Ash Wednesday Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 What is to be gained from belittling or attempting to quantify what it is he's concerned about? And who are we to assume how much he knows about Church history anyway? Safe to say he probably is a seasoned veteran in the state of church politics and that shouldn't be disregarded -- and given his background, I can understand why his conscience prompts him to say something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Yikes, my previous post sounds a bit cranky and I just got off a flight and want to go home and have no editing tools on this phone. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 Yikes, my previous post sounds a bit cranky and I just got off a flight and want to go home and have no editing tools on this phone. Sorry. We are (mostly) all adults here. I think we can handle some directness. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I am the true Pope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I am the true Pope Shut up, Tiffany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I think the present crisis always seems the worst. It's the one that's happening now. Comparatively one may be worse than the other, like breaking a bone might hurt more than burning your hand, but you are more attentive to and concerned about the present pain. Human nature right? I also think the proliferation of mass media and social media in our day and age probably doesn't help with our perception of the magnitude. But yeah I don't think things are super great in the church right now. Were they ever? Not well-versed enough in history. There was probably no "golden age" but I can imagine times being better than they are now, at least with the level of fidelity among clergy and laypeople. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 In some ways the emergence of mass media might intensify the crisis, and perhaps in the future it will also intensify the recovery and deepening of the faith. By allowing for ideas to be spread globally and instantaneously it means that both authentic and inauthentic messages can reach everyone whereas in the past it might be more contained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oremus Pro Invicem Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 In some ways the emergence of mass media might intensify the crisis, and perhaps in the future it will also intensify the recovery and deepening of the faith. By allowing for ideas to be spread globally and instantaneously it means that both authentic and inauthentic messages can reach everyone whereas in the past it might be more contained. This has probably been one of the greatest challenges for the Church and its fight against error. Dosen't help when some of her clerics are filmed supporting error. Even worse when orthodox clergy speak the truth and are then chastised by their superiors for it. Makes me wonder if Fulton J Sheen was alive today if he would be told to tone down his telecasts in order to be more sensitive and to promote "dialogue." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hna.Caridad Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 An interesting blog entry by Cardinal Wuerl related to the reality of dissent within the Church: The Pope, Touchstone of Faith and Unity Early Sunday morning I watched our Holy Father, Pope Francis, give his Angelus talk – the comments he shares before praying the Angelus with the huge crowd – tens of thousands – gathered in Saint Peter’s Square each Sunday. Here, this enormously popular and revered successor to Peter spoke about the tenderness of Jesus, his loving compassion and at the same time our need to be caring and compassionate to our fellow human beings. The Holy Father clearly is admired not only by the crowds in Saint Peter’s Square but by people around the world. But apparently that admiration is not shared by all. As I was watching the Holy Father on TV, my inbox was filling with a number of emails including an interview and an article by brother bishops who are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis. Those emails reminded me of a much, much earlier time in my life when I first experienced dissent from the teaching and practice of a pope. As a young seminarian (20 years old) doing graduate work at The Catholic University of America, I read for the first time the encyclical letter of Saint John XXIII, Mater et magistra. Its teaching was not well received by some. One of the pundits offered the observation that became rather widespread in those circles,“Mater si, Magistra no,” – Latin for “Mother yes, Teacher no.” Along with a number of my classmates, I remember being so scandalized by this rejection of the encyclical that we spoke to one of the priests at the seminary. He gently chided us for our naivety and pointed out that there has always been a current of dissent in the Church, some of it as high as the College of Cardinals. It was then that I first heard of Cardinal Louis Billot who was less than discrete in his opposition to Pope Pius XI who had condemned the political and religious movement, Action Française, which involved many people who longed for the restoration of the monarchy in France and a stronger role for the Church in civil government. In 1927, as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, Cardinal Billot “was persuaded to renounce his cardinalitial dignity.” Unhappiness with a Pope’s position on issues whether doctrinal, pastoral, canonical or as simple as clerical vesture, seems always to be present in some form. In 1963 Saint John XXIII again became the object of wrath of those who disliked his encyclical Pacem in terris, as did Blessed Paul VI for his encyclical, Populorum progressio in 1967 and certainly for his encyclical Humanae vitae in 1968. Dissent by some priests from the teaching in Humanae vitae led to their departure from priestly ministry. On a much less important level, there was, nonetheless, considerable dismay among some in 1969 when the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI issued an instruction concerning the vesture of bishops and cardinals. The effort to streamline and do away with things like the cappa magna (long outer garment of bishops and cardinals with a long, long train) upset some. Even the short reign of Pope John Paul I was not without critique. Some wrote that they found his smile unbefitting a Pope since it diminished the gravitas (gravity or seriousness) of his office. One commentator lamented that this dear and kind Pope actually waved at people as he processed to celebrate Mass. Then of course came Saint John Paul II. Everything he wrote had some critic whether it involved his social encyclicals such as Laborem exercens in 1981 or Sollicitudo rei socialis in 1987 or Centesimus annus in 1991 or his encyclical on the permanent validity of the Church’s missionary effort, Redemptoris missio. There were some who continually criticized him for his travels even though he helped in his nearly 27 years as Pope revitalize the Church. Personally, I always found the criticism of Saint John Paul II particularly painful because I have such an affection and admiration for him. In fact, the brand new seminary in this archdiocese that was opened just a few years ago bears his name, Saint John Paul II Seminary. I will not belabor the point by going through the critiques, challenges, disapproval and dissent that faced so much of what Pope Benedict XVI taught and published during his pontificate. Again, I find myself greatly perplexed at the negative critique of him whom I saw as such a good, brilliant and holy Shepherd of the Church. Hardly then should we expect that Pope Francis would be immune from what appears to be something that “comes with the territory.” One of the things I have learned though over all of these years since those early naïve days in 1961 is that on closer examination there is a common thread that runs through all of these dissenters. They disagree with the Pope because he does not agree with them and therefore follow their position. Dissent is perhaps something we will always have, lamentable as it is, but we will also always have Peter and his successor as the rock and touchstone of both our faith and our unity. Tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Pope John Paul I, Pope Paul VI, Pope Pius XI, Saint John Paul II, Saint John XXIII, Saint Peter This entry was posted on Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 9:39 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. - See more at: http://cardinalsblog.adw.org/2015/02/pope-touchstone-faith-unity/#sthash.jhs98dxA.dpuf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 Who is dissenting, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 What is to be gained from belittling or attempting to quantify what it is he's concerned about? And who are we to assume how much he knows about Church history anyway? Safe to say he probably is a seasoned veteran in the state of church politics and that shouldn't be disregarded -- and given his background, I can understand why his conscience prompts him to say something. He is free to say whatever he wants. I just don't think he said anything interesting. I think it is important to quantify what he's saying, because I'm not particularly favorable to catastrophic views of the world. Compare what he is saying to what IMO is a truly profound message from, say, Pope Francis in his interview a few years ago. Pope Francis had some pointed things to say (he referred to "unfruitful bachelors" in reference to certain priests), and also had a lot of spiritual wisdom in speaking of charisms, the role of prophecy vis a vis the institutional church, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 No political maneuvering during Vatican II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 He is free to say whatever he wants. I just don't think he said anything interesting. I think it is important to quantify what he's saying, because I'm not particularly favorable to catastrophic views of the world. Compare what he is saying to what IMO is a truly profound message from, say, Pope Francis in his interview a few years ago. Pope Francis had some pointed things to say (he referred to "unfruitful bachelors" in reference to certain priests), and also had a lot of spiritual wisdom in speaking of charisms, the role of prophecy vis a vis the institutional church, etc. I personally didn't view his letter as being completely catastrophic the same manner that you did. It's extremely critical, but I didn't think he was painting a picture of all hope being lost. That said, I don't think we'll reach any agreement on what are differing and subjective perceptions of it -- so I'm not going to push the issue further. Now if everyone will excuse me, I need to find my wooden spoon to swat Hasan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I personally didn't view his letter as being completely catastrophic the same manner that you did. It's extremely critical, but I didn't think he was painting a picture of all hope being lost. That said, I don't think we'll reach any agreement on what are differing and subjective perceptions of it -- so I'm not going to push the issue further. Now if everyone will excuse me, I need to find my wooden spoon to swat Hasan. Ok, it's fine we disagree. But I don't view the letter as "critical," meaning I don't find any critical value in it. I love real criticism, but I don't get that from a letter that cites a 19th century Masonic quote. It's a moralistic lecture, which I guess is what it aims for, so I probably shouldn't look at it for any critical insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Ok, it's fine we disagree. But I don't view the letter as "critical," meaning I don't find any critical value in it. I love real criticism, but I don't get that from a letter that cites a 19th century Masonic quote. It's a moralistic lecture, which I guess is what it aims for, so I probably shouldn't look at it for any critical insight. Right, I offered to agree to disagree on the matter and didn't see the point in continuing this conversation on it with you, yet you still continue to feel the need to push the issue of disagreement with me and keep elaborating why. For someone who doesn't find the letter all that interesting, you sure have a lot to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now