Amppax Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Like Saint Augustine. His past dictated how he performed his duties as a bishop, right? As much as I think this is a terrible argument, I had to prop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 As much as I think this is a terrible argument, I had to prop it. Argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I wanted some time to pass before I responded to your post. This is a serious topic and as charitably and sensitively as the author proceeds there is already a lot of emotion errupting (not pointing at you necessarily.) We are bound to enter into territory that will make people uncomfortable, and for those with a low threshold for what they consider "offensive" a forum rule is bound to be judged broken. Sudenly a person is seen as schismatic or a 'Pope hater', even though they are merely raising sincere points for discussion because some Catholics do have valid concerns. So with that said, I understand your dismay. Who cares that the Pope no longer wears red shoes and does his liturgies without the same decorum? I only read this far. What does the second half of that sentence have to do with this conversation? Methinks someone is injecting their own personal obsession into a conversation on a different topic. And I forget who said it, but the Holy Spirit doesn't choose the Pope. Alexander VI Borgia, etc. We've had bad Popes. NOT saying Pope Francis is a bad Pope, just that we aren't guaranteed a good one. I don't know where this quote is from, but one of my theology professors before the conclave said some thing along the lines of "Pray we don't get the pope that we deserve." (His actual statement was INCREDIBLY profound, I just can't remember it. It was more than that, I just can't remember the rest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I only read this far. What does the second half of that sentence have to do with this conversation? Methinks someone is injecting their own personal obsession into a conversation on a different topic. My own personal obsession? Interesting choice of words and read into my post. I had in mind some comments Fr Z made concerning Pope Francis' first mass, it relates to the overal topic which is a change in ecclesiastical tradition. But glad you made it that far into my post, a job well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Like Saint Augustine. His past dictated how he performed his duties as a bishop, right? You're missing the connection. St Augustine was a sinner who had a great transformation and later became a Bishop. What we're talking about is looking at a Bishop's record and discussing how well it will predict future actions. The latter is not absolute but it makes sense that if a Bishop were unfavorable to a particular practice he would also be unfavorable to it if he were relocated to another jurisdication. It is also possible that a change can take place, and sometimes worthy of being hoped for :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven77 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Mortify, i totally understand and sympathize with your concern. Prayer is key. Full story coming soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I wanted some time to pass before I responded to your post. This is a serious topic and as charitably and sensitively as the author proceeds there is already a lot of emotion errupting (not pointing at you necessarily.) We are bound to enter into territory that will make people uncomfortable, and for those with a low threshold for what they consider "offensive" a forum rule is bound to be judged broken. . . . Eastern Christians would agree with the overall thrust of your rather long post, even if some of them might not agree with certain particular traditions within the Roman Church. In the final analysis, a holistic approach to the faith, which rejects the desire for constant change, is the only means for both safe guarding and handing on the faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Mortify, i totally understand and sympathize with your concern. Prayer is key. Full story coming soon. I agree. At this point prayer - on the part of all - is the only possible response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 You're missing the connection. St Augustine was a sinner who had a great transformation and later became a Bishop. What we're talking about is looking at a Bishop's record and discussing how well it will predict future actions. The latter is not absolute but it makes sense that if a Bishop were unfavorable to a particular practice he would also be unfavorable to it if he were relocated to another jurisdication. It is also possible that a change can take place, and sometimes worthy of being hoped for :) Unfavorable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Unfavorable? un·fa·vor·a·ble /ˌənˈfÄv(É™)rÉ™bÉ™l/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 My own personal obsession? Interesting choice of words and read into my post. I had in mind some comments Fr Z made concerning Pope Francis' first mass, it relates to the overal topic which is a change in ecclesiastical tradition. But glad you made it that far into my post, a job well done! You've started at least one (I believe more) talking about Pope Francis and liturgical concerns. Most of the posts of yours I have seen in the past few days have in some way referenced that topic. This thread is about shoes. Different topic (which might connect somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 My statement is intentionally vague. Please do not attempt to clarify. It's almost as if you say what you say for a reason and you equally don't say what you don't say for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) I only read this far. What does the second half of that sentence have to do with this conversation? Methinks someone is injecting their own personal obsession into a conversation on a different topic. And I forget who said it, but the Holy Spirit doesn't choose the Pope. Alexander VI Borgia, etc. We've had bad Popes. NOT saying Pope Francis is a bad Pope, just that we aren't guaranteed a good one. I don't know where this quote is from, but one of my theology professors before the conclave said some thing along the lines of "Pray we don't get the pope that we deserve." (His actual statement was INCREDIBLY profound, I just can't remember it. It was more than that, I just can't remember the rest). Not to mention the Forbidden One again, but Michael Voris was saying every episode up to the election "Pray we get the Pope we need, not the Pope we deserve." Edited March 18, 2013 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) I really don't think that's the issue. It's more that we know certain things that have occured in the past and we wonder whether they will be extrapolated into the future. Yes, but do you "know," really? I personally have read so many contradicting rumors and statements that I am tempted to consider the whole collection of reports received thus far to be the product of a bizarre transnational game of telephone. I do "know" that people are presently very excitable, whipped up in a state of nervous agitation. Which makes everything appear amplified, and therefore distorted. For example: a friend of mine sent me a video of Marini being rebuffed by the Holy Father during Mass. "Look, look, look at how he's been treated!" Well, I watched it, and it was Marini leaning in to tell the Holy Father something, while he goes to kiss the altar and then turns away. Nothing of a rebuke there except what my friend was reading into it. HOLY FATHER DISSES CARDINAL or HOLY FATHER ZINGS MARINI. These headlines are a bit of a hysterical reaction I think. Which has at its foundation some very justifiable trepidation over unprecedented change and confrontation with the unknown. The apple cart has been turned over and it will be some time before it is set right again. Until then I'm afraid we may be rather uncomfortable. Edited March 18, 2013 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 un·fa·vor·a·ble /ˌənˈfÄv(É™)rÉ™bÉ™l/ I see. pride \ˈprÄ«d\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts