Posted on 07/25/2016 10:52:03 AM PDT by marshmallow
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has decided to scrap a previously scheduled official discourse to Polish bishops on the first day of his apostolic journey to Poland, in favour of a private encounter with them during which the Pope and the bishops will be able to listen to each other and converse in total freedom.
Speaking to Vatican Radio, Father Federico Lombardi SJ, Director of the Holy See Press Office, explained that the Pope wants the occasion to be as spontaneous and authentic as possible: a moment in which the bishops and the Pope will be at ease and free to exchange opinions and ask questions.
Lombardi pointed out that in fact there have been no real changes to the schedule; rather, he said, the Pope has made it clear that the formula he prefers in these occasions – and it is the one he has most often resorted to during his apostolic journeys – is that of a “familiar encounter and of dialogue”.
Thus, Lombardi said, Pope Francis has no intention of addressing the bishops with a grand speech: he wants to talk to them, listen to what they have to say and possibly answer the questions they will be asking in a climate of absolute serenity.
This is the reason, he explained, it has been decided there will be no live television broadcast of the event which will be conducted in a fraternal atmosphere.
Lombardi also recalled that the Pope made exactly the same choice during his visits to the United States, to Mexico, to the African and Latin American countries he visited, when he was in Cuba and even when speaking to his brothers of the Italian Episcopal Conference.
Finally, Lombardi pointed out: “it is not that he is afraid of the media; that we know for sure!”
(Excerpt) Read more at en.radiovaticana.va ...
Although the transcript of that conversation is not visible on any Vatican website, it is certainly visible on the website of La Republica (in Italian, of course). HERE it is.
And here is the passage in question:
Che cosa accade a quell'anima spenta? Sarà punita? E come?
La riposta di Francesco è netta e chiara: non c'è punizione ma l'annullamento di quell'anima. Tutte le altre partecipano alla beatitudine di vivere in presenza del Padre. Le anime annullate non fanno parte di quel convito, con la morte del corpo il loro percorso è finito e questa è la motivazione della Chiesa missionaria: salvare i perduti. Ed è anche la ragione per cui Francesco è gesuita fino in fondo.
And the English translation?
“What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how?
The response of Francis is distinct and clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished.”
Now....in fairness to Francis, it must be remembered that Scalfari does not takes notes and regurgitates the whole thing from memory, so there's certainly that to consider....
But even so, could Scalfari have Francis' words that wrong and twisted.....??
I have made no mention of the Immaculate Conception on this thread. Your diversion tactic is obvious, as is your position as a schismatic Orthodox of a church that believes in divorce and remarriage, up to three times.
Your church will give communion to those in their third marriage, with the two former spouses still living; yet it will refuse giving it to a chaste Roman Catholic in a state of grace, and now you try to butt into the Catholic Church’s affairs once again?
And I understand Mrs. Don-o’s animosity towards my posts as she’s married to a schismatic.
According to LifeSite News --- which I consider a reliable source:
"The most recent interview, published March 15, is no exception. In it Scalfari has the pope denying hell. (Following is a quote from Scalfari, not from Pope Francis but attributed to Francis.)The text does not have quotation marks around any of the statements attributed to the Holy Father."
It was removed from the Vatican website.
Troubling, yes; obviously AGAIN a matter of designed gas-lighting and plausible deniability. I consider this contemptible in anyone, including Jorge Bergoglio. But again, it's not making a doctrine out of heresy. You can't "make doctrine" out of an interview in which "journalist" Scalfari neither made a recording nor even took notes (!!), but literally (!) fabricated (!) quotes (!)
Which was exactly as the Pope permitted it to play out. The more shame on him. But it's obfuscation and gaslighting, not the formulation of heretical doctrine.
It goes to show that you can corrupt Catholic pastoral practice, and even corrupt Catholic culture, without taking a meat-axe to Catholic doctrine per se, which still has its ghostly existence on the yellowing pages of the Catechism.
Maddening.
You have no business speculating about my husband's faith, and I must insist that you leave him out of this.
Your husband has communicated with me both on line and off line. When you side with schismatics on questioning my sources, expect results.
Jimmy Akin is a schismatic?
Oh, well here's what you said " He has opined that the Blessed Mother, conceived without sin, may have despaired and questioned God." You of course meant some other sort of conception perhaps?
The practice of the Orthodox Church to give communion to Orthodox Christians who have divorced and remarried with the permission of their bishop is older than the Latin practice to the contrary. As for refusing to give communion to a Latin in a state of grace, that is true. The Latin Church apparently views communion as a means towards unity with the East while we view it as the perfect example of that unity. Until the Latin Church reunites with the Eastern Church, intercommunion, for us, is a lie.
You make a habit of calling Orthodox Christians "schismatics". You know, I don't think I have ever heard an Orthodox Christian call Latins "schismatics", despite the fact that there is plainly a schism. Do you feel that epithet adds something to the discussion? Given the innovations which have marked the last 1200 years or so of Latin Church theology and ecclesiology, innovations which have had, shall we say, "consequences" for Christianity, I should think you'd want to avoid throwing verbal rocks. Just imagine what Eastern Christian theologians could call you Latins!
et, you should understand that I couldn't possibly care less what the rules are in the Latin Church. Those are your rules, not ours. I don't sit up nights worrying about the Latin Church or Latin Christians any more than I do about the Eastern Church or Orthodox Christians but I confess that I am concerned when I see the exploding heads on the FR Latin side every time the pope, whom we Orthodox like very much just as we liked BXVI, opens his mouth. I appreciate that you have no way to resolve your issues with this pope; you can't get rid of him the way we can get rid of an errant hierarch. That said, do you honestly think that an unrelenting crusade against this pope on an American conservative website's religion board is going to accomplish anything even remotely positive?
So, like Pope Francis with his muslim immigrants, you prefer to ignore another elephant in the room?
I confess that I am concerned when I see the exploding heads on the FR Latin side every time the pope, whom we Orthodox like very much just as we liked BXVI, opens his mouth.
If y'all like these popes so much, why don't you join their Church?
Who's "we"?
You? The Greek Orthodox Church? The Russian Orthodox? Orthodoxy in it's entirety?
To use a phrase which apparently is a favorite of yours...."you got a cite for that?"
My reading of Orthodox news sites indicates no such universal admiration for Francis. I'm talking genuine admiration here, and not the perverse enjoyment of schaudenfreude owing to the suffering and confusion which he is inflicting on "the Latins".
Explain to us why you at least, like Francis. We're all ears.
“You? The Greek Orthodox Church? The Russian Orthodox? Orthodoxy in it’s entirety?”
The three churches I know the most about, Constantinople, Antioch and Greece, have great admiration for +BXVI and +Francis, the former for his theology (one hierarch called him the first”Father of the Church” since the 14th century) and the latter on account of his practice of economia. I know this because of “stuff” that I do and did with those churches.
I don’t have the contacts with Moscow that I used to have but it appears the MP likes the present pope from what I have read.
The admiration is genuine, I assure you. I am unaware if anyone in tose churches who takes a sort of perverse joy in the reaction of some to +Francis.
As for me, the whole concept of economia, and its counterpart akriva, are fundamental to the Orthodox phronema. That phronema is part of our identity, a major part, as Orthodox Christians. I recognize that in +Francis and rejoice in it in much the same way I recognized the patristic theology and rejoiced at the election of +BXVI
You believe I am ignoring the schism because I don't call Latins schismatics? I don't see anything constructive coming from calling you folks schismatics.
“If y'all like these popes so much, why don't you join their Church?”
I'm happy where I am. I like the Dalai Lama too, but I'm not about to become a Buddhist. I am close to and admire greatly a man who was the Chief Rabbi of Budapest but I'm not about to become Jewish either.
OK, let's start with economia.
Explain to us a little more about economia.
What is it and how does Francis practice it?
We'll get to Francis' attitude to theology and liturgy and tradition later.
Cite a source, any source, please.
Here’s one explanation of the orthodox weird concept of ecomania:
“While the [orthodox] Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.”
“In the answer that was given the principle of economia (“the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people”) was being emphasized.”
https://oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage1
In other words, the orthodox church allows adultery, supposedly “in concern for the salvation of its people”, as if that’s possible. So that’s why they like Francis so much. Why they limit the number of adulterous remarriages to three has yet to be explained.
>>In Orthodox eyes, there is simply no original guilt for Mary to be made innocent of. Which is also why we have no Limbo for infants who die unbaptised, which was also at one time the usual teaching of the Western Catholic Church.<<
>>Often those advocating the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, have sought to discover it in Orthodox writers of the Middle Ages or in Orthodox hymns.<<
>>Orthodox writers who often refer to Mary as having been “prepared,” and “sanctified,” and who hail her as the “immaculate one,” are thinking in the context of the Orthodox view of original sin, not the Western. None of these writers put forth a claim that Mary was immortal – which necessarily follows for those who accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It does not fit in the context of the Orthodox view of original sin.<<
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/Orthodox-view-on-Immaculate-Conception.aspx
And you wonder why I consider you to be a schismatic. If, as the above quote, says, “In Orthodox eyes, there is simply no original guilt for Mary to be made innocent of”, why do you deny Her Immaculate Conception?
Explain to us a little more about economia."
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you....It's just too beautiful at the pond this time of year to spend time on the internet and in any case, the cottage is pretty much a computer free zone!
One of the first things to understand about Orthodoxy is that we take very seriously, fundamentally if you will, St. John Chrysostomos instruction that "The Church is a hospital, and not a courtroom, for souls. She does not condemn on behalf of sins, but grants remission of sins." Economia is, in part, a result of that concept of The Church.
Pat. Bartholomeus, when he was still a Metropolitan, observed various synodal attempts to define "economia" with any precision will fail "because economia is something that is rather experienced than described and defined…in the Orthodox Church, in which it is a characteristic and ancient privilege." That has certainly been my personal experience and at my age, I've had plenty of it. Economia is part of living as an Orthodox Christian in a fallen world.
The foregoing notwithstanding, here is a short but accurate, as far as it can be, discussion of economia from a Roumanian pov:
"In the Eastern Orthodox and in the teaching of the Church Fathers which undergirds the theology of those Churches, economy or oeconomy (Greek: οικονόμια, economia ) has several meanings.(1) The basic meaning of the word is "handling" or disposition" or "management" of a thing, usually assuming or implying good or prudent handling (as opposed to poor handling) of the matter at hand. As such, the word "economia", and the concept attaching to it, are utilized especially with regard to two types of "handling": (a) divine economia, that is, God's "handling" or "management" of the fallen state of the world and of mankind — the arrangements he made in order to bring about man's salvation after the fall; and (b) what might be termed pastoral economia (or) ecclesiastical economia, that is, the Church's "handling" or "management" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues that have arisen through the centuries of Church history.
Referring to the ecclesiastical economia:
In one sense, it refers to the discretionary power given to the Church by Christ himself, in order to manage and govern the Church. Christ referred to this when he gave the Apostles the authority to "bind and to loose" (Matthew 16:19, 18:18), and this authority in turn was transmitted to the bishops who came after the Apostles.
In this sense "economia" means, as already noted, "handling", "management", "disposition". In general then, "economia" refers to pastoral handling or discretion or management in a neutral sense.
But it also can take two specific forms: it can be "exact" ("precise", "strict"), which means the usual or general rule is followed precisely; or it can be "lenient" (a loosening or modification of that usual or general rule). The former is called "economia according to strictness (exactness)" and the latter, "economia according to leniency." Economia according to leniency — a modification in the application of the usual rule — has always been done when, in the judgment of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 15:28, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us") this would result in the wider salvation of souls through the extension of God's mercy.
In later usage of the terms, "economia" came to be used as a synonym for "economia according to leniency" — that is, a deviation from the exactness of the usual rule — often involving a practice that indeed appears more "lenient." At the same time, the newer terminology speaks simply of "exactness" (or "strictness") instead of "economia according to exactness (strictness)". Thus in this more recent use of terms, the dichotomy "economia according to leniency" vs. "economia according to exactness (strictness, preciseness)," is replaced by "economia" versus "strictness" ("exactness", "preciseness"). The norm, the normal case, is called akriveia (preciseness, exactness, strictness, that is, precise or strict adherence to the standards), while its opposite is economia (leniency,).
It is important to observe that when economia is correctly used and applied (that is, as a modification in the application of the usual rule) such correct application of economia itself is one of the rules. Thus, if one speaks of "bending", "suspending", "dispensing with", "relaxing" the usual rule, one should bear in mind that such descriptions could be misleading, since the correct use of economy is always done in accordance with the rule of Christ, and never contrary to it. This brings up the general principle that in the Church all canons and laws exist in subjection to the rule of Christ — that is to say, His commandments, teachings, and precepts.
Economia is, therefore, in one sense, a bishop's discretionary power to dispense with the ordinary church discipline, or the strict application of the ordinary rules or "canons", of the Church, as they are called.(2) This is because, while the canons are laws (rules) that governn the Church, their provisions do not always precisely cover every situation that might come up; thus their application may at times need to be modified. Such dispensations are made with a view towards putting the spirit before the letter and helping the cause of the salvation of souls.
In this understanding, Orthodox Church economia is the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations in the governing and the life of the Church, without subsequently compromising the dogmatic limitations. The application of economia only takes place through the official church authorities and is only applicable for a particular case.
The Eastern Orthodox Church intends this concept to have the result that Love, Mercy, and Compassion remain more in control than absolute law."
Stefan-Ioan Stratul
Romanian Orthodox church – March 2009
Like most of Orthodoxy, though, it needs to be lived, not read about. It becomes part of us, as much as our flesh and blood.
As for +Francis, he looks to some of us as being a hierarch who understands the concept of economia and for the sake of the lives of the faithful and the salvation of their souls, wants to fully embrace +John Chrysostomos' definition of The Church. It's all very Orthodox and not, at least from my pov, Latin. I know I have said this before, but it bears repeating. My wife, a convert, was once asked by the Geronda of the monastery outside my maternal village "What is the difference between the Church in The West and The Church in the East." She replied, "Oh, Mother, that's easy. In the West The Church says 'Do this or you'll go to hell". In the East The Church says 'Do this and you will become like God." That difference alone may explain why "economia" is a concept and a praxis which seems to cause such heartburn in the West.
“So permitting Communion for those living in ongoing adulterous relationships would be an example of economia and something which the Orthodox would happily (perhaps already do) embrace? “
I have never seen that; in fact I have seen communion refused to people living in an ongoing adulterous relationship, so I don’t think that would be a subject of economia but I suppose a hierarch could do that, though he’d probably find himself without his crown soon enough.
You have seen that. I posted the Orthodox position on adulterous relationships in post #35. It was addressed to you.
Here it is again:
“While the [orthodox] Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.”
Or do you deny this tenet of orthodoxy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.