obviously. But the seeds of the institution's destruction were sowed because institutions are maintained through power and status quo. When the Spanish social institutions fell, so did the power of the ecclesial institutions in Latin America. When the Tsar fell, so too did orthodoxy. That is not to say that the people gave up their religion...the people in Latin America always maintained a lively faith not bordered in by the institution...they had their saints, their devotions, their traditions. But Christianity as we know it over the last 2,000 years is the fruit of Christian ascension in temporal power, whereas the early Christian models were the fruit of Christian alienation from power. The last few centuries have been the gradual throwing off of Western political and religious institutions (monarchy, clericalism, etc.). Christianity is struggling to find a place in a society where it is an anachronism.

The fact that there are Orthodox Churches again throughout Russia and Eastern Europe shows that the suppression of religion by the atheists was unsuccessful.

 

That said, I do not think that the Roman Church's problems in Latin America are focused upon its being an institution, but are focused on the fact that there has been a crisis of faith and a crisis in the nature of worship in the Roman Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council. If those problems are properly addressed I think there could be a revival of Roman Catholicism. Let's hope that Pope Francis seriously addresses the problems before Roman Catholicism becomes permanently marginalized in that part of the world.

[Era Might]

The fact that there are Orthodox Churches again throughout Russia and Eastern Europe shows that the suppression of religion by the atheists was unsuccessful.

 

That said, I do not think that the Roman Church's problems in Latin America are focused upon its being an institution, but are focused on the fact that there has been a crisis of faith and a crisis in the nature of worship in the Roman Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council. If those problems are properly addressed I think there could be a revival of Roman Catholicism. Let's hope that Pope Francis seriously addresses the problems before Roman Catholicism becomes permanently marginalized in that part of the world.

 

Catholicism, or rather the Catholic institution, was crumbling in Latin America long before the Second Vatican Council.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

Catholicism, or rather the Catholic institution, was crumbling in Latin America long before the Second Vatican Council.

What evidence do you have to back up that assertion? All the statistical data I have seen, which I admit is not evidence, but which does give at least some inkling of what is going on, shows that the decline began in the late 1960s and has accelerated in the past couple of decades.

[Apotheoun]

Quite honestly I think that the Catholic Church needs to stop trying to update itself and make itself relevant, because the more it does that the less relevant it becomes.

[Era Might]

What evidence do you have to back up that assertion? All the statistical data I have seen, which I admit is not evidence, but which does give at least some inkling of what is going on, shows that the decline began in the late 1960s and has accelerated in the past couple of decades.

 

Mexican Independence, for starters, which was begun by Catholic priests, upsetting the Catholic social order. The institutional church, tied to the old world social orders, was a conservative force aligned against the modern reforms in Mexican society in the 1800s. The Mexican people were thoroughly Catholic, but the Catholic institution was tied to backward politics and afraid of losing its institutional infrastructure.

[Apotheoun]

Mexican Independence, for starters, which was begun by Catholic priests, upsetting the Catholic social order. The institutional church, tied to the old world social orders, was a conservative force aligned against the modern reforms in Mexican society in the 1800s. The Mexican people were thoroughly Catholic, but the Catholic institution was tied to backward politics and afraid of losing its institutional infrastructure.

That is one country on the American frontier, which had an anti-Catholic / anti-religious government come to power, a government that actively persecuted the Church (just as the Bolsheviks did in Russia), and so I do not see how you can say that the "institution" of the Church caused all the problems. I just don't see it.

 

Backwards politics? In whose opinion? Yours? Political opinions are not universal truths. The Bolshevik institutions in Russia, like the League of Militant Atheists were seen as "forward looking," and now they look utterly foolish. What evidence do you have that the Roman Church, prior to the late 1960s was in decline? And I am not talking about things related to government persecution, but the more or less voluntary (meaning the faithful just stop coming without any coercion being used) falling away of the lay faithful. What evidence do you have?

Edited March 14, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

That is one country on the American frontier, which had an anti-Catholic / anti-religious government come to power, a government that actively persecuted the Church (just as the Bolsheviks did in Russia) and say that the "institution" of the Church caused all the problems. I don't see it. Backwards politics? In whose opinion? Yours? Political opinions are not universal truths. The Bolshevik institutions in Russia, like the League of Militant Atheists were seen as "forward looking," and now they look utterly foolish. What evidence do you have that the Roman Church, prior to the late 1960s was in decline? And I am not talking about things related to government persecution, but the more or less voluntary (meaning the faithful just stop coming without any coercion being used) falling away of the lay faithful. What evidence do you have?

 

When you run with dogs, you get fleas. The fact is that the church played the power game in society, and it got the short end of the stick when the West outgrew medieval society. I say "backward" as a statement of fact...the church was against modernity.

 

The Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, but they did not create the Russian revolution. Russia was a teetering society long before the Bolsheviks came to power, in great part because of the autocratic power of the Tsar who refused to accede to modern reforms, and a peasantry that exploded from living in a stagnant society for so long.

 

Am I supposed to pity the institution of the church for falling prey to the power games of the world? He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

 

As far as the laity falling away from the church, that is the inevitable consequence of modern society, which was in progress long before the Second Vatican Council. The old institutional model of the church worked for the old social models...it doesn't work for the modern social model. So what is to be done? You can try to cling to the old social models, as the Catholic church did in Mexico or the Orthodox church did in Russia. You can try to find a new synthesis, as the Catholic church did at the Second Vatican Council. Or you can return to the ancient sources and seek to build other models of the church rooted in the spiritual basis of the Gospel, which was a community bonded together by the law of love and Christ, rather than a civilizational institution maintained through accomodation and adaptation to the social order and social power.