Pope Francis: "It gives me pleasure to have debates with conservative bishops"

summorum pontificum blog ^ | 10/7/14 | Brian Kopp

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Pope Francis: "It gives me pleasure to have debates with conservative bishops"

By Brian Kopp

This recent article in The Tablet pretty much confirms, if there were still any doubt, that Pope Francis does not consider himself a "conservative" within the Church. See area in bold:

Francis: Church must reach out a hand, not beat with a stick

06 October 2014 17:50

by Hannah Roberts in Rome

Pope Francis has stated that the Church “must not withdraw into dogma” and should recognise that “the world has changed”.

As the bishops prepared to begin discussions on issues relating to with the family, Francis indicated that he wanted clergy to be less judgmental and more understanding of those living outside Catholic norms.

He told an Argentinian newspaper: “The world has changed and the Church can not withdraw into supposed interpretations of dogma. We have to approach these social difficulties, both new and old, by extending a hand to give comfort, not by stigmatising and criticising people.”

His comments were published yesterday, the same day he celebrated a Mass to open the two-week Synod of Bishops which has as its theme “pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelisation”.

Francis told La Nacion that while there had been “a lot of emphasis” in the run-up to the Synod on the issue of the ban on Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, other concerns deserved attention as well, such as young people viewing cohabitation as preferable to marriage.

He said: “It is an issue that undoubtedly will be debated. But, for me, an equally important problem is the new habits of young people. Young people are not getting married. It is the culture of the time.”

He added: “What should the Church do? Expel them from their breast? Or approach them and try to bring them close and teach them the word of God? I am in favour of the latter position.”

Despite the conflicting opinions, bishops should speak freely at the synod he said, he said.

Francis said at the Synod of Bishops that took place in 2001 there was a cardinal who told them what you could say and what you couldn’t. He added: “That won’t happen this time.”

It was for that reason that he has given bishops the power to elect the presidents of their own conferences, he said.

Francis claimed he had no objection the publication of a book by five cardinals, including Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Apostolic Signatura, setting out their position against revising the prohibition on divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion.

He said: “Everyone has something to contribute. It gives me pleasure to have debates with conservative bishops when the arguments are intellectually well-formed.”

But he warned Catholics not to count on changes being announced at the end of this month’s meetings, which will be followed by a second synod next October. He said: “Don't expect a decision next week … This is only the initial push.”

One gets the real impression that some Synod members are asking us, in the name of mercy and compassion, to give a pass to this modern mass apostasy on matters of sexuality and marriage.

[BlueDragon]

Antonio Socci has a new book out this month with the thesis that the last conclave is null and void

Birtherism goes Roman now is it?

The voting at the conclave was rigged?

Just what is it?

Those pesky "Protestants" (whoever those guys are) have a Karl Rovian mind-control machine with which they beamed messages into the conclave

vote for the Jesuit

vote for the Jesuit

vote for the South American Jesuit???

Something like that?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Not at all. The theory is that if Pope Benedict XVI's resignation was in any way coerced, it was invalid according to Church law. Coercion can take many forms, including a threat of assassination. Remember this headline from 2012? Report Of Plot To Kill Pope Benedict XVI Is Untrue, Vatican Says

One theory is that Pope Benedict XVI resigned, not because he feared for his life, but because he feared for the chaos his assassination would cause for the Church. But that too would constitute a form of coercion, according to this theory.

I do not believe this theory but some rad Trads do.

If the Synod comes out with some heterodox actions or statements, however, this theory will instantly gain credibility among many orthodox Catholics.

[Arthur McGowan]

Francis hasn’t proved the conclave null by his words or actions. But he’s working on it.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Tell that to Giordano Bruno.

[IrishBrigade]

And what happens when he mounts The Chair and make an infallable statement?

...why don’t you tell us, and end the suspense...?

[vladimir998]

“It’s just a human institution.”

Nope. The Church is Christ’s Body.

“They all die and are replaced as well.”

Yes.

[vladimir998]

“And what happens when he mounts The Chair and make an infallable statement?”

1) I have no reason to believe he will since that has only happened twice since 1854.

2) If he is wrong, God will prevent it. It’s happened before. I have faith in God to protect the Church from every attack - even those from a pope.

[Bigg Red]

I guess the meaning of that epithet is lost on most of the post-Vatican II Catholics. :)

[defconw]

I’m post-Vat II, but I had relatives. :)

[BlueDragon]

Thank you for the reply.

I did not recall the alleged plot, but following the link and then a few more refreshes the memory...

"I do not believe this theory but some rad Trads do."

I don't believe the theory either.

But there is a pet theory of some (around here, anyway) that ---- just about anything disagreeable to RadTrads is all the fault of "Protestants" (whoever those people are), even if it comes out of the mouths of Jesuit Priests, possibly including Bergoglio. Hence the Rove 'mind control' machine wise-crack which I made...

If the Synod comes out with some heterodox actions or statements, however, this theory will instantly gain credibility among many orthodox Catholics.

I believe if that were to occur, there would be many theories blasted all over the map, hitting most often everywhere other than center mass of target(s), though the "spray before praying" responses could land a few in the bullseye in course of all the back and forth shooting-from-the-lips.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

just about anything disagreeable to RadTrads is all the fault of "Protestants" (whoever those people are)

There is a basis for that bias among rad Trads in historical fact.

Did six Protestant ministers at the 2nd Vatican Council really help design the Novus Ordo Mass?

(Vatican II’s “Fantastic Six” didn’t really wear numbers)

Returning to the “myth” that Protestant observers did not contribute in creating the New Mass, to hold this position is to deny the obvious – not only in fact, but also in substance. In the first place, an ecumenical liturgy that would no longer offend Protestants was Fr. Annibale Bugnini’s intention from the get-go as he declared in 1965:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants… [my emphasis]

While we learn from the close confidant of Pope Paul VI, Jean Guitton:

The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass” [my emphasis][4].

To accomplish this ecumenical goal, the Consilium
enlisted the help of these Protestant observers:

1. A. Raymond George (Methodist)
2. Ronald Jaspar (Anglican)
3. Massey Shepherd (Episcopalian)
4. Friedrich Künneth (Lutheran)
5. Eugene Brand (Lutheran)[5]
6. Max Thurian (Calvinist-community of Taize).

Their contribution in creating the New Mass was immortalized in a picture taken of them during an audience with Pope Paul VI after thanking them for their assistance. The image was subsequently published in L’Osservatore Romano on April 23, 1970 with the title: “Commission Holds Final Meeting, Pope Commends Work of Consilium”.

[trisham]

Wow.

[trisham]

What is your definition of a “rad Trad”?

[BlueDragon]

From that comes everything else..(that is characterized as "all the fault of those other guys")?

What a stretch.

Besides, I do not believe that the Lord confines Himself to precise wordings of ceremony.

If that is all that there is holding back whatever it is to be avoided --- then somebody has too many horses put before too many carts.

Worship needs not be by rote -- as long as the all the functional elements are there.

One can skip the 'alter Christus' moments (of the priest allegedly transubstantiating the bread by his own singular movements, and words) and go with a more receptionist, and simple "this is" the body (broken for us).

As the manna which He said He was, coming from Heaven daily -- but not reliant there upon continual mutterings of Moses (in the traditional Latin Rite -- the priest mutters particular portions -- correct?) to have that bread come down from the heavens.

What was not gathered by the people...melted away in the heat of the day.

If that is too Anglican -- then leave them alone -- and quite trying to swallow their congregations whole.

Let them go.

[piusv]

That was not the Protestants’ fault. That was the Modernist hierarchy’s fault.

And we’re still paying for it.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I don’t/won’t define it. That’s above my pay grade :0)

[piusv]

Then perhaps you shouldn’t use it given it’s a derogatory word to describe someone like myself.

[trisham]

Well, then let me explain why I asked. This is the definition in Urban Dictionary:

In the Catholic faith, a derogatory word for "radical traditionalist." This generally involves the following things:

1) Rejection of Vatican II

2) Rejection of the non-Latin mass

3) Rejection of the authority of the current bishops and pope

I believe that Vatican II was a mistake. I believe in the Latin mass. I do not reject the authority of the current bishops and Pope.

Do you see why I was interested in your definition?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Its been used to describe me too, more than once. So I kind of use it loosely.

[steve86]

I do not reject the authority of the current bishops and Pope.

I can't imagine myself obeying if a current bishop ordered me to dye my hair green (from grey), to start watching MSNBC full time, or even to stop attending the Latin Mass, whether celebrated by the diocese, the FSSP, or the SSPX. I don't know, do I "reject the authority of the current bishops and pope"?