And This Pope Rocks On

[Stone holm]

 

 

IMHO, I believe the Pope is stressing the need for Catholics to be active and do something that helps others instead of stressing its dislike of issues like abortion, SSMs etc.  Those issues should not define Catholics, but our actions in how we help others should.

 

 

 

I agree, unfortunately because of the emphasis on the dislike of abortion and SSM by so many religious leaders with large publich audiences, those issues have come to define Christianity in America -- the result is Americans are fleeing organized religion en masse.

[Spammer]

He already met and dialogued with Putin and seems to be in the process of bringing the church in Russia back into the fold. This is all rather unprecedented and we will see how it goes.

That will never happen unless the pope relinquishes the claim to universal jurisdiction over every bishop. The Russians and other Orthodox will never agree to unite once more with Rome unless this happens. The Orthodox view the situation as Rome having left the fold by insisting on the radical innovation of the dogma of the pope as the prince of bishops. I can't imagine any pope agreeing to that condition anytime soon.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Spammer

[blueadept]

I agree, unfortunately because of the emphasis on the dislike of abortion and SSM by so many religious leaders with large publich audiences, those issues have come to define Christianity in America -- the result is Americans are fleeing organized religion en masse.

But that's why the Pope's approach is so engaging especially in regards to Fallen-Away Catholics (FACs) and those of other faiths.  It's refreshing having a leader acting like the good Samaritan and not be like the others.  What a concept.

[california boy]

I think it really depends on where you are getting your information about what this pope is saying and doing. There is no question that he is delivering a different message, but that message is being distorted by the secular media, which exacorbates the problems some of you mention.

 

Bottom line - He is doing the work of Christ here on Earth and he is doing it in an incredibly refreshing way.

I agree as well.  Christ also appealed to the masses with His message of love and charity.  He brought those who sinned to Him by his example of what love for others can do to change your life.  He spent more time condemning those Pharisees that were worried about the sins of others and less time worrying about who was a sinner and who wasn't.  People are moving away from Christianity, I think largely because churches have lost their way in following the example of Christ.  This pope seems to have changed that direction.  I believe it is a good direction and wish all churches embraced such attitudes.

[blueadept]

That will never happen unless the pope relinquishes the claim to universal jurisdiction over every bishop. The Russians and other Orthodox will never agree to unite once more with Rome unless this happens. The Orthodox view the situation as Rome having left the fold by insisting on the radical innovation of the dogma of the pope as the prince of bishops.

It may not but the fact that they're actually dialoguing is unprecedented.  With the 3rd prediction of Fatima still hanging out there, I'm not as pessimistic as you seem to be.  This Pope is opening some unprecedented doors.  We will see how the dialoguing actually goes.

Edited December 27, 2013 by blueadept

[thesometimesaint]

While this Pope still opposes SSM, abortion, women clergy, and a host of other very Catholic things. He has been outspoken on the issues of unfettered Capitalism(other Popes were too), and a true love of all mankind. So I'll continue to really like this Pope, even if I disagree with some of Catholic theology.

[Stone holm]

I agree as well.  Christ also appealed to the masses with His message of love and charity.  He brought those who sinned to Him by his example of what love for others can do to change your life.  He spent more time condemning those Pharisees that were worried about the sins of others and less time worrying about who was a sinner and who wasn't.  People are moving away from Christianity, I think largely because churches have lost their way in following the example of Christ.  This pope seems to have changed that direction.  I believe it is a good direction and wish all churches embraced such attitudes.

 

Have said before, will say again the current public image of Christianity is that we should stone the adultress and pat the money-changers on the back, and have the good Samaritan give the beaten man a lecture on self-reliance.

[Tacenda]

Same here TSS, but worry for his safety. And as much as I'd like Pres. Monson to do the same things as the pope, it's maybe too risky.

[Stone holm]

While this Pope still opposes SSM, abortion, women clergy, and a host of other very Catholic things. He has been outspoken on the issues of unfettered Capitalism(other Popes were too), and a true love of all mankind. So I'll continue to really like this Pope, even if I disagree with some of Catholic theology.

 

Its more of a change in tone and focus, and yes it is great to see the change.  I don't think there are many who have a problem with the idea that SSM, homosexual behavior, etc are sinful -- its making that a huge part of the message that causes incredible division and indirectly generates hatred and push-back reprisals.

[Stone holm]

Same here TSS, but worry for his safety. And as much as I'd like Pres. Monson to do the same things as the pope, it's maybe too risky.

 

Pres. Monson seems to have less harshness and stridency than some previous administrations, would love to see him take the risk though.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Stone holm

[Calm]

I agree, unfortunately because of the emphasis on the dislike of abortion and SSM by so many religious leaders with large publich audiences, those issues have come to define Christianity in America -- the result is Americans are fleeing organized religion en masse.

Actually the youth of today are apparently more prolife than pro choice than the previous generation. See the American Grace link in the thread in In The News.

Turns out I still had the window open so...

" In this second aftershock, a growing and unprecedented number of Americans, especially young people, have come to disavow religion entirely. For many, their aversion to religion is rooted in unease with the association between religion and conservative politics. If religion equals Republican, they have decided that religion is not for them."

And

"Today’s young people of the Millennial Generation are more opposed to abortion than their Baby Boomer parents, despite being the most secular swath of the population, with a remarkable 25 percent having no religious affiliation. Whether secular or religious, however, young Americans are also highly accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Over time, it is difficult to see how the political “coalition of the religious” can stay together if secular voters have qualms about abortion and religious voters endorse same-sex marriage."

http://americangrace.org/home/paperback/

Edited December 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Pres. Monson seems to have less harshness and stridency than some previous administrations, would love to see him take the risk though.

I saw a photo of him having ice cream somewhere so he does go out in public, but surely with body guards, so I guess it's doable. Maybe we just don't see and hear all the things he does out there enough, since taking on the mantel (sp?).

[Spammer]

It may not but the fact that they're actually dialoguing is unprecedented.  With the 3rd prediction of Fatima still hanging out there, I'm not as pessimistic as you seem to be.  This Pope is opening some unprecedented doors.  We will see how the dialoguing actually goes.

 

I agree that things look very promising, but I'm not very optimistic that much will come of it.  It's certainly feasible that some model that preserves papal primacy only in the existing Catholic Church could be adopted, but the the pope must give up current and future claims to primacy over the church as a whole, if that church is defined to include the Orthodox churches, where the bishops-as-equals model rules; but that kind of model must be agreed to by the pope.  The Orthodox will never accept the claim of papal primacy and jurisdiction over their churches.  That means before communion will be restored, the Catholic Church must modify its catechism, e.g. section 882, which reads the pope, who is the "pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."  Rome must clarify that after communion is restored, such language will not apply to the historically Orthodox churches.  This always has been and will continue to be the main sticking point, no matter how unprecedented the dialogue.  This would entail Rome admitting that it's interpretation of the role of the pope has been wrong for the past 1000+ years.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Spammer

[Scott Lloyd]

If the pope were a politician he would be called a populist because his message in playing to the masses. He is saying what the people want to hear. And he is getting much support because of it. The people do not want to hear about mortal sins, abortion, premarital sex, attending church, worshiping god, same sex marriage, etc. The message they want to hear is just love. God is love, God is merciful, God is kind, All are equal, both atheist and believer in the site of god etc. No mentioning of cultural relativism anymore or social issues that may not be so popular.

 

I am not sure if this will work in the long run. Eventually the devout catholics will want the pope to get back on track with the message that has been given by previous popes. I think that he will need to embrace the relativism in the world, the neglect of god, the social issues that are leading people astray etc. I think that he will need to find a middle way.

Last week on his blog, Dan Peterson put up a C.S. Lewis quote that I've read before. It's one of my favorites, and I think it applies here:

 

By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness — the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, ‘What does it matter so long as they are contented?’ We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven — a senile benevolence who, as they say, liked to see young people enjoying themselves’, and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, ‘a good time was had by all’. . . . I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines. But since it is abundantly clear that I don’t, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of love needs correction. (C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 31-32)

 

Edited December 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Actually the youth of today are apparently more prolife than pro choice than the previous generation. See the American Grace link in the thread in In The News.

Turns out I still had the window open so...

" In this second aftershock, a growing and unprecedented number of Americans, especially young people, have come to disavow religion entirely. For many, their aversion to religion is rooted in unease with the association between religion and conservative politics. If religion equals Republican, they have decided that religion is not for them."

And

"Today’s young people of the Millennial Generation are more opposed to abortion than their Baby Boomer parents, despite being the most secular swath of the population, with a remarkable 25 percent having no religious affiliation. Whether secular or religious, however, young Americans are also highly accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Over time, it is difficult to see how the political “coalition of the religious” can stay together if secular voters have qualms about abortion and religious voters endorse same-sex marriage."

http://americangrace.org/home/paperback/

 

Religion and politics make for strange bedfellows.

[DBMormon]

Oh I think it definitely is part of the quest, lots of times I wonder if we are following the admonition, seems like we spend a lot of time scolding people we think have left the path as we see it, some of whom are just admiring the scenery.

We say we are to seek after truth and goodness, but try suggesting we adopt some truth found elsewhere that replaces some cultural nonsense we have and see what your local Ward members say?  We intellectually get the Doctrine but we have trouble internalizing it.

 

Person 1 = "Prophets are falliable"

Person 2 = "I agree"

Person 1 = "Joseph Smith may have had serious flaws in his Character"

Person 2 = " I am telling the Bishop"

[Calm]

I saw a photo of him having ice cream somewhere so he does go out in public, but surely with body guards, so I guess it's doable. Maybe we just don't see and hear all the things he does out there enough, since taking on the mantel (sp?).

Not ice cream but close:

http://trevorantley.com/2012/07/12/photo-thomas-s-monson-drinking-soda-in-idaho-store-preparing-to-go-fishing/

Do LDS cultivate the paparazzi attitude of taking pictures of our leaders even in their private lives? I get the impression that is something we are not that prone to and since we are generally the only ones that will recognise them, I don't see lots of candid photos being taken and they generally haven't gone for that type of preplanned looks candid but isn't photo op in the past.

Not saying other faiths' leaders are all canned moments, if they are more recognisable, people will be more likely to snap them. The Pope is likely the most recognisable leader and has photographers following him night and day, it is a miracle if he gets any privacy outside of his private quarters from what I've seen.

[Calm]

We say we are to seek after truth and goodness, but try suggesting we adopt some truth found elsewhere that replaces some cultural nonsense we have and see what your local Ward members "

example please, not sure what you are aiming at here.

[Scott Lloyd]

We say we are to seek after truth and goodness, but try suggesting we adopt some truth found elsewhere that replaces some cultural nonsense we have and see what your local Ward members say?  We intellectually get the Doctrine but we have trouble internalizing it.

 

Person 1 = "Prophets are falliable"

Person 2 = "I agree"

Person 1 = "Joseph Smith may have had serious flaws in his Character"

Person 2 = " I am telling the Bishop"

Whatever "serious flaws in his character" is supposed to mean, I think if anybody were propounding that in a Church class or meeting, it ought to be looked into by leadership. Depending on the definition, that's a rather unsavory accusation.

 

Whatever else it is, Church is not and should not be a forum for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

example please, not sure what you are aiming at here.

 

Well an easy one would be the Race theories and interracial marriage as sin.

What happened when in pre 1978 - a member suggested to the Church that it adopt more truth and rid itself of theories that were racist and not from God?  Did the Church rush to accept such truths found outside it ranks?  Was it really open at that moment to seeking after those things that are praiseworthy, virtuous, lovely if it didn't mesh with current beliefs which in the end were racist nonsense?  

 

In other words we can talk all day about how we value truth, how we seek after truth and other positive values but in reality when that clashes with our culture we shy away from it.  We say it and we verbalize it, but we seem very slow to actually internalize it.

Edited December 27, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Whatever "serious flaws in his character" is supposed to mean, I think if anybody were propounding that in a Church class or meeting, it ought to be looked into by leadership. Depending on the definition, that's a rather unsavory accusation.

 

Whatever else it is, Church is not and should not be a forum for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

 

To suggest that a Leader "can" have serious flaws does not say they actually do, rather it teaches that a leader can be extremely fallible and still be an instrument in the hands of God. 

 

We can say leaders are imperfect and fallible till we are blue in the face.  If we actually acknowledge it on specific instances, we are asking for trouble.  I disagree with that but so be it.  Being told a leader's shortcomings helps me to see that I am still saveable.  For me it is a positive to hear the Church actually internalize fallibility rather then just pay it lip service.

Edited December 27, 2013 by DBMormon

[Calm]

"Serious flaws" means different things to different people. For me, if I heard someone say that I would be asking for specifics because to me it means things that get in the way of people having healthy relationships and no one with that level of dysfunction should be a leader in anything, IMO.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Serious flaws" means different things to different people. For me, if I heard someone say that I would be asking for specifics because to me it means things that get in the way of people having healthy relationships and no one with that level of dysfunction should be a leader in anything, IMO.

Agreed. "Serious flaws" leaves too much scope for wild conjecture. So does "extremely fallible".

 

No one I know claims Joseph Smith was perfect. But I believe his statement:

 

“No one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins” (Joseph Smith—History 1:28).

 

Edited December 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

Have said before, will say again the current public image of Christianity is that we should stone the adultress and pat the money-changers on the back, and have the good Samaritan give the beaten man a lecture on self-reliance.

Brilliant! I will be stealing this one!

[Calm]

Have said before, will say again the current public image of Christianity is that we should stone the adultress and pat the money-changers on the back, and have the good Samaritan give the beaten man a lecture on self-reliance.

And yet the reality is:

"Religious Americans are better neighbors than secular Americans. They volunteer at much higher rates for both religious and secular causes, give more money to religious and secular charities, and are roughly twice as engaged in their communities as comparable secular Americans. And they do more everyday good deeds: they’re more likely to donate blood, help someone find a job, give money to a homeless person, or even let a stranger cut in front of them."

http://americangrace.org/home/paperback/