Pope Francis (can We Have A Sensible Discussion?)

[Lil Red]

From Fr. Longenecker (whom I find usually to be a breath of fresh air in these types of discussions):

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/03/is-pope-francis-a-liturgical-liberal.html

 

Everyone should stop and take a deep breath and get a sense of priorities. I am myself, on the more traditionalist side of the liturgy wars. I dislike anodyne, sentimental church music, a game show host style of priestly celebration, tacky day-glo vestments and the whole modernist dumbed down liturgical style. I’m all for the Spirit of the Liturgy and reverence and beauty in the liturgy. I’m down on big round churches, sloppy servers and feel good homilies in the style of a Hallmark card.

 

However, there are permissible variations in the way Mass is celebrated. Pope Francis may well turn out to be more “low church” and folksy in his style. That doesn’t mean he is going to ban the Latin Mass. He may be more informal and personable in his celebration of Mass. That doesn’t mean he’s going to send his liturgical police to confiscate all the lacy cottas and birettas in the world. Just because he wears a chasuble with grapes and wheat on it doesn’t mean he’s going to make everybody sing Eagle’s Wings every Sunday.

 

There are a couple of things to remember here. First of all, in the United States the liturgy wars are part of a bigger cultural divide within the American Catholic church. Liberal liturgy very often also means liberal theology. Often the big box Catholic Churches with their praise bands and “gather them in” style are also full of cafeteria Catholics and left wing Obama-voting ideologues, while the traddy congregations are full of right wing members of the John Birch society with “You’ll get my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from around it” bumper stickers on their cars. (I’m exaggerating to make a point). Naturally, therefore, the liturgy starts being about much more than the liturgy…

 

In the developing world however, the more informal modes of worship are much more of a general cultural phenomenon. An informal style there doesn’t necessarily carry all the baggage it does here. Just because a priest, bishop or pope is a bit more informal in his style of celebrating doesn’t mean he is a theological liberal or will compromise the faith. Indeed, everything about Pope Francis indicates that he is not only completely orthodox in theology and moral teaching, but that he has suffered for being so.

====================

i've only quoted a small snippet of a long-ish article, so check out the rest. :)

[KnightofChrist]

I'm still too upset about Pope St Pius V changing the papal garb to white to be upset about anything Francis has or hasn't done yet. 

 

It was already white long before his time.

[Apotheoun]

I think Fr. Z's article - posted by Noel a while back - is helpful, because in Catholic tradition the signs of office are not meant to glorify the individual who has assumed authority, but are a sign of respect to the office regardless of the personal traits of the occupant of the position in question. In a sense, the visible signs of papal authority that are traditionally associated with the bishop of Rome are meant to help the man who has been burdened with that office to transcend himself. As I said, it is a good article and well worth reading.

[BG45]

You know, I am reminded of a story as the disagreements continue to abound on both sides of the issue.  One, which really shows how the papacy transforms the man who takes the office, for good or for ill. 

 

General Belisarius was a Byzantine General, acting on orders from Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora, who deposed Pope Silverius when recapturing Rome from the Goths and installed Pope Vigilius instead. Vigilius had schemed with Theodora and her fellow heretics in exchange for being crowned Pope (elected at sword point) and had sworn to defend the heresy Theodora was involved in and to make it official Church doctrine. The moment he ascended to the papacy, he turned his back on the heresy he had been supporting and outlawed its practices throughout the Church.

 

Perhaps everyone should stop worrying and let God know the heart of His Servant of Servants and pray for the Holy Father to do the will of our Heavenly Father.

[PhuturePriest]

I'm still too upset about Pope St Pius V changing the papal garb to white to be upset about anything Francis has or hasn't done yet. 

 

Dear goodness. It's almost as if a Pope changed a simple tradition and the Church didn't fall into ruin.

[franciscanheart]

I don't have an issue with Franciscans. Anyone or any group that chooses to emphasize humility will run the risk of false humility. 
 
The moment you think you finally have humility is the same moment you've lost it. It is a virtue that is difficult to rate in oneself let alone in other people. Maybe Pope Benedict wore fancy shoes/clothes/rings out of vanity. Or maybe he was being humble in submitting to tradition. Maybe Pope Francis eschews these things because he is humble - or maybe he's making a point that he has power to change things (watch out Curia, coming for you next!) or maybe he's just indulging his personal preferences.
 
The Christian thing to do is to assume the best motives.
 
But if you have many people in public loudly praising your humility, well there is where angels fear to tread. Teresa of Calcutta had to endure that as well. When people clapped for her she saw so many little devils giving her applause.

I actually imagine he doesn't see most of the reports praising his humility. I imagine he's much like Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, and that she's smiling down on this humble servant of the Lord. 
 

Being somewhat perplexed by your statement I will only add, we are all God's fools.

Perplexed? I didn't mean to be vague. How may I clarify?

[Roamin Catholic]

It was already white long before his time.

 

 

Regardless; you are missing the point. Traditions change/were started by someone. 

 

A lot of people in these threads are behaving as if the traditions he isn't following were started by St Peter himself.

[Lil Red]

You know, I am reminded of a story as the disagreements continue to abound on both sides of the issue.  One, which really shows how the papacy transforms the man who takes the office, for good or for ill. 

 

General Belisarius was a Byzantine General, acting on orders from Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora, who deposed Pope Silverius when recapturing Rome from the Goths and installed Pope Vigilius instead. Vigilius had schemed with Theodora and her fellow heretics in exchange for being crowned Pope (elected at sword point) and had sworn to defend the heresy Theodora was involved in and to make it official Church doctrine. The moment he ascended to the papacy, he turned his back on the heresy he had been supporting and outlawed its practices throughout the Church.

 

Perhaps everyone should stop worrying and let God know the heart of His Servant of Servants and pray for the Holy Father to do the will of our Heavenly Father.

 

love this, BG. :)

[KnightofChrist]

Perplexed? I didn't mean to be vague. How may I clarify?

 

I do not know. I don't know what you really meant, only you know.
 

[Roamin Catholic]

I do not know. I don't know what you really meant, only you know.
 

 

 

And we don't know what Pope Francis means by his actions. Only he does. 

[franciscanheart]

I do not know. I don't know what you really meant, only you know.

I meant exactly what I said. If you think of some way for me to clarify, I'd be happy to.

[KnightofChrist]

Regardless; you are missing the point. Traditions change/were started by someone. 

 

A lot of people in these threads are behaving as if the traditions he isn't following were started by St Peter himself.

 

It's still an important fact. Pope Saint Pius V didn't start the tradition, it grew slowly over time. Traditions grows slowly through out time, and should not be suddenly lost. I don't believe anyone is behaving in the manner you accuse.

[BG45]

love this, BG. :)

 

Thanks!  i do feel as if I did a bit of a disservice to Belisarius though.  He nearly reunited the Roman Empire and probably would have, had Justinian and Theodora not continually sacked him from his position every time they got scared with the thought of their army being more loyal to him than them.  Even so, time after time, he would take up his sword once more in defense of his leaders and his empire.  When Constantinople came under siege, he drove back the enemy forces with a much smaller army and pushed them far into their own territory before stopping.  In him, there was a man that Justinian rightly feared, for the throne could have easily been his, but he was too loyal to ever think of taking it.

 

But then he just had to depose Pope Silverius... :|  (Who died later btw, he refused to kill the deposed Pope.)

[KnightofChrist]

I meant exactly what I said. If you think of some way for me to clarify, I'd be happy to.

 

I suppose it doesn't really concern me greatly who the ignorant would be in your statement because we are all God's fools.
 

[Apotheoun]

You know, I am reminded of a story as the disagreements continue to abound on both sides of the issue.  One, which really shows how the papacy transforms the man who takes the office, for good or for ill. 

 

General Belisarius was a Byzantine General, acting on orders from Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora, who deposed Pope Silverius when recapturing Rome from the Goths and installed Pope Vigilius instead. Vigilius had schemed with Theodora and her fellow heretics in exchange for being crowned Pope (elected at sword point) and had sworn to defend the heresy Theodora was involved in and to make it official Church doctrine. The moment he ascended to the papacy, he turned his back on the heresy he had been supporting and outlawed its practices throughout the Church.

 

Perhaps everyone should stop worrying and let God know the heart of His Servant of Servants and pray for the Holy Father to do the will of our Heavenly Father.

It should be borne in mind that although Pope Vigilius did not end up supporting the Monophysite heretics as Empress Theodora desired, he did have Nestorian leanings, which is practically speaking the opposite heresy of the one endorsed by Theodora. Not only that, he also initially rejected the canons of the Fifth Ecumenical Council because they condemned certain Nestorian texts and authors, but was later - reluctantly - forced to accept the canons and under pressure finally condemned the Three Chapters, and several other theological texts that promoted the Nestorian error. Of course today the Fifth Ecumenical Council is docilely accepted in all the Catholic Churches, both of the West and the East.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Apotheoun