Posted on 10/02/2013 2:46:20 AM PDT by SkyPilot
Pope Francis cranked up his charm offensive on the world outside the Vatican on Tuesday, saying in the second widely shared media interview in two weeks that each person “must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them” and calling efforts to convert people to Christianity “solemn nonsense.”
The Vatican’s head seemed intent on distancing himself from its power, saying church leaders “have often been narcissists” and “clericalism should not have anything to do with Christianity.”
The interview with atheist Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari set off another round of debate about what the pope meant: Was he saying that people can make up their own minds, even if they disagree with church teachings? Or was this self-described “son of the church” just using casual language to describe classic church teaching about how people need to come to Catholic doctrine of their free will?
A top official with the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, took the unprecedented step of rebuking Francis, writing that the pope’s interview was “a theological wreck” and that Francis was dabbling dangerously in relativism.
“What these interviews seem continually to do is what evangelical theologian Carl Henry warned Protestants of in the 20th century, of severing the love of God from the holiness of God,” wrote the Rev. Russell Moore, a past dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and head of the convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “We must speak with tenderness and gentleness, but with an authoritative word from God.”
Some conservative Catholics were also taken aback by the interview.
“My e-mail is filled with notes from people who need to be talked off the ledge,” wrote the Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, author of one of the more popular blogs for Catholic conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Indeed, Adam and Eve decided for themselves what was good and evil, and look at how that turned out.
Now will come the flurry of interpretations, explanations, translations, evaluations and ruminations.
In modern times, “proselytism” has acquired the meaning of disrespectful, aggressive, intrusive, crass propagandizing. This was the sense in which the Pope was using the word.
In the Catholic world (and the Pope is a Catholic), the term used for respectful sharing of the Gospel, which includes teaching by quiet example, is “evangelization.”
The notion that the Holy Spirit chooses the Pope, and the Cardinals are infallible, is widespread. And it is a superstition.
Interesting considering how many Catholics claim that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church. If the Catholic church truly is the OTC (One True Church) and the men are really guided by the Holy Spirit, and it is protected by Him, then how does the *wrong man* get elected pope?
It kind of blows out of the water any claims of papal succession.
The wrong man? Really?
Just in case anyone was wondering what she thinks of Francis.
Please note: I said that the election of the Pope is NOT a function of the Magisterium. It has nothing to do with the content of the Faith, or the teaching of the Faith.
Whether a man was the “wrong” man is a highly subjective judgment. It’s a judgment that, in HINDSIGHT, it’s safe to make about some Popes.
Regardless, any man elected by the College of Cardinals, who accepts the office, is Pope.
Yes, the wrong man can indeed be elected Pope. Even a quick study of the bad Popes throughout history will reveal to people this obvious truth.
The Holy Spirit prevents someone like Martin Luther from being elected Pope but He does not prevent Alexander VI from being Pope. So the Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals, but the Cardinals can reject the Holy Spirit for the most part.
When I examine my dictionaries I find no such definition of “proselytize”. Again let us use words to mean what they mean. No Owellian doublespeak.
If you are more interested in scoring points than in understanding what the Pope was talking about, that’s your choice.
The usual dictionary, such as Webster’s, is wholly unsuitable for deciphering the discourse of someone who is using terms of art in some specialized field. Many’s the time I’ve seen a theological discussion utterly bollixed up by someone who insists that every word must mean exactly what it says in Webster’s.
That’s why there are MEDICAL dictionaries, and THEOLOGICAL dictionaries, as well as Webster’s.
In the post following yours, LovedSinner wrote that the Cardinals' choice is guided by the Holy Spirit, but that "the Cardinals can reject the Holy Spirit for the most part", thus the "wrong man" can be picked Pope. Presumably, this "wrong Pope" can reject the Holy Spirit as well?
If that is the case, how did/does "papal infallibility" happen?
Below is a compilation of recent quotes by Francis that has RCAs either upset with the pope or explaining him as supporting what they support - despite them sounding different in doing so. See http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/09/scolding-pope-francis-naive-and.html for a variety.
I can say he seems to be a meek man and more relational than doctrinal, with some valid emphasis on balance, the heart and humility, but preaching a social gospel, not that seen in Acts, and much in contrast to the typical TRCs who fantasize the NT church was looking to a supreme infallible exalted head in Rome, and seem to long for a Boniface 8th type pope, and the Inquisitions and its means.
“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.” - - www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
“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 many members and senior Catholic leaders still feel this way.
“And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God..”
“Personally I think so-called unrestrained liberalism only makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker and excludes the most excluded. We need great freedom, no discrimination, no demagoguery and a lot of love. We need rules of conduct and also, if necessary, direct intervention from the state to correct the more intolerable inequalities.” -
www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/
Oh, put your shirt back on, Art. This was no interview for any specialized medical, theological, etc., audience and unless I missed it you’re not an interpreter for the Pope.
No word fits what Jesus did better than the word proselyte. Did some feel insulted? Yes. Jesus and his disciples were active preachers who sought converts, they proselytized!
I think “solemn nonsense” is what you’re trying to defend.
Papal infallibility only happens in very limited situations.
If you think the Cardinals pick the right man under the guidance of the Holy Spirit every time, then what about the times when the Papacy was bought and sold under simony? Were the Cardinals correct in taking bribes? Was the winning Cardinal who became Pope through simony the choice of the Holy Spirit??
Papal infallibility protects the Church from a bad Pope in terms of Church dogma and teaching, but not in terms of other scandals and sins. The Pope can engage in sexual relations, the Pope can buy and sell any Church office including his own, the Pope can live in the finest material splendor, but the Pope cannot change Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the Real Presence, or other teachings.
Popes who are public sinners can harm the Church gravely, and many will likely leave the Church due to scandals (just like the sex abuse crisis in the recent past has gravely hurt the Church), and many may ultimately go to Hell because of the bad Popes. In this way I say that the wrong man is often chosen. However, even the wrong man cannot change fundamental Church teachings, and these teachings never were changed. Contrast this to other religions, like Mormonism, which change fundamental beliefs frequently.
Welcome back, metmom!
How was vacay?
True dat!
As always Daniel1212, thank you for the effort you put forth and the research you do. God bless you!
Troll.
More teaching by quiet example? Or is “troll” one of those words with a special meaning?
You are determined to put the most negative spin possible on the Pope’s words. Your response to clarification is to throw around epithets—like “Orwellian.”
That’s a troll.
I love Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict (Papa Benedict) and Pope Francis.
;-)
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.