Will The Pope Francis Phenomenon Trigger A Return To The Teachings Of Christ

[Russell C McGregor]

I saw one pundit who thought the present Pope was a likely champion for marriage deconstruction, until his "minders" got hold of him, and the recent Colloquium was held.

I suspect it's actually the other way around: the Pope isn't as much a victim of his "minders" as of his (largely self-appointed) publicists. He's a kind-hearted man who doesn't really understand economics, but is mindful of the poor.

He's also a Jesuit by training, which means he understands subtle distinctions; in much the same way as many journalists do not. (Sorry, Scott.) So when he says things like "Who am I to judge," he (unlike the chattering classes) is clear on the difference between judging whether a person is good or bad, and whether an action is right or wrong.
 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I suspect it's actually the other way around: the Pope isn't as much a victim of his "minders" as of his (largely self-appointed) publicists. He's a kind-hearted man who doesn't really understand economics, but is mindful of the poor.

 

please don't tell me he doesn't understand science  

 

 

So this thread is about a year and a half old.

Is there any evidence of an increase in actual involvement of charitable support for the elimination of various social and economic injustices (as opposed to people just calling for them)?

Has the attention given to Pope Francis' increased the doing of God's word and not just the teaching of it?

 

prophets tell us the same thing, "Is there any evidence of an increase in actual LDS involvement of charitable support for the elimination of various social and economic injustices"? 

Remember Elder Holland's talk? 

Edited April 30, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Calm]

Not answering my question really.

I am not in any way criticizing the Pope in my question or judging the value of his teachings. Not supporting them either because I haven't studied them deeply enough to feel comfortable doing so and I don't trust media versions to be accurate enough to help there while I do trust 3DOP enough to be concerned there might be problems with them.

Just looking to see if anyone has an answer to the opening post given there has been some time passed where evidence of his influence or the influence of the media fascination with their portrayal of him could have developed.

If you want to report on the impact of LDS leaders' talk on social involvement in the world, you should open another thread on the subject.

Edited April 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

I'm a fan of the Pope behind the Council of Trent, Rory. I love that council. If only it could be more strictly enforced.

 

 

Valentinus, hey.

 

Paul III opened the Council in 1545. The last session was in December of 1563 under St. Pius V. Little known fact: Pius V was Dominican and as all Dominicans, wore a white habit. Thus was established the custom of the bishop of Rome in white. His feast day is coming up, May 5. The Dominicans present a pretty good lineup in the Paschal season leading off with Peter Martyr yesterday, Catherine of Siena, today, and Pius V a few days from now.

 

You like most or all of Trent? What are some teachings or disciplines of the Council that you think have been ignored or overlooked? Here is just one... 

 

"If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only...let him be anathema."  (Session 22, Canon 9, 17 September, 1562)

 

I think you may have explored the Eastern Rite churches? If so, you are familiar with the iconostasis, a screen or curtain behind which the sacred mysteries are celebrated while the congregation worships. 

 

Of course, this calls to mind when the high priest went once a year in to the Holy of holies, alone, to make intercession for the people who remained outside. The Roman Rite preserved the important connection with the Mosaic "Day of Atonement" by having the priest speak the words of the Canon, so that they are audible to God and himself alone. Significantly he raises his voice at only one point...the "Nobis qouque peccatoribus", while smiting his breast. After making intercessions for the pope, and the whole church, both living and dead, he humbly begs God's grace "To us sinners also..." comforting us with the knowledge that the priest is one with us, a sinner, and also knowing that God has promised to hear him on our behalf. Its beautiful. The heart that dwells on such wonderful promises cannot fail to leap with joy.

 

The instruction in my old missal explains the actions and the silence thus:

 

"From all time, the Canon has been recited silently. The congregation present can contribute nothing to the sacrificial act itself; the people are present before a mystery which it is for the consecrated Priest alone to accomplish. The Priest has entered alone into the Holy of holies to pray and offer sacrifice for the whole Church." 

 

"From all time", it says. Not anymore. Not since 1969. In the New Mass they made up different canons. The priest can choose the "Roman canon", or several others that diminish the truths reflected in the actions of the ancient Missal. Not suprisingly, they are also spoken out loud, even using amplifiers, completely undermining the beliefs that underpin the mysteries we are reminded of in the Old Roman rite with its silent canon, and the Eastern rites with the iconostasis. The New Mass is formally valid, but it is also deficient. Keep in mind that a Black Mass, celebrated to desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, may be formally valid. Mere validity obviously isn't adequate. The entire atmosphere of the Mass needs to be appropriate in consideration of the fantastic, almost unfathomable events that are taking place on an altar surrounded by the invisible angels who bow down before their Creator in awe.

 

Anyway...Its okay if it isn't interesting to you. But you prompt me with your comments about Trent. Thanks to all here for indulging me on the LDS board. 

 

Rory

Edited April 30, 2015 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

Valentinus, hey.

 

Paul III opened the Council in 1545. The last session was in December of 1563 under St. Pius V. Little known fact: Pius V was Dominican and as all Dominicans, wore a white habit. Thus was established the custom of the bishop of Rome in white. His feast day is coming up, May 5. The Dominicans present a pretty good lineup in the Paschal season leading off with Peter Martyr yesterday, Catherine of Siena, today, and Pius V a few days from now.

 

You like most or all of Trent? What are some teachings or disciplines of the Council that you think have been ignored or overlooked? Here is just one... 

 

"If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only...let him be anathema."  (Session 22, Canon 9, 17 September, 1562)

 

I think you may have explored the Eastern Rite churches? If so, you are familiar with the iconostasis, a screen or curtain behind which the sacred mysteries are celebrated while the congregation worships. 

 

Of course, this calls to mind when the high priest went once a year in to the Holy of holies, alone, to make intercession for the people who remained outside. The Roman Rite preserved the important connection with the Mosaic "Day of Atonement" by having the priest speak the words of the Canon, so that they are audible to God and himself alone. Significantly he raises his voice at only one point...the "Nobis qouque peccatoribus", while smiting his breast. After making intercessions for the pope, and the whole church, both living and dead, he humbly begs God's grace "To us sinners also..." comforting us with the knowledge that the priest is one with us, a sinner, and also knowing that God has promised to hear him on our behalf. Its beautiful. The heart that dwells on such wonderful promises cannot fail to leap with joy.

 

The instruction in my old missal explains the actions and the silence thus:

 

"From all time, the Canon has been recited silently. The congregation present can contribute nothing to the sacrificial act itself; the people are present before a mystery which it is for the consecrated Priest alone to accomplish. The Priest has entered alone into the Holy of holies to pray and offer sacrifice for the whole Church." 

 

"From all time", it says. Not anymore. Not since 1969. In the New Mass they made up different canons. The priest can choose the "Roman canon", or several others that diminish the truths reflected in the actions of the ancient Missal. Not suprisingly, they are also spoken out loud, even using amplifiers, completely undermining the beliefs that underpin the mysteries we are reminded of in the Old Roman rite with its silent canon, and the Eastern rites with the iconostasis. The New Mass is formally valid, but it is also deficient. Keep in mind that a Black Mass, celebrated to desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, may be formally valid. Mere validity obviously isn't adequate. The entire atmosphere of the Mass needs to be appropriate in consideration of the fantastic, almost unfathomable events that are taking place on an altar surrounded by the invisible angels who bow down before their Creator in awe.

 

Anyway...Its okay if it isn't interesting to you. But you prompt me with your comments about Trent. Thanks to all here for indulging me on the LDS board. 

 

Rory

 

i always find your posts about what Catholic's teach is interesting, and informative.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus, hey.

 

Paul III opened the Council in 1545. The last session was in December of 1563 under St. Pius V. Little known fact: Pius V was Dominican and as all Dominicans, wore a white habit. Thus was established the custom of the bishop of Rome in white. His feast day is coming up, May 5. The Dominicans present a pretty good lineup in the Paschal season leading off with Peter Martyr yesterday, Catherine of Siena, today, and Pius V a few days from now.

 

You like most or all of Trent? What are some teachings or disciplines of the Council that you think have been ignored or overlooked? Here is just one... 

 

"If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only...let him be anathema."  (Session 22, Canon 9, 17 September, 1562)

 

I think you may have explored the Eastern Rite churches? If so, you are familiar with the iconostasis, a screen or curtain behind which the sacred mysteries are celebrated while the congregation worships. 

 

Of course, this calls to mind when the high priest went once a year in to the Holy of holies, alone, to make intercession for the people who remained outside. The Roman Rite preserved the important connection with the Mosaic "Day of Atonement" by having the priest speak the words of the Canon, so that they are audible to God and himself alone. Significantly he raises his voice at only one point...the "Nobis qouque peccatoribus", while smiting his breast. After making intercessions for the pope, and the whole church, both living and dead, he humbly begs God's grace "To us sinners also..." comforting us with the knowledge that the priest is one with us, a sinner, and also knowing that God has promised to hear him on our behalf. Its beautiful. The heart that dwells on such wonderful promises cannot fail to leap with joy.

 

The instruction in my old missal explains the actions and the silence thus:

 

"From all time, the Canon has been recited silently. The congregation present can contribute nothing to the sacrificial act itself; the people are present before a mystery which it is for the consecrated Priest alone to accomplish. The Priest has entered alone into the Holy of holies to pray and offer sacrifice for the whole Church." 

 

"From all time", it says. Not anymore. Not since 1969. In the New Mass they made up different canons. The priest can choose the "Roman canon", or several others that diminish the truths reflected in the actions of the ancient Missal. Not suprisingly, they are also spoken out loud, even using amplifiers, completely undermining the beliefs that underpin the mysteries we are reminded of in the Old Roman rite with its silent canon, and the Eastern rites with the iconostasis. The New Mass is formally valid, but it is also deficient. Keep in mind that a Black Mass, celebrated to desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, may be formally valid. Mere validity obviously isn't adequate. The entire atmosphere of the Mass needs to be appropriate in consideration of the fantastic, almost unfathomable events that are taking place on an altar surrounded by the invisible angels who bow down before their Creator in awe.

 

Anyway...Its okay if it isn't interesting to you. But you prompt me with your comments about Trent. Thanks to all here for indulging me on the LDS board. 

 

Rory

Very fascinating, Rory. However, I was speaking of the pronouncements against the Protestants. I just bought a text on Trent from Amazon. Should be good.

[3DOP]

i always find your posts about what Catholic's teach is interesting, and informative.

 

My thanks to you tss. May all be well with you and yours... and even more well on those occasions when you and I disagree. God bless.

 

Rory

[3DOP]

Very fascinating, Rory. However, I was speaking of the pronouncements against the Protestants. I just bought a text on Trent from Amazon. Should be good.

 

You might remember David Waltz? Or maybe not...He was on here a lot in the earliest days. He and I are long time real life friends. Anyway, he has a current thread that hasn't received much attention on his blog right now about Lutheran/Catholic dialogue. The five hundred year anniversary of Martin Luther's revolt/reform (depending on your point of view) is close upon us and evaluations of the reactions on both sides will be inevitable. Dave seems to take the position in his opening post that Luther was misunderstood by the Catholics and that to some degree, Luther misunderstood the Catholics. I don't agree with the position. Luther had been Catholic. A priest. A theology teacher. He proposed novelties and had no business "misunderstanding" the Catholic position. If we still misunderstand him, it doesn't make him right. The only way for him to be right is to get rid of his "dung pile covered with snow" and adherence to the Council of Trent. 

 

The "Reformation" in my opinion, was much more about worldly and political realities, rearranging the political climate than about whether Luther or Trent was correct. Of course, I hold that Trent was correct. I don't think the worldly parties who supported the Reformation politically, cared about theology. They saw that the pope often stood in the way of what ambitious princes and kings wanted to to do, and grasped at the opportunity to get rid of such a hindrance. Now that the Catholic Church is politically impotent, there will be a clamor by Catholics to declare that any political clout she ever wielded was illegitimate, but that additionally, the Church was in error theologically. Who needs LDS apologists to "prove" the Apostasy when you have modern Catholics who say that the Church was wrong about virtually everything for most of its 2,000 years? I wasn't familiar with the self-loathing psychology of the modern Catholic back in the late 80's and  90's when I was considering Rome.  

 

I remember back in 1995 when I was first converted to the Catholic faith. Former Protestant ministers were and are held in much higher esteem in Catholic circles than I think they deserve. When it became known that I would be assigned to teach catechism, I recall one prominent member of the parish saying to me privately, that finally, the teachings of Luther would be given to the children. I was rather shocked and didn't reply. I am a little ashamed today at my silence then. At least I didn't teach Lutheranism to the children. I didn't convert while retaining any attachment to my former beliefs. I converted because I rejected those errors which distinguish Protestantism from Catholicism, all of which, Catholics today seem eager to ignore.

 

The Council of Trent took eighteen years. They dotted their i's and crossed their t's. I think it is a brilliant achievement too. In the event you or anyone else would be interested in Dave's ideas on the matter, go here: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2015/04/from-conflict-to-communion-lutheran.html

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited May 1, 2015 by 3DOP

[saemo]

So this thread is about a year and a half old.

Is there any evidence of an increase in actual involvement of charitable support for the elimination of various social and economic injustices (as opposed to people just calling for them)?

Has the attention given to Pope Francis' increased the doing of God's word and not just the teaching of it?

I don't know anyone who is measuring, a year ago, or now.

 

Speaking from on the ground, there has been an increased focus towards existing charitable ministries. This includes development of partners who have donated substantial amounts to supporting our main ministry for the poor. (Makes and hands out sack lunches every day.)

 

A Society of  St. Vincent de Paul chapter has been established in our parish in the last few months. This will enable growth in ministries and resources that serve the poor.

Edited May 1, 2015 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

My thanks to you tss. May all be well with you and yours... and even more well on those occasions when you and I disagree. God bless.

 

Rory

 

I and mine are well. Thanx. As you can tell I have no problem with disagreeing, I only insist that in disagreement we don't become disagreeable.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I think Pope Francis is the best Pope the Catholic church has ever had. 

 

1. He cares about the poor

2. He doesn't like to impose his religious beliefs. 

3. Mormons and Atheists can go to heaven according to the Pope 

4. He likes science, he accepts powerful scientific theories like the Big Bang, Evolution, Climate Change, Old Earth. 

5. He cares about the creation, he says that taking care of our planet is a moral issue. 

6. He respects LGBT

7. He admitted that Popes are not perfect 

8. He wants peace, he doesn't want wars to force the second coming. 

9. He is humble

10. He teaches Christianity 

Edited May 2, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker