major problem in discerning...

[Maravillas]

(I fear this would happen to me, please don't be hard on me, I am only seeking the truth and to do God's will)

Hi there!

I am currently trying to find a monastery after 6 years in a Carmel where, for some permission of God, it went wrong. 

But I am facing a big problem because I have serious doubts about Pope Francis really being THE Pope... (I am not starting this topic to discuss this question, but to expose my situation, so forgive me if I don't give you a full rapport on the subject!)

I understand that no community will accept me unless I fully follow Francis.

I was wondering if anyone there is facing the same kind of suffering? Being torn between the thirst of truth in the catholic church in order to keep following Christ by following the "good" pope, and the call to a religious life?

I know this topic is a little delicate... but my situation is too! If anyone can give me a piece of advice, or simply say "me too!", that would be a little solace for me!

Thank you!

Edited January 19, 2021 by Maravillas

[ReasonableFaith]

If you are concerned about your fidelity to a Pope while seeking a new community it seems reasonable to wait until you feel a Real Pope is installed. 
 

i can’t speak to a Carmel in particular but their are plenty of communities which don’t spend their time interrogating members about their thoughts concerning the Pope during admission, formation, or profession. Some vow formulas may include reference to the Pope, others may not.

[Maravillas]

Thanks for your answer!

The problem is that I cannot in conscience before God enter a convent without talking about this. I know they will probably not ask me anything about the question, but I can't imagine hiding it.

I am not a sedevacantist. I do believe there is a pope. But the doubt is about who he is: still Benedict XVI or Francis? Many troubling facts about the renunciation of Benedict lead me to seriously consider the question.

I agree that it does not prevent from leading daily your religious life, but I simply do not feel like hiding my doubts on the topic. The main reason is that one of condition for the discernment of a true vocation, is your being accepted by the community. How can the community vote in conscious if they are not fully aware of who you are? If you are hiding some elements that might be crucial? I believe it is not very honest, for the community and also in front of God . I need things to be straight and clear and not based upon a misunderstanding...

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

With respect to +Francis supposedly not being the "good" Pope, are your concerns mostly based on him being allegedly unorthodox? Because whether or not you like his personal style or think that all his practical decisions are prudent, if you read what he actually says in context, he doesn't really say anything questionable from a doctrinal perspective. Sometimes, his writings and homilies actually come across as more traditional than Benedict! (E.g., like when he focuses on the reality of the devil or when he strongly emphasizes the value of the traditional family.)

Perhaps, if you haven't done this already, it might help if you went to the Vatican website and read Pope Francis' encyclicals and Apostolic Exhortations in full? This would certainly give you a better picture of what +Francis is about that secondary news sources would. 

On the other hand, are you more concerned with questions concerning the legality of a new pope being elected while the previous pope is still alive? I'm a canon lawyer and I don't think there was anything illegal about that, but if you had a more specific doubt about how this worked, someone could have a good discussion about it with you? 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Sponsa-Christi
typo

[GraceUk]

If this is worrying you and it obviously is then do you know any priests you could discuss this with. Or religious sister.  I really liked Pope John Paul II.  I didn't mind Pope Benedict and Pope Francis I thought would do great things but he hasn't done much.   But what I think  doesn't matter at all. Pope Francis is the elected Pope and that's it.  Whether I like him think somebody else should be pope, think he isn't the real pope.  You just have to tell yourself it is what it is. 

I did see something online once about the legality of whether Pope Benedict could retire and Francis take his place. I didn't read it beause I didn't think it really concerned me. And I probably wouldn't have understood the arguments anyway. Hope you get this resolved in your mind. 

 

[Maravillas]

35 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

With respect to +Francis supposedly not being the "good" Pope, are your concerns mostly based on him being allegedly unorthodox? Because whether or not you like his personal style or think that all his practical decisions are prudent, if you read what he actually says in context, he doesn't really say anything questionable from a doctrinal perspective. Sometimes, his writings and homilies actually come across as more traditional than Benedict! (E.g., like when he focuses on the reality of the devil or when he strongly emphasizes the value of the traditional family.)

Perhaps, if you haven't done this already, it might help if you went to the Vatican website and read Pope Francis' encyclicals and Apostolic Exhortations in full? This would certainly give you a better picture of what +Francis is about that secondary news sources would. 

On the other hand, are you more concerned with questions concerning the legality of a new pope being elected while the previous pope is still alive? I'm a canon lawyer and I don't think there was anything illegal about that, but if you had a more specific doubt about how this worked, someone could have a good discussion about it with you? 

My problem is not about the style of Francis, but more fundamentally about the crucial question of his legitimacy.

I share with you a link of a video developing one of the best arguments in favor of the invalidity of the renunciation of Benedict XVI.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UB2S5CoIR8

If you are a canon lawyer, can you tell me what's wrong in the reasoning? I'd be so happy if somebody could definitely prove me that pope Francis is valid! It would solve my problem so simply by vanishing my doubt!

[PaxCordisJesu]

Praying for you!

[ReasonableFaith]

1 hour ago, Maravillas said:

I am not a sedevacantist. I do believe there is a pope. But the doubt is about who he is: still Benedict XVI or Francis? Many troubling facts about the renunciation of Benedict lead me to seriously consider the question.

 

 

I remember heading to the chapel one morning and noticing a group huddled around the bulletin board. There hung a Reuters article telling of the upcoming abdication. I thought it was satire or a joke until it came up during morning prayer. I understand someone having confusion about the abdication; it was a confusing time for many. 
 

Benedict  is 93 years old and not exactly in ‘robust health.’   You likely will not have to live with your dilemma much longer. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

11 minutes ago, Maravillas said:

My problem is not about the style of Francis, but more fundamentally about the crucial question of his legitimacy.

I share with you a link of a video developing one of the best arguments in favor of the invalidity of the renunciation of Benedict XVI.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UB2S5CoIR8

If you are a canon lawyer, can you tell me what's wrong in the reasoning? I'd be so happy if somebody could definitely prove me that pope Francis is valid! It would solve my problem so simply by vanishing my doubt!

Ok, this is a rough-and-ready answer, but basically this guy's argument is that Pope Benedict's resignation was invalid because he said he was resigning the "ministry" of the papacy, instead of using the word "office" in the actual text of his resignation. So, basically, Pope Francis is allegedly not the real Pope because +Benedict's resignation was invalid, and +Benedict' resignation was invalid because he used one wrong word while he was in the process of resigning.  

This commentator is incorrect because...canon law fundamentally doesn't work this way! Canon law is different from a lot of our American legal tradition, because intention *is* extremely important in the canonical system. Unless it's very clearly specified otherwise, the default presumption in canon law is that intentions determine the nature of the act more than the exact words of something do. 

(For instance...my "day job" is being a judge in a marriage tribunal. If somebody doesn't like the answer we gave them in their marriage nullity case, we inform them of their right to appeal. If a person writes back with: "I think you were all wrong in your diocese and I want another tribunal to look at my case." We're not going to say: "Oh, he didn't use the word 'appeal'! I guess we won't send this case to the appeals court, then." We know what he was asking, and we treat is as a request for an appeal.) 

I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that +Benedict meant to resign. 

Also, the one canon that deals with popes resigning doesn't actually specify a formula to be used, it just focuses on the fact that a resignation happened freely (which in this case, it certainly did). 

Here's the actual text of the canon with my comments:

Can. 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, [this is just talking about the basic nature of the thing that is happening, not specifying a formula] it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone. [the only requirements stated here are that the resignation be freely made, and "properly manifested"--i.e., that it be presented in a clear and obvious way, and stating your resignation with a microphone to a room full of Cardinals with the media present is certainly obvious, non-secret, and thus canonically "manifest."]

I hope this helps somewhat. It's not usual VS material, but I'm open to follow-up questions if the Mediators of Meh think it will be fruitful. 

[Anastasia]

4 hours ago, Maravillas said:

I understand that no community will accept me unless I fully follow Francis.

I was sitting and thinking how to help you. The problem is that although I belong to Carmel I am also Orthodox so I think differently.

In your situation (and I do not know what exactly your problems with PF are but I presume it is his words and actions made you doubt) I would think like that: PF does things which betray the fact that he is being ruled not by his desire to be faithful to Christ but by his desire of being perceived as "nice" by the world (hence strange things like his apologizes for someone who threw an idol out the Catholic church etc.). Being ruled by the desire to be perceived as "nice" by people instead of be good in the eyes of God is contrary to the spirit and goal of Carmel. Because the worldly spirit of PF (and those who embrace it) has penetrated the Body of Christ  I must try to find a Carmel which is strongly opposing it. That would be an authentic Carmel faithful to its Rule.

Then I would identify to myself the signs of that authentic Carmel. They are:
- total Christ-centeredness, habitual reference to the Lord in conversations;
- an authentic way of a prayer (as it is described by St Theresa and St John);
- love and admiration for Carmelite Saints;
- genuine love for Carmelite tradition (a way of a prayer etc.)

The signs of the worldly spirit would be:
- condescending references to other Carmelites who stick to the rules;
- practices like " centering prayer", "Christian meditation"; Lectio Divina done not the purpose of understating God but used as a mantra;
- indifference to Holy Communion;
- not speaking of Christ.

But then you current dilemma is not different from a typical situation of any person who seeks to become monastic. He or she looks for an authentic, good monastery (whether there is PF or someone else).

I also think you conviction that you have to speak the truth about yourself is very good, this is how the red flags become visible. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Anastasia

[Anastasia]

PS I did not see this

3 hours ago, Maravillas said:

My problem is not about the style of Francis, but more fundamentally about the crucial question of his legitimacy.

so I answered you assuming that you have problems (as many Roman Catholics do) with what PF says and does and  with how his "faulty leadership" may affect your life in a monastery (especially since 'Cor Orans' gave much more control to Vatican over the contemplative Orders than before).

[Sponsa-Christi]

6 hours ago, Anastasia said:

PF does things which betray the fact that he is being ruled not by his desire to be faithful to Christ but by his desire of being perceived as "nice" by the world (hence strange things like his apologizes for someone who threw an idol out the Catholic church etc.). Being ruled by the desire to be perceived as "nice" by people instead of be good in the eyes of God is contrary to the spirit and goal of Carmel.

With all due respect, this is a pretty bold statement. I'm not always a fan of Pope Francis' personal style; his pastoral priorities aren't always the same as what I think my priorities would be if I were Pope; and I personally might disagree with the practicality of some of his purely prudential decisions. Still, I would never assume that Pope Francis is literally, deliberately more concerned with "appearing nice" than he is with being faithful to the Gospel. 

And besides the filial respect and reverence all Catholic owe the Holy Father, as I keep saying, Pope Francis' own words in context paint a very different picture than media soundbites do--i.e., Pope Francis has never done or said anything actually contrary to doctrine. Personality-wise, I'm much more of a "Pope Benedict person," but I've been spiritually enriched by a lot of what Pope Francis has to say when I've engaged with his teachings with an open heart. 

Besides that...as a Catholic, the OP is going to need to work out her feelings towards Pope Francis whether she re-enters religious life or not. It doesn't help discerners to encourage them to foster feelings of distrust or event contempt towards the Holy Father. 

3 hours ago, Anastasia said:

so I answered you assuming that you have problems (as many Roman Catholics do) with what PF says and does and  with how his "faulty leadership" may affect your life in a monastery (especially since 'Cor Orans' gave much more control to Vatican over the contemplative Orders than before).

It's been discussed before on VS, but Cor Orans really isn't anything outrageous. Granted, I probably wouldn't have written everything exactly the same way if I were the one drafting it. But even the parts I "disagree" with on a theoretical level, I can appreciate how they were intended to ensure the well-being of nuns and monastic life as a whole. 

tl:dr: I wouldn't be seriously troubled by Cor Orans if I were discerning monastic life. 

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Still, I would never assume that Pope Francis is literally, deliberately more concerned with "appearing nice" than he is with being faithful to the Gospel. 

I really did not wish to go into a further discussion of PF. Yet I have to respond to you so I cannot avoid doing that. There are some Roman Catholics who say PF is "heretic, fake Pope, Antichrist" and so on. That is “bold” I think.

My point is – and this applies to any Christian, not just a Pope – that a Christian, first of all, must be concerned with being truthful in the eyes of God, being good in the eyes of God. Now let take the episode with pachamama statues and the bowl which is typically used for the occult purposes somehow ended on the altar of St Peter’s. Let us recall that many martyrs died because they refused to drop a grain of incense into the fire before the statue of a pagan god, a Roman emperor. This memory would be enough to prevent what happened.

A person who is first of all concerned with God and not with how he looks before the people would never allow pagan statues to be brought into the house of God even if it would “upset” that people.  He would not be afraid to look “narrow-minded” etc, politely refusing them. However, a person who wants to be liked would indeed bring those idols into the church and then apologize when someone threw them out.

Someone may say that PF tried to win the hearts of pagans for God doing that. Perhaps he thought so but one cannot make God secondary for the sake of winning someone’s hearts for that God. If you violated God’s commandments (there should not be idols in the house of God) how can you win anyone for Him? How can you win anyone for the Church if you made the actions of its martyrs something irrelevant? You only can win someone for yourself, via your acceptance of the idols into the house of God. God then, in a very subtle way, becomes a tool for “inclusiveness”. And God cannot be a tool because He is God and because God used as atoll stopes being God. God is always the ultimate purpose.

I understand that what I am writing is upsetting. It is upsetting for me as well. Years ago I was very happy to see PF being together with our Patriarch Bartholomew in the Holy Sepulchre. I thought it was the beginning of two Churches coming together via Christ, the only Way to come together in truth. Yet I see now it was just a way of PF, a kind of syncretism for the sake of “inclusiveness” etc.

My point is that a Christian can be “inclusive” only via Christ, in Christ and not make a tool out of Christ, however noble is the purpose.

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Besides that...as a Catholic, the OP is going to need to work out her feelings towards Pope Francis whether she re-enters religious life or not. It doesn't help discerners to encourage them to foster feelings of distrust or event contempt towards the Holy Father. 

I do not have  a purpose of encouraging the discerner "to foster feelings of distrust or event contempt towards the Holy Father". My purpose was to answer as truthfully as I could for the purpose of preventing the discerner to end up in not a good place, via outlining some deviations from the authentic Carmelite which I have encountered (including in Carmel).

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I wouldn't be seriously troubled by Cor Orans if I were discerning monastic life. 

I understand but many are troubled by it, especially Carmelites.

[Anastasia]

Besides, since it transpired the OP was concerned with “the legal status” of PF and not with his behavior (as I mistakenly thought) all this is irrelevant anyway.

[beatitude]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

I really did not wish to go into a further discussion of PF. Yet I have to respond to you so I cannot avoid doing that. There are some Roman Catholics who say PF is "heretic, fake Pope, Antichrist" and so on. That is “bold” I think.

Phatmass is loyal to the Magisterium and our phorum guidelines set a higher standard than simply not calling the Holy Father the antichrist.

As a canon lawyer, Sponsa-Christi has given an excellent answer to the OP's question. I am closing this thread here.