What Do We Know About Pope Francis?

[Apotheoun]

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.

I do not think that modernity makes people fall away from the Church; instead, I think that the Church does that by not maintaining her traditions. It is always "conservative" (for lack of a better term) Churches that gain members while the "liberal" ones die. The Roman Catholic Church needs to unequivocally maintain her traditions (even those I as an Eastern Catholic am not thrilled by) and stop trying to become the 2010s version of the 1970s Episcopal Church USA. 

 

Era, I think you use your "institutional framework" (i.e., institutions are bad) to see everything, and like any ideological perspective it clouds your vision. Is the institutional Orthodox Church (although that is not a term common in Orthodoxy) dying? No, quite the opposite it is growing in the Eastern European region. I suppose seventy years of state imposed atheism made people distrustful of government, and more open to the Church. The other thing I find interesting about Orthodoxy in that part of the world is that it has no interest in "updating" itself or its liturgy, but perhaps that is because Orthodox Christians still believe that their tradition comes directly from Christ the Lord Himself, and that of course means that they are not free to change it willy-nilly.

[Era Might]

I do not think that modernity makes people fall away from the Church; instead, I think that the Church does that by not maintaining her traditions. It is always "conservative" (for lack of a better term) Churches that gain members while the "liberal" ones die. The Roman Catholic Church needs to unequivocally maintain her traditions (even those I as an Eastern Catholic am not thrilled by) and stop trying to become the 2010s version of the 1970s Episcopal Church USA. 

 

Era, I think you use your "institutional framework" (i.e., institutions are bad) to see everything, and like any ideological perspective it clouds your vision. Is the institutional Orthodox Church (although that is not a term common in Orthodoxy) dying? No, quite the opposite it is growing in the Eastern European region. I suppose seventy years of state imposed atheism made people distrustful of government, and more open to the Church. The other thing I find interesting about Orthodoxy in that part of the world is that it has no interest in "updating" itself or its liturgy, but perhaps that is because Orthodox Christians still believe that their tradition comes directly from Christ the Lord Himself, and that of course means that they are not free to change it willy-nilly.

 

Institutions that foster freedom and empower people are good. Marriage is an example of an institution that can be freeing and liberating or oppressive. In the model of St. Paul, marriage is a very beautiful institution. In the model of various societies throughout the ages, marriage could be an institution of domination and suppression of women. Priesthood is a similar institution. In its clerical form, it becomes a means a social power. In its apostolic form, it is a means of service and love.

 

Orthodoxy is a separate topic because it is not a Western religion, so it's kind of out of place in this discussion, though it does intersect vis a vis modernity (which is a Western creation, and in a globalized world, increasingly universal). Whether or not Orthodox clerics maintain their liturgy or their theological formulas doesn't tell us much about modern Russian society.

 

I have no problem with the church being a witness to values that are NOT modern...the problem is that the church wants to do that and still be relevant in the world. Either you are a witness to something spiritual, or you are trying to shape a social order. If you want to maintain old traditions, great...just don't cry when the world doesn't go along with your plans. Do your witness, and do it well, and accept the consequences of that, one of which is that you are going to be a fool for Christ. The idea that the Catholic church in the West can purely maintain its traditions is impossible, because its traditions are tied up with its historical ambition for power and influence in society.

 

I agree that the church should not try to be relevant...but that means it is going to be irrelevant. I am okay with that...where two or three are gathered in Christ's name, there he is in the midst of them. But don't cry about how society has moved away from the church...if you want to hold on to your traditions, then do it, and stop worrying about whether the world is following you or not.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

Institutions that foster freedom and empower people are good. Marriage is an example of an institution that can be freeing and liberating or oppressive. In the model of St. Paul, marriage is a very beautiful institution. In the model of various societies throughout the ages, marriage could be an institution of domination and suppression of women. Priesthood is a similar institution. In its clerical form, it becomes a means a social power. In its apostolic form, it is a means of service and love.

That is one way of looking at marriage, but my mom and dad would have told you that they lost a lot of freedom in marrying, but they were happy to lose that freedom because it gave them a family. Again, it seems to me that you have a set view on "institutions" that you are determined to apply to everything, and in doing that you seem a lot like a theology professor I had some years ago who had a theory about the sacraments as oaths (because the word "sacrament" in Latin means "oath"), and he tried to fit everything into his theory, and then he had a passing discussion, which I witnessed, with a Greek Orthodox priest who pointed out that the Latin word "sacrament" is not found in the Greek New Testament and is a poor translation of the Greek word for "mystery," and that mystery has nothing to do with oaths. My professor left abruptly at that point, and probably because he did not want to see his pet theory crumble. Maybe you should step back from your constant focus on "instutitions" and see things as they are, rather than trying always to conform them to your theory.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

That is one way of looking at marriage, but my mom and dad would have told you that they lost a lot of freedom in marrying, but they were happy to lose that freedom because it gave them a family. Again, it seems to me that you have a set view on "institutions" that you are determined to apply to everything, and in that you seem a lot like a theology professor I had some years ago who had a theory about the sacraments as oaths (because the word "sacrament" in Latin means "oath"), and he tried to fit everything into his theory, and then he had a passing discussion, which I witnessed, with a Greek Orthodox priest who pointed out that the Latin word "sacrament" is not found in the Greek New Testament and is a poor translation of the Greek word for "mystery," and that mystery has nothing to do with oaths. My professor left abruptly at that point, and probably because he did not want to see his pet theory crumble. Maybe you should step back from your constant focus on "instutitions" and see things as they are, rather than trying always to conform them to your theory.

 

I don't have to conform anything to a theory. You have your views, I have mine. I'm fine with that, and enjoy seeing new perspectives on things. We simply disagree on the starting point of the discussion. You think the starting point is the internal coherence of the institution. I think this is like being worried about a chandelier falling in a burning building.

[Apotheoun]

I don't have to conform anything to a theory. You have your views, I have mine. I'm fine with that, and enjoy seeing new perspectives on things. We simply disagree on the starting point of the discussion. You think the starting point is the internal coherence of the institution. I think this is like being worried about a chandelier falling in a burning building.

Okay. Your view seems to be that institutions are bad, and I just don't buy it.

[Era Might]

Okay. Your view seems to be that institutions are bad, and I just don't buy it.

 

Yes, I believe that institutions in general create stagnant certainties, and I agree with what then-Cardinal Bergoglio said about certainties:

 

 

Our certainties can become a wall, a jail that imprisons the Holy Spirit. Those who isolate their conscience from the path of the people of God don’t know the joy of the Holy Spirit that sustains hope. That is the risk run by the isolated conscience. Of those who from the closed world of their Tarsis complain about everything or, feeling their identity threatened, launch themselves into battles only in the end to be still more self-concerned and self-referential.

 

And it's okay that you don't "buy" my views on things. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I believe in the idea of witness. You have your road to travel, I have mine. We have shared what we've seen on our roads, and now, on we continue on our separate roads.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

Please keep up the fascinating discussion, fellows.

[Apotheoun]

Yes, I believe that institutions in general create stagnant certainties, and I agree with what then-Cardinal Bergoglio said about certainties:

Yeah, Jesus is the eternal Son of God made man, and that is a certainty, and I suppose I live inside a wall, but that is what the early Christians did, and that is why they refused to pinch a pinch of incense to the image of the emperor. The stupid institutional Christians of the first few centuries, creating walls and limiting themselves. Darn those stupid ecumenical councils and the certainties they created.

[Era Might]

Yeah, Jesus is the eternal Son of God made man, and that is a certainty, and I suppose I live inside a wall, but that is what the early Christians did, and that is why they refused to pinch a pinch of incense to the image of the emperor. The stupid institutional Christians of the first few centuries, creating walls and limiting themselves. Darn those stupid ecumenical councils and the certainties they created.

 

Yes, they refused to pinch incense. A few centuries later, they found an easier way: just become the emperor, and you won't have to worry about it. Then you can create institutions and pressure other people to burn your chosen incense.

[Apotheoun]

Yes, they refused to pinch incense. A few centuries later, they found an easier way: just become the emperor, and you won't have to worry about it. Then you can create institutions and pressure other people to burn your chosen incense.

If the emperor is no longer a pagan things are different. I don't blame the Church for the fact that the Roman emperors eventually became members of the Church. Do I think it would be nice if the president of the United States was a Christian? Sure. It would be good, because it might moderate his activities and prevent him from endorsing as laws things that are contrary to the moral norm. It would certainly be better than what is happening now in this country.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

If the emperor is no longer a pagan things are different.

 

Of course! Things are always different when you're the one in power.

[Apotheoun]

Again I should say that as an Eastern Christian I do not see the Church as an institution in the sense often used in the West, but nevertheless I see no reason to turn the idea of an institution into a bogey man.

[Apotheoun]

Of course! Things are always different when you're the one in power.

I hate to tell you this but even in the eschaton there is going to be someone (i.e., the Tri-personal God) in power.

[Era Might]

Again I should say that as an Eastern Christian I do not see the Church as an institution in the sense often used in the West, but nevertheless I see no reason to turn the idea of an institution into a bogey man.

 

Thankfully, there are more than one way of seeing the world. Follow your eyes, and I'll follow mine. Who knows, we might end up in the same place.

[Era Might]

I hate to tell you this but even in the eschaton there is going to be someone (i.e., the Tri-personal God) in power.

 

Great. Until then, I prefer the itinerant poverty of Christ to the institutional power of the Pope. And I am glad, with his choice of the name Francis, Cardinal Bergoglio moved a step in that direction.