Interview With Pope Francis In America Magazine

[blazeingstar]

The more interviews Pope Francis gives, the more concerned I become. I left Protestantism for Catholicism for dogmatic and moral reasons, if these things are going to be de-emphasized, I will have to re-evaluate my own spiritual life and journey.

 

I think he's inviting legalistic people who like simply fighting against things to fight FOR something.  

[Apotheoun]

Well, in the interview he does admit that he's a bit naive, and says we should be worried if we think we have all the answers nailed down, so the fact that his media interactions raise more questions than answers makes sense. :)

Yes, I agree. The confusion that results from his interactions with the media are probably attributable both to his naivete and to his lack of precision in conveying his message, which leaves his comments open to multiple interpretations.

[Apotheoun]

I think he's inviting legalistic people who like simply fighting against things to fight FOR something.  

Eastern Catholics are not really legalistic. But we do like precision in doctrinal formulations as anyone familiar with the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils can surely tell.

[Apotheoun]

I still found the interview interesting, and I will probably re-read it later tonight before bed.  :smile3:

[Basilisa Marie]

Yes, I agree. The confusion that results from his interactions with the media are probably attributable both to his naivete and to his lack of precision in conveying his message, which leaves his comments open to multiple interpretations.

 

Yeah, but Benedict was often interpreted a bunch of different ways, mostly by people who had a different focus (agenda, beliefs, whatever) than he did. We could just write those people off as wrong, but it's the same idea. I think it's more like what the pope talks about with magnanimity.  Broad instead of narrow, and all that.  He may not be speaking specifically, but he's very intentional with what he says. So precisely broad? Something like that. 

[Apotheoun]

Yeah, but Benedict was often interpreted a bunch of different ways, mostly by people who had a different focus (agenda, beliefs, whatever) than he did. We could just write those people off as wrong, but it's the same idea. I think it's more like what the pope talks about with magnanimity.  Broad instead of narrow, and all that.  He may not be speaking specifically, but he's very intentional with what he says. So precisely broad? Something like that. 

Benedict was open to far less "interpretation" than the present pope. On moral questions it was clear, after all he was responsible for the profession of faith required of Fr. Nugent on homosexual issues, and anyone who has read that document knows that it leaves no wiggle room for those who want to equivocate on the issue of homosexuality. Perhaps that is why Fr. Nugent refused to sign the profession.

[Apotheoun]

The only thing in his interview that I found interesting were his brief comments on synodality and the Orthodox. Although like most Roman Catholics he sounds far too optimistic when it comes to the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, because it is unlikely that the Orthodox will settle merely for changes in the way that the primacy of the bishop of Rome operates. My own studies of Orthodox theologians, and my own interaction at local Orthodox parishes, makes me think that the Orthodox will settle for nothing less than the repudiation of the teaching of Vatican I. 

[Apotheoun]

One other point on the issue of the Orthodox: I noticed that Pope Francis mentioned the Ravenna Document, which was signed by the Joint International Commission on Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and how we must continue on this path. It is interesting to note that the Ravenna Document rejects the ecumenicity of all the later synods of the Roman Church, holding that since the time of the East / West schism the celebration of ecumenical councils became impossible. Maybe Pope Francis is going to do what Pope Benedict would not do, and actually re-affirm that there have only been seven ecumenical councils. That would be interesting.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Apotheoun

[blazeingstar]

Benedict was open to far less "interpretation" than the present pope. On moral questions it was clear, after all he was responsible for the profession of faith required of Fr. Nugent on homosexual issues, and anyone who has read that document knows that it leaves no wiggle room for those who want to equivocate on the issue of homosexuality. Perhaps that is why Fr. Nugent refused to sign the profession.

 

No, I don't think he was far less open to interpretation...I think that the media collectively decided to hate him and they collectively decided to like Pope Francis.  They could do the EXACT same thing to him.  Pope Benedict spoke with a firmness that seemed heartless to those who didn't understand, and Pope Francis speaks with an air of casualness that people don't understand either.  Pope John Paul II spoke with a gravity no one seemed to get when it came to solving problems.

 

But media LIKES this guy for who knows what reason.  I promise you, if they disliked him as much as they disliked Benedict, we'd be hearing criticism of how the Pope said that Catholics were so bad for not preaching the Gospel and how all he does is criticize how we go about things.

[Apotheoun]

Quotation from the Ravenna Document on ecumenical councils:

 

 

Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an Ecumenical Council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical.

 

 

An interesting use of the past tense in the final sentence.

[Apotheoun]

No, I don't think he was far less open to interpretation...I think that the media collectively decided to hate him and they collectively decided to like Pope Francis.  They could do the EXACT same thing to him.  Pope Benedict spoke with a firmness that seemed heartless to those who didn't understand, and Pope Francis speaks with an air of casualness that people don't understand either.  Pope John Paul II spoke with a gravity no one seemed to get when it came to solving problems.

 

But media LIKES this guy for who knows what reason.  I promise you, if they disliked him as much as they disliked Benedict, we'd be hearing criticism of how the Pope said that Catholics were so bad for not preaching the Gospel and how all he does is criticize how we go about things.

I find it interesting that the media seems to like Pope Francis.

 

I am quite open about the fact that I miss Pope Benedict. He really did love the liturgy, and that - probably more than anything - endeared him to me.

[AugustineA]

Is this what you're talking about with the EF?

 

 

Oh yeah, I missed that post Basilisa. The last sentence in particular, where he worries that the TLM will be used as an ideology or part thereof. On another forum, we were discussing how Father Francis banned the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate from performing the TLM. It was really upsetting! The Franciscans of the Immaculate are great. It seems like a few members complained.

 

Ultimately, he comissioned a member of the clergy outside the Franciscans in order to give them permission. It looks like they will get permission, or must get permission when requested. Nevertheless, it was really shocking. So I think the senses are a little aroused for traditionalists, and nerves maybe a little frayed.

 

Someone pointed out to me this morning that it's not worth too much time arguing over these things, because our faith is deeper than that. Popes have made mistake in the past, and even if it scandalizes some of the faithful, we ought to pray and take care of our souls within the greater depisot of faith. I thought that was good advice (and she was a traditionalist lol).

[blazeingstar]

I find it interesting that the media seems to like Pope Francis.

 

I am quite open about the fact that I miss Pope Benedict. He really did love the liturgy, and that - probably more than anything - endeared him to me.

 

It is interesting why they picked Pope Francis to love and glorify.  It's almost unnatural and creepy.  My fear is that it is also the American journalists who are doing most of the misintpretation of Francis' words.  I honestly think part of this is to distract us from domestic issues that are causing us harm.  The media seems to have dropped all the problems surrounding our current president (snowden, iraq, bengazi, fast and furious, even syria) to talk about how great the Pope is.

 

It makes me VERY afraid.  

 

I also wonder if they believe they can manipulate the Pope's words to get the loosy goosy Catholic in name only to vote for the far left without guilt.  Francis basically said he's tabling the issues and considers them non-starters and not his battle to fight all the flipping time.  The media (and most uneducated Catholics) now think that abortions, gay marriage and contraception is ok and that the church is focusing on other things.  That athiests can just stop by Heaven and that cohabitating couples have to be fully welcomed.  These are misconceptions that we understand (though, again, I'm concerned about the remnant faithful wilst taking on these folks)  So now, only those well educated Catholics are even going to have the foggiest about what we teach.

 

Not like I haven't heard all of those misinformed ideas from the pulpit anyway. :unsure:

[dUSt]

And it begins...

 

[attachment=3202:pope-cnn.jpg]

 

 

[blazeingstar]

Oh yeah, I missed that post Basilisa. The last sentence in particular, where he worries that the Traditional Latin Mass will be used as an ideology or part thereof. On another forum, we were discussing how Father Francis banned the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate from performing the Traditional Latin Mass. It was really upsetting! The Franciscans of the Immaculate are great. It seems like a few members complained.

 

Ultimately, he comissioned a member of the clergy outside the Franciscans in order to give them permission. It looks like they will get permission, or must get permission when requested. Nevertheless, it was really shocking. So I think the senses are a little aroused for traditionalists, and nerves maybe a little frayed.

 

Someone pointed out to me this morning that it's not worth too much time arguing over these things, because our faith is deeper than that. Popes have made mistake in the past, and even if it scandalizes some of the faithful, we ought to pray and take care of our souls within the greater depisot of faith. I thought that was good advice (and she was a traditionalist lol).

 

Considering everything that happened with other orders or high profile priests that took things too far....like how Fr. Coropi went off the deep end and how the legioniers of Christ seem to be involved in a number of scandles, I think that tightening control is not necessary a bad thing.  The friars are young, idealistic and very active.  That puts them at risk for fanaticism.  

 

TLM is good, but it is not the ordinary form.  I think that it is good he said no, even if TLM is good at times, in order to protect them from becoming a fringe group.  Their charism is FAR too important for them to close ranks around the way Mass is said.