 |
| Live long and spread confusion |
One commenter, a Reformed believer named Robert, who’s been interacting with Jason Stellman recently, said “I think this pope is going to be the gift that keeps on giving”. Just below that comment, another writer named Kent said “I look forward to 10 years of this pope.”
He’s got Roman Catholics (especially the conservative kind) in a disarray. The conservative National Catholic Register said this:
Six months into the pontificate of an extraordinarily frank and open pope whose simple, direct manner of speech is well-suited to social media, Church leaders like Cardinal Dolan are learning to adapt to a new style of papal communication and evangelization.
Apparently with no warning, the lengthy papal interview was released into the global blogosphere, and bishops, theologians and lay leaders grappled with media headlines, like USA Today’s “Pope seeks less focus on abortion, gays, contraception.”
As Catholic leaders scrambled to clarify Francis’ message to the faithful and a bemused public, they must also address anxiety from believers who have labored in the trenches of prolife or marriage outreach, and seek reassurance, rather than what might be interpreted as a scolding.
Even His Eminence (Bryan Cross) from St Louis had to admit “If by ‘fog’ you mean subjective ‘confusion among some people,’ then I grant that on occasions the Pope by his words creates “fog.” If, however, by ‘fog’ you mean an objective and formal condition of ambiguity regarding the truth of standing Catholic dogma, then no, the Pope does not create “fog.”
However, the pope said, “The Church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules.”
Which particular “rules” does he have in mind as being “small-minded”? “Rules” as in “doctrines”? He certainly did point to “disjointed doctrines” – as if some Roman Catholics were guilty of not presenting the WHOLE of the Roman Catholic Faith.
Of course, whom that might be is open to interpretation.
Whose interpretation?
Well, the Pope’s interpretation, right? In his own words:
“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
Who was “insistently imposing” those “disjointed multitude (not just a few) of doctrines, if not JPII and Benedict XVI? What doctrines were they? In what way were they “disjointed”? The Jesuit in Bergoglio can’t bring himself to say, and his “interpretation” on this is open to “interpretation”.
Which brings up another point, made by a blogger who goes by the handle The Thoughtful Pilgrim. He says (paraphrasing a Roman Catholic writer):
even allowing for the media to spin Francis' comments, he only ever gets spun and portrayed as a progressive. I'd be a little more forgiving if he got spun as a conservative once in a while. But the consistency of the spin suggests an agenda. This is how he wants to be portrayed."
The Thoughtful Pilgrim also cites other Roman Catholic writers:
Robbie : Like many, I'm disappointed in the way things have gone recently. I'm glad Francis has been able to reach many disaffected liberals through his presentation, but I fear he’s doing it at the cost of the conservatives. At this point, I think the Pope speaks far too much and his off the cuff style promotes confusion.
Michael: The Church needs to emphasize that it is a hospital for sinner and they are always welcome inside. I agree completely. But if this is not done very, very carefully, you end up with rogue priests teaching outright acceptance of homosexuality and abortion. You end up with homosexual outreach groups that are used as dating clubs.
A priest: Friend, the year isn't over. I get up every day, and think "What has he done today?". I make my Mystic Monk Coffee and say my office and wonder "What has he done today?" I go to the computer and wonder "What has he done today?" Then I find out what he did this time. Yes, it has been a hard year in some ways. There have been good days and bad days. How is this different from other pontificates? It is coming at us more quickly now. The news cycle and ability to be "out there" has increased exponentially. So: The year isn't over. But each day is also an opportunity to think, deepen and clarify.
The Pilgrim finishes with this notion: “The partial effort at blaming the media at the end of this statement is a manifestation of a priest wrestling with his disappointment and worry. ‘It has been a hard year’, he says. I would say to this ecclesiastic: if you have been troubled by these mere five months of Francis' papacy, then brace yourself. You could have years to go.”
The gift that keeps on giving.
Perhaps this pope will add much to Swan's "blueprint for anarchy .
ReplyDeleteIn any case, it illustrates how RCs must use their fallible human reasoning to decide to submit to Rome, and then to discern what level teachings fall under, and to varying degrees what they, including the pope's interpretations, mean. And what Rome does effectually conveys what she really believes more than her official statements. "I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18) Which largely produces liberalism.
And while this pope, who is strongly relational (I have to live with people) versus doctrinal, is producing fog, what is clear is that he has TRCs alarmed, who would rather term his statements foggy because they fear he really means what he too often appears to say. Which at the least is contrary to the official ethos-intensive, magisterium-centric ecclesiology that TRCs magnify, and instead emphasizes pathos and inclusiveness of the laity, and the practical outreach, and seems more akin to Orthodox model ecclesiology with its consensus of the faithful.
Look for TRCs to invoke "speaking as a private theologian" more, or to explain away his papal protests.
Some recent quotes:
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing to see the denunciations for lack of orthodoxy that come to Rome...These cases, in fact, are much better dealt with locally. The Roman congregations are mediators; they are not middlemen or managers.”
"If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things."
"The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently."
"I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."
“Religious men and women are prophets...Being prophets may sometimes imply making waves. I do not know how to put it.... Prophecy makes noise, uproar, some say ‘a mess.’ But in reality, the charism of religious people is like yeast: prophecy announces the spirit of the Gospel.”
"The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials. The bishops, particularly, must be able to support the movements of God among their people with patience, so that no one is left behind. But they must also be able to accompany the flock that has a flair for finding new paths."
"Let us think of the religious sisters living in hospitals. They live on the frontier. I am alive because of one of them. When I went through my lung disease at the hospital, the doctor gave me penicillin and streptomycin in certain doses. The sister who was on duty tripled my doses because she was daringly astute; she knew what to do because she was with ill people all day. The doctor, who really was a good one, lived in his laboratory; the sister lived on the frontier and was in dialogue with it every day."
"Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together."
"This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people. In turn, Mary loved Jesus with the heart of the people, as we read in the Magnificat. We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.” - http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
Hi PBJ, thanks for posting these selections here. I doubt that Scott and Pete read them. In fact, what this pope actually said is far less important than Pete's and Scott's INTERPRETATION of what this pope said.
DeleteI doubt that John has read what I wrote on my blog, which quotes the entire section of what Pope Francis said - and then breaks it down.
DeleteAs expressed, Francis will require explaining away by the laity, which Francis focuses on, yet the explanatory laity here are the same who censure evangelicals for interpreting their authority, and instead point them away from laity to the mighty magisterium, as if RCs need not substantially engage in interpretation of their authority. And in interpreting the pope's interpretation of it, which is one of many
DeleteIn any case, the church did begin upon the premise of incontestable submission to an infallible magisterium of mortals, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Really, what has been happening is that the liberal media ran with snippets of out of context statements from that interview - and it is the media which is "confusing" people, not the Pope. If you go to the primary source, like I did, you can easily see the REAL message Pope Francis was putting forth. Pope Francis is not saying we should never speak out on the issues of homosexuality, gay marriage and contraception! He simply said that we must not be so focused on those issues. He said we need to emphasize the "first proclamation" which is that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and He has redeemed us all. He also said, to use his analogy, that once we've brought them into the Field Hospital - THEN "you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence." Pope Francis is not dismissing these issues, he's saying "all in good time." He wants us to get them to understand the need for Jesus Christ in their lives first for the salvation of their souls - and then the rest will fall into place.
ReplyDeleteThe only disappointment I have is in those who have run with the liberal media spin, and those who have run with that spin should be disappointed in themselves. They should recant and publish what the Pope REALLY said.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Robbie and Michael are free to be concerned. But bear in mind that Michael also wrote that “I have no qualms with the substance of the Pope’s message.”
ReplyDeleteAnd the priest, Father Z., reminded his readers: “Dear readers, don’t focus only on the jump-out quotes or the scare quotes. Read the whole context. Let it sink in. Think about it.” Excellent advice.
For the pope to complain of “a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently” is exactly what Pope Benedict was talking about here:
“Today many have a limited understanding of the Christian faith, because they identify it with a mere system of beliefs and values and not so much with the truth of God revealed in history, eager to communicate with man face to face, in a relationship of love with Him. In fact, the foundation of every doctrine or value is the event of the encounter between man and God in Christ Jesus. Christianity, before being a moral or ethical value, is the experience of love, of welcoming the person of Jesus. For this reason, the Christian and Christian communities must first look to and help others to look to Christ, the true path that leads to God” (Homily 11/14/12).
Here, again, is Pope Francis:
“The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. […] A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. […] The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”
With love in Christ,
Pete
“The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church…” (Pope Francis)
In fact Scott, in fact, Pete, this pope, in his comments about how atheists may be saved, how "it's not for me to judge" whether homosexuals want to be priests, continually (and I agree, this is a fault of Vatican II, the liberal portions of which he is largely repeating and expanding on), fails to speak the first word of Jesus's Gospel, and that is, "Repent".
DeleteAll of your other faults stem off of that one.
Repent
And Scott, as for "media spin", I've only cited Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic sources here.
And in fact, when Cardinal Timothy Dolan gets to go onto the Today show (in full damage-control mode), it's not "media spin" -- it's clearly, "This pope didn't consult with us on this agenda" -- Dolan is the one spinning.
It is the pope who is providing the raw materials, saying that he's no right-winger (I think that's a precise quote), that "We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”
So according to this pope, the [supposedly infallible] Church at Rome has, for centuries, had some sort of wrong emphasis.
He said, "it is the experience of ‘holy mother the hierarchical church,’ as St. Ignatius called it, the church as the people of God, pastors and people together. The church is the totality of God’s people".
You ought full well to know how little "people" had practically nothing to say in the face of "heierarchy".
But this is a side show. "Jesus Christ has not saved you" if you don't "repent and believe". The real show is this pope's failure to speak the word "repent and believe" to people who need to repent and believe.
Here is what Pope Francis said about sin in the recent interviews:
Delete“And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all. The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them really takes responsibility for the person. The rigorist washes his hands so that he leaves it to the commandment. The loose minister washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin’ or something like that. In pastoral ministry we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds.”
Your accusation is exactly what he is complaining about when he says that the “loose minister washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin.’ ” He is complaining about the very same thing that you are complaining about: not identifying sin as sin so as to allow the person to repent of sin in order to receive the mercy and forgiveness of God.
If someone wants to know what the Church has to say about repentance, I would point them to John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation on Reconciliation and Penance.
As for atheists, the CNA report noted that,
“In answer to the question of whether God forgives ‘one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith,’ the Pope responded that ‘the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart.’ He stressed the non-believer’s need for ‘obeying one’s conscience.’”
His answer to the non-believer was this: God has mercy on the one who turns to Him with a sincere and contrite heart. You want the pope to use the words “repent and believe,” but he instead spoke of “turning” to God with a contrite heart. What will happen when the pope does use the very words that you want him to use?
“We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.”
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete -- maybe he will, and that will be a good thing. But the thing he's hawking is still Roman Catholicism, with its sacramental treadmill, false understanding of justification, etc. But for now, he's saying things that are confusing people, he could have spoken to the press with the words "turning to God with a contrite heart" Instead, he says other things. He's a grown man. He didn't just fall off a turnip truck. He ought to have some idea of how to talk to the press. Instead, as my original post says, "even allowing for the media to spin Francis' comments, he only ever gets spun and portrayed as a progressive. I'd be a little more forgiving if he got spun as a conservative once in a while. But the consistency of the spin suggests an agenda. This is how he wants to be portrayed."
DeleteI would like to also say that the discussion with the Italian journalist was specifically about the encyclical on faith, Lumen Fidei. So don’t let it bother you if there is not a lot of talk about repentance either in the encyclical itself or in follow-up discussions about the encyclical. We can’t always say everything :) The pope said that the encyclical was designed to “to not only confirm the faith in Jesus Christ, for those who already believe, but also to spark a sincere and rigorous dialogue with” people like the Italian journalist. You want the pope to cut to the chase. But he is trying to come along side this journalist and meet him where he is, leaving room for the Holy Spirit’s conviction. We don’t always have the luxury of time for a long-term approach—and there are some who would say that they’re using a “long-term approach” when in reality they’re hiding from the confrontation and provocation caused by preaching Christ crucified—but I think that the pope is sincere in his approach and I pray that his ministry will be effective in communicating and proposing God’s plan of salvation to the consciences of those who do not believe. Reread his response to the journalist and see how much of Jesus he is able to share with this man and his readers. It’s exciting! I’m more like you, John. The time is short! But I think that I am benefitting from the witness of our pope. And I am hopeful that he will make me a better evangelist.
DeleteThe media will spin. The pope only has so much time to devote to public speaking. He can rely on his flock to clarify his meaning. We’re a family. :) I’ve been interviewed for a Catholic newspaper and Muscle Media magazine in my past. These were amicable interviews. You know, we were on the same side. But even when I read accurate quotes from myself, there was more that I said that gave a different color to the words that made it into print. You can imagine what the world will do with the words of Christ’s Church.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Pete -- just so we're clear: the papacy is a fraudulent and late imposition onto "Christ's church". And the Roman religion as well is a late imposition onto Christianity.
DeleteThe big thing that we've seen coming from people like the Called to Communion gang is the certainty of Roman Catholic epistemology. Now, their fallback is "this pope hasn't changed any doctrines". He's stirring the pot in a huge way -- and it needs to be stirred. The problem is, he's mixing in the Liberal Protestantism that Vatican II picked up.
The upshot of what he has said, in effect, is that the Roman Catholic Church has had the wrong emphasis for, say, centuries. I'm with him in that. I wish he would do an accurate analysis, however.
What's that line from the Keith Green song: "He tells a little truth with every lie to tickle itching ears."
I know you think the papacy is a fraud. It would be interesting to continue our discussion on Ignatius that we started on the Catholic Answers Forums.
DeleteYou want the pope to say that “[t]he Roman Catholic Church has sinned against Christ and his church and humanity.” With what Christian movement do you identify with, say, in the time of Augustine? And as you trace your historical Christian identity, what sins has the church with which you identify committed?
Errors in doctrine surrounding Mary? Are you crazy!? :) Hey, check out the new Mary of Nazareth movie coming out next month. It looks like it’s gonna be a good one!
And don’t forget about Latin Mass next Sunday. The invite is still there for lunch.
In Christ,
Pete
John,
ReplyDeleteYou appear to have the Gospel message out of order. One cannot repent unless he first believes. THAT is Pope Francis' message. As for other Catholics joining in the spin, you'll note, I was not specifying non-Catholics in my disappointment. I am disappointed in those who chose to defend the Church but failed to look at what the Pope actually said. IMHO, they too have egg on their faces... as do any who continue this attack.
Scott – here is this pope’s first words:
Delete“I see clearly,” the pope continues, “that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up.
“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.
This is wrong. Jesus said, many times, “Repent and believe the good news”.
The “bad news” isn’t that “you are wounded”. The bad news is “You are dead in your sins, and you need to repent, (take notice!) and then believe.
Matthew: 4:12, 1:47
Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. … From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Mark 1:14-15
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
This pope is giving away a Pelagian freebie (a message courtesy Vatican II)
I’m sure you read the interview with the 86 year old atheist. The man is talking to the pope, who ought to say, “you are dead in your sins”. Instead, he says, writing to an atheist, “God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.”
This atheist, one of those “who do not believe in God”, while talking with a pope, is not referred to Christ and his saving work. He is referred to “obeying [one’s] own conscience”.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/09/full-text-of-popes-letter-to-atheist.html
Severe disconnect there Scott.
I stand by what I said - there can be no real repentance until there is believing first. In Matthew 4:17 (not 12) Jesus is speaking preaching to the Jews, who are already believers that there will be a Messiah. He is not preaching to atheists. There is no Matthew 1:47. Mark 1:14-15, same story as Matthew 4:17, Jesus is not speaking to unbelievers, but to the Jews who were expecting their Messiah - and "the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand..."
DeleteAs for the http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/09/full-text-of-popes-letter-to-atheist.html reference, I've read through it - and all through it I see him pointing to the Gospel and the Epistles of Paul too. Your out-of-context citation appears to be just as misleading as the liberal press attempting to spin the recent interview.
I realize it is your goal to find fault, but really - you should not be inventing fault when your objections are answer in the context of your own citation.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Is The Pope Changing Catholic Teaching?
Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin, as believing on the Lord Jesus (not abstractly as a mere gift-giver) is contrary to loyalty to other lords, and this heart decision will be manifest in obedience relative to the light and grace given. And contrary to the RC strawman of sola fide, Reformers did teach that the faith that appropriates justification is the kind that will effect the "obedience of faith."
DeleteAnd obeying the light on has, by God's grace, will lead to believing/obeying The Light. (Mk. 4:24,25; Acts 10) via the gospel.
However, the problem that papal "preaching of the gospel" is that it lacks perspicuity, and often consists of ambiguous references to God's mercy. We have very clear statements that submission to the pope is necessary for salvation, which yet see varying interpretations, but i cannot recall ever seeing a papal proclamation as clear as Acts 10:36-43. Instead what is fostered in faith in Rome, which saves even the liberal nominal RCs if they die in her arms (its seems when such convert to become conservative evangelicals that the most angst is often shown).
PBJ, you're making it ever clearer that you have not read my response nor the full context of Pope Francis' recent interview. If you had, you would see this perspicuity you're looking for in comments like: " The church’s ministers must be merciful, take responsibility for the people and accompany them like the good Samaritan, who washes, cleans and raises up his neighbor. This is pure Gospel. God is greater than sin. The structural and organizational reforms are secondary—that is, they come afterward. The first reform must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost."And... “We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound." And... “The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you."
DeleteI fail to see a lack of perspicuity here, perhaps you could be more clear on what you're not understanding?
AMDG,
Scott<<<
PBJ, you're making it ever clearer that you have not read my response nor the full context of Pope Francis' recent interview. If you had, you would see this perspicuity you're looking for in comments like:.. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you."
DeleteAll the scrambling attempts to explain the words of Francis testifies to need for Catholics to interpret their Interpreter, and his words here actually illustrates the lack of perspicuity in papal "preaching of the gospel." Which often consists of ambiguous references to God's mercy in Christ.
Here the pope makes 14 ambiguous references to the gospel, except to describes it in social terms:
"The church’s ministers must be merciful, take responsibility for the people and accompany them like the good Samaritan, who washes, cleans and raises up his neighbor. This is pure Gospel."
Proclaiming "the Gospel on every street corner" is described as such things as healing the "‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them." Which it has and must.
To be sure, showing the mercy of God in temporal matters is an expression of gospel love, and is conducive to conversion, but besides social acts of mercy usually taking upon a life of their own, it not what Scripture describes as the actual preaching of the gospel. Which (as needed) labors to convict lost souls that they are damned because of their sins, and rejecting the Son sent by the Father to save them, or the light that would led them to Him, and destitute of any merit that would earn them eternal life. And thus must cast all their faith upon the risen Lord Jesus, to save them by His sinless shed blood.
Show me some papal proclamations of the gospel that are as concise and clear as seen in Acts 2, 10, 13.
Of course, RC salvation begins with being born again (usually) via sprinkling in recognition of proxy faith, which is the basis them being henceforth treated as members in life and in death, and it typically ends with becoming good enough to enter glory in Purgatory. And in so doing it fosters faith in the power and merits of Rome to ultimately save them. And i speak as a former RC who became manifestly born again (evangelical radio helping much), but remained therein for 6 years (i knew of no other church and worked at lot) as a weekly mass-going RCs, who experienced the profound difference btwn institutionalized religion and evangelical faith.
More current papal quotes (social gospel) for RCAs to either criticize or explain as supporting what they support - despite them sounding different in doing so:
ReplyDelete"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good."
"Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."
"You know what I think about this? Heads of the Church [likely TRC heroes] have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers. The court is the leprosy of the papacy."
"I went to university. I also had a teacher for whom I had a lot of respect and developed a friendship and who was a fervent communist. She often read Communist Party texts to me and gave them to me to read..."Her materialism had no hold over me. But learning about it through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized a few things, an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church."
"...when I meet a clericalist, I suddenly become anti-clerical. Clericalism should not have anything to do with Christianity. St. Paul, who was the first to speak to the Gentiles [Peter was], the pagans, to believers in other religions, was the first to teach us that."
Can I ask you, Your Holiness, which saints you feel closest to in your soul, those who have shaped your religious experience?
"St. Paul is the one who laid down the cornerstones of our religion and our creed [the pope substitutes Paul for Peter. When did you see a TRC say that? Closet Prot?]. You cannot be a conscious Christian without St. Paul. He translated the teachings of Christ into a doctrinal structure that, even with the additions of a vast number of thinkers, theologians and pastors, has resisted and still exists after two thousand years. Then there are Augustine, Benedict and Thomas and Ignatius. Naturally Francis. Do I need to explain why?"
We were silent for a moment, then I said: we were talking about the saints that you feel closest to your soul and we were left with Augustine. Will you tell me why you feel very close to him?
"Even for my predecessor Augustine is a reference point. That saint went through many vicissitudes in his life and changed his doctrinal position several times...he is not, as many would argue, a continuation of Paul. Indeed, he sees the Church and the faith in very different ways than Paul, perhaps four centuries passed between one and the other. "
"This is the beginning of a Church with an organization that is not just top-down but also horizontal."
" I have already said that the Church will not deal with politics...The Church will never go beyond its task of expressing and disseminating its values, at least as long as I'm here."
But that has not always being the case with the Church.
"It has almost never been the case. Often the Church as an institution has been dominated by temporalism and
Thanks PBJ. This comment is telling: "Even for my predecessor Augustine is a reference point. That saint went through many vicissitudes in his life and changed his doctrinal position several times...he is not, as many would argue, a continuation of Paul. Indeed, he sees the Church and the faith in very different ways than Paul, perhaps four centuries passed between one and the other. "
DeleteEspecially when you consider Warfield's statement to the effect that the Reformation was basically Augustine's view of grace vs his ecclesiology. We know that the ecclesiology changed!