Interview With Pope Francis In America Magazine

[Apotheoun]

No, I don't think he was far less open to interpretation...I think that the media collectively decided to hate him and they collectively decided to like Pope Francis.  They could do the EXACT same thing to him.  Pope Benedict spoke with a firmness that seemed heartless to those who didn't understand, and Pope Francis speaks with an air of casualness that people don't understand either.  Pope John Paul II spoke with a gravity no one seemed to get when it came to solving problems.

 

But media LIKES this guy for who knows what reason.  I promise you, if they disliked him as much as they disliked Benedict, we'd be hearing criticism of how the Pope said that Catholics were so bad for not preaching the Gospel and how all he does is criticize how we go about things.

I find it interesting that the media seems to like Pope Francis.

 

I am quite open about the fact that I miss Pope Benedict. He really did love the liturgy, and that - probably more than anything - endeared him to me.

[AugustineA]

Is this what you're talking about with the EF?

 

 

Oh yeah, I missed that post Basilisa. The last sentence in particular, where he worries that the TLM will be used as an ideology or part thereof. On another forum, we were discussing how Father Francis banned the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate from performing the TLM. It was really upsetting! The Franciscans of the Immaculate are great. It seems like a few members complained.

 

Ultimately, he comissioned a member of the clergy outside the Franciscans in order to give them permission. It looks like they will get permission, or must get permission when requested. Nevertheless, it was really shocking. So I think the senses are a little aroused for traditionalists, and nerves maybe a little frayed.

 

Someone pointed out to me this morning that it's not worth too much time arguing over these things, because our faith is deeper than that. Popes have made mistake in the past, and even if it scandalizes some of the faithful, we ought to pray and take care of our souls within the greater depisot of faith. I thought that was good advice (and she was a traditionalist lol).

[blazeingstar]

I find it interesting that the media seems to like Pope Francis.

 

I am quite open about the fact that I miss Pope Benedict. He really did love the liturgy, and that - probably more than anything - endeared him to me.

 

It is interesting why they picked Pope Francis to love and glorify.  It's almost unnatural and creepy.  My fear is that it is also the American journalists who are doing most of the misintpretation of Francis' words.  I honestly think part of this is to distract us from domestic issues that are causing us harm.  The media seems to have dropped all the problems surrounding our current president (snowden, iraq, bengazi, fast and furious, even syria) to talk about how great the Pope is.

 

It makes me VERY afraid.  

 

I also wonder if they believe they can manipulate the Pope's words to get the loosy goosy Catholic in name only to vote for the far left without guilt.  Francis basically said he's tabling the issues and considers them non-starters and not his battle to fight all the flipping time.  The media (and most uneducated Catholics) now think that abortions, gay marriage and contraception is ok and that the church is focusing on other things.  That athiests can just stop by Heaven and that cohabitating couples have to be fully welcomed.  These are misconceptions that we understand (though, again, I'm concerned about the remnant faithful wilst taking on these folks)  So now, only those well educated Catholics are even going to have the foggiest about what we teach.

 

Not like I haven't heard all of those misinformed ideas from the pulpit anyway. :unsure:

[dUSt]

And it begins...

 

[attachment=3202:pope-cnn.jpg]

 

 

[blazeingstar]

Oh yeah, I missed that post Basilisa. The last sentence in particular, where he worries that the Traditional Latin Mass will be used as an ideology or part thereof. On another forum, we were discussing how Father Francis banned the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate from performing the Traditional Latin Mass. It was really upsetting! The Franciscans of the Immaculate are great. It seems like a few members complained.

 

Ultimately, he comissioned a member of the clergy outside the Franciscans in order to give them permission. It looks like they will get permission, or must get permission when requested. Nevertheless, it was really shocking. So I think the senses are a little aroused for traditionalists, and nerves maybe a little frayed.

 

Someone pointed out to me this morning that it's not worth too much time arguing over these things, because our faith is deeper than that. Popes have made mistake in the past, and even if it scandalizes some of the faithful, we ought to pray and take care of our souls within the greater depisot of faith. I thought that was good advice (and she was a traditionalist lol).

 

Considering everything that happened with other orders or high profile priests that took things too far....like how Fr. Coropi went off the deep end and how the legioniers of Christ seem to be involved in a number of scandles, I think that tightening control is not necessary a bad thing.  The friars are young, idealistic and very active.  That puts them at risk for fanaticism.  

 

TLM is good, but it is not the ordinary form.  I think that it is good he said no, even if TLM is good at times, in order to protect them from becoming a fringe group.  Their charism is FAR too important for them to close ranks around the way Mass is said.

[Apotheoun]

That is interesting and it would imply that the Second Vatican Council is also not ecumenical. What bothers me about all these dialogue agreements is that their method resembles Zeno's Henotikon, i.e. unity in ambiguity. Vague statements of faith everyone can agree on are not the way to go. Before the West can engage in ecumenism, it has to first accept itself.

In one sense you are right (i.e., about the henotikon), but in my own experience that is only true of the Catholic side in the dialogue, because I have no doubt that the Orthodox will never accept what they see as the theological innovations of the West. But hey, I am an ecumenical pessimist.

[Apotheoun]

The secular media, LGTB groups, and progressives of various stripes seem to be very pleased with Francis.

I have to admit that I do not see any possible way of bringing people to Christ while simultaneously ignoring their sinful behavior or worse by telling them it is okay to sin. Those who sin, as scripture says, are slaves to sin. Metanoia requires a change of mind, i.e., a real change of moral character by embracing what the ancient Church called the "way of life."

 

And here is what the Didache (a first century Christian text) teaches about the way of life:

 

"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not forswear yourself, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life."

[AugustineA]

And it begins...

 

pope-cnn.jpg

 

:pinch: *hugs catechism* whyyy...

[KnightofChrist]

And it begins...

pope-cnn.jpg

On the way home from work the radio media was buzzing that "the Pope says Catholics need to worry less about abortion and other social issues and more about making the Church welcoming for all." Edited September 19, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Not The Philosopher]

I have to admit that I do not see any possible way of bringing people to Christ while simultaneously ignoring their sinful behavior or worse by telling them it is okay to sin. Those who sin, as scripture says, are slaves to sin. Metanoia requires a change of mind, i.e., a real change of moral character by embracing what the ancient Church called the "way of life."

 

And here is what the Didache (a first century Christian text) teaches about the way of life:

 

"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not forswear yourself, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life."

 

I don't think anyone here is trying to downplay or whitewash the seriousness of sin, or the need for repentance. It's more that few people are converted merely by being told that the Church disapproves of their behavior, especially if they have difficulty seeing how their lives could even be changed in the way demanded of them. It seems more to me that people start giving up their sinful ways because they start falling in love with the Church and are willing to make the sacrifices required to make things work out.

 

Mind you, I'm not trying to say that Pope Francis' approach is necessarily the best way to go about things, or that there isn't in a lot of quarters a failure to take sin seriously; we all need some tough love. And, ultimately, not matter how tactfully you frame things, a lot of people will just not listen because of attachment to sin. There are always going to be people who run away from hard sayings that they need to hear. It's more that people need something more than hard sayings to subsist on.

[Apotheoun]

I don't think anyone here is trying to downplay or whitewash the seriousness of sin, or the need for repentance. It's more that few people are converted merely by being told that the Church disapproves of their behavior, especially if they have difficulty seeing how their lives could even be changed in the way demanded of them. It seems more to me that people start giving up their sinful ways because they start falling in love with the Church and are willing to make the sacrifices required to make things work out.

 

Mind you, I'm not trying to say that Pope Francis' approach is necessarily the best way to go about things, or that there isn't in a lot of quarters a failure to take sin seriously; we all need some tough love. And, ultimately, not matter how tactfully you frame things, a lot of people will just not listen because of attachment to sin. There are always going to be people who run away from hard sayings that they need to hear. It's more that people need something more than hard sayings to subsist on.

I guess it is a matter of interpretation. Pope Francis' remarks are open to different interpretations, which is why the news media is already producing sensationalist headlines. I only know this, the Apostolic Kerygma includes the moral teaching of the Church, and so it is not possible to preach Christ crucified and not simultaneously preach against the very vices and sins that made His sacrifice necessary in the first place.

[Vincent Vega]

I'm not convinced that Francis is doing more good than ill with these soundbytes he's giving. Those who don't have any idea about the teachings of the Roman Church (which, regrettably, includes many of the members thereof) could very easily believe that the things he's saying could be translated as what the media is portraying him as having said. I don't think he means them in that way -- and of course, the long-term results will remain to be seen -- but at the moment, these "loose lips" and sweeping statements seem to me to possibly be occasion for widespread scandal.

[Lilllabettt]

I have had a stomach ache about Papa since the thing with the spiritual bouquet.  It hurt my feelings, which ... maybe I don't have a right to have my feelings hurt by such a thing ... but there it is. I always say "he is being misunderstood" and of course he is ... that is some comfort ... but I wish he would talk so that interpretation was not necessary.  And the thing is I agree on principal with the approach ... legalism is no way to do Christianity. But I did not see that we were in danger of becoming legalistic. Then again that is only the view from my little window... what do I know about the universal Church.

[dUSt]

Devout Catholics will not become bad Catholics because of how he says things. Lukewarm Catholics may stay lukewarm, and bad Catholics may stay bad. Oh well. The thing is though, people are talking about the Church, and the Pope, and it's not negative. Praise the Lord.

[Nihil Obstat]

Devout Catholics will not become bad Catholics because of how he says things. Lukewarm Catholics may stay lukewarm, and bad Catholics may stay bad. Oh well. The thing is though, people are talking about the Church, and the Pope, and it's not negative. Praise the Lord.

That is not what we want though, is it?

[Maggyie]

I think the Pope's words would be great if they were designed just for practicing Catholics, like most are on Phatmass. I think we "trying to be devout" Catholics DO tend to be legalistic, put the cart before the horse, focus on contraception and gay marriage and excellent liturgy etc to the detriment of the Gospel message.

 

But for 90% of the Catholic world, that's not the problem we have.

 

And then, for instance, right to life IS the gospel message - because we are loved by God we have dignity, and because we have dignity we can't be discarded like trash, no matter how small we are. I know sometimes the pro-life movement stinks at explaining that.

 

When he said "I am a son of the Church" it almost came off like he was saying "this is the way it is, sure I would change it if I could, but I'm loyal to mama, see."

 

Maybe it's just the translation. I'm sure it's just the translation.

[Basilisa Marie]

Devout Catholics will not become bad Catholics because of how he says things. Lukewarm Catholics may stay lukewarm, and bad Catholics may stay bad. Oh well. The thing is though, people are talking about the Church, and the Pope, and it's not negative. Praise the Lord.

 

:clap3:

[4588686]

People see Pope Francis and they see someone who doesn't have a creepy fixation on the sex lives of his supporters or a strangely masochistic need to fee persecuted while being the head of an immensely wealthy and politically powerful organization. People who love thinking about sodomy and yearn to be whipped (by the world, metaphorically) may find this distasteful.

[dUSt]

That is not what we want though, is it?

 

What do we want? To spread the message of Christ to Catholics? To spread the message of Christ to an increasingly secularized world? Maybe he's not the pope for the former, but he seems to be doing a pretty good job of the latter.

[Basilisa Marie]

I think the Pope's words would be great if they were designed just for practicing Catholics, like most are on Phatmass. I think we "trying to be devout" Catholics DO tend to be legalistic, put the cart before the horse, focus on contraception and gay marriage and excellent liturgy etc to the detriment of the Gospel message.

 

But for 90% of the Catholic world, that's not the problem we have.

 

And then, for instance, right to life IS the gospel message - because we are loved by God we have dignity, and because we have dignity we can't be discarded like trash, no matter how small we are. I know sometimes the pro-life movement stinks at explaining that.

 

When he said "I am a son of the Church" it almost came off like he was saying "this is the way it is, sure I would change it if I could, but I'm loyal to mama, see."

 

Maybe it's just the translation. I'm sure it's just the translation.

 

See, I thought the comment "son of the Church" wasn't just a "oh I'd change it if I could." I took it as a affirmation that OF COURSE he believes in the Church's teachings.  He strikes me as one of those people who just doesn't think we have to be talking about abortion, contraception, and gay marriage all day every day.  I often get the distinct impression (not from you, but others) that if I'm not volunteering my free time at my local pro-life club, read LifeSiteNews daily, and constantly inform my gay friends that they're going to hell that I'm not Catholic enough to be Catholic.  There's a weird, McCarthy-esque attitude a lot of hardcore pro-lifers have, that how hard you pro-life is how good of a Catholic you are.  We need people who feel passionate about being pro-life, gay issues, whatever. But I think we need to check to make sure we're spreading the Gospel first, before everything else. Certainly you can do that through being pro-life, that should go without saying.  But I for one get frustrated when being pro-life and anti-gay marriage start sounding like the only things that matter in how we live our faith.  And if those are the only things we talk  about, are we really spreading the Gospel? Idk, something to think about.