Francis, part 2 (2014)

I'm continuing this topic—mostly a link-list, with occasional commentary. The old topic was past 333 messages, and taking longer and longer to load, especially on mobile devices. Also, it's a new year, or almost one. Time to turn over.

So, let's continue to follow Francis, and the reaction to him.

Thanks, Tim.

FRATERNITY, THE FOUNDATION AND PATHWAY TO PEACE (MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS FRANCIS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 2014)

Pope Francis nearly triples Vatican City crowds in 2013 (BBC)

I can't wait until he visits the US.

At the same time, the crowds go with a general disregard for personal safety. I'm sorry to say it but, soberly, I would give him a decent chance of getting shot by some maniac. That would be a dark day.

Pope Francis surprises nuns in Spain with phone call
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25598450

And leaves an answering machine message…

Pope abolishes honorary title of monsignor for diocesan priests under the age of 65
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/31027/

World study asking who is your "most admired person."
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/11/infographic-bill-gates-most-admired-world/

Francis does NOT win it. Bill Gates does, followed by Obama and Putin. Francis comes in #4. But, Francis does very well everywhere in the west—Britain (3), Australia (3), Brazil (1), France (2), Germany (1), and USA (1). He doesn't make the list in places like Pakistan, Indonesia and China, but, well, it would be insane if he did.

That is, if you ask Americans whom they respect above all, Pope Francis comes in #1—at 20% of respondents. Considering that born-Catholics are between 20 and 25%, with many of those lapsed and surely not ALL voting for him, it's likely he picked up a lot of non-Catholic votes.

Pope Francis to appoint 19 new cardinals (BBC)

Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols to become Cardinal (BBC)

"I am deeply moved... this is a humbling moment..."

A roundup of analysis:

NCR, Thomas Reese - http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/cardinals-continuity-and-change
Reese did a piece on the possibilities before ( http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/who-are-going-be-new-cardinals ) so we can check that, indeed, a number of the choice surprised him.

NCR, McElwe
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pope-chooses-new-cardinals-africa-asia-lati...

NCR, John Allen
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-uses-red-hats-offer-lesson-global-c...

John Thavis: http://www.johnthavis.com/popes-cardinal-choices-signal-geographic-shift-but-no-...

Rocco Palmo: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-scarlet-is-served-pope-revea...

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/world/europe/pope-looks-south-in-appointing-ca...

Associated press: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/international/2014/01/pope_names_19_new_car...

My analysis:

1. As Thavis says, he didn't do anything dramatic, like add lay members, stack the numbers, or leave Müller off.

2. He killed a few sacred cows, bypassing large sees and sees that usually have cardinals in favor of obscure ones--Perugia, Cotabato and Les Cayes. (The bishop of the latter didn't even have a Wikipedia page until today.) He also set aside a "perpetual" 18th century papal agreement that Lisbon would get a cardinal hat immediately upon a vacancy.* (As Nicholas Lash said in another context, behold the "temporary nature of 'perpetual' papal decisions.")

3. He seems to have mostly chosen people in his image, as you might expect. Insofar as he's barely appointed any bishops so far, he had to go hunting—to obscure sees in Haiti, Italy and the Philippines, not to mention Ivory Coast.

* Someone tell Wikipedia's page… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_José_Macário_do_Nascimento_Clemente#Patria...

Pope Francis encourages mothers to breastfeed - even in the Sistine Chapel (Guardian)

>10 timspalding: For me it is a little too soon for the appointment of cardinals to be very interesting. There are few vacancies. However within the next few years a number of cardinals will reach the age of 75 and retire as diocesan archbishops, or 80 and retire as voting cardinals, and then I think the new appointments will be very interesting indeed. Will the red hat shift from Sudan to South Sudan? From Durban to Cape Town in South Africa? Indeed will we get more African cardinals?

>12 John5918:

Well, the choices were interesting, within the narrow scope available to him—without going hog-wild.

Pope Francis announces names of new Cardinals (official announcement on Vatican Radio)

Observations on the new Cardinals-elect (Vatican Radio)

And on different topics:

A tick-tock of developments on the pope beat (Clerical Whispers)

Denouncing the 'novice trade'... Francis said formation isn't a "police action" and that the church shouldn't be shaping "little monsters"... Francis also denounced what he called a "novice trade," deliberately inviting a comparison with the slave trade, by which he seemed to mean religious orders recruiting new members in the developing world primarily so they can perform menial tasks and take the burden off aging religious in the West...

Same-sex unions... Francis'... insistence that the church must reach out to children in new family situations, including same-sex couples, in order to avoid giving them a "vaccine against the faith"...

Galantino and 'The Last Shall be First'

Francis' recent appointment of Bishop Nunzio Galantino of the tiny Cassano all'Jonio diocese as the new secretary of the powerful Italian bishops' conference, CEI, was hailed as a classic Francis move, given that Galantino refuses to be called "Your Excellency," has declined to live in the bishops' palace, and is famed for spending time with ordinary people.

On Monday, a report in Corriere della Sera indicated that Galantino's name had been the very last on a list of possible candidates submitted to the pope, proposed by only one fellow bishop.

Assuming it's accurate, the report suggests that Francis is capable of overturning recommendations for personnel moves when he wants to, which may also have implications for the way he handles important choices for bishops...

The Galantino pick is much like the Philippine and Haitian picks.

Nice photo of smiling Pope with lamb on shoulders:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/pope-francis-lamb_n_4554696.html

Pope Francis denounces 'horror' of abortion (BBC)

Pope Francis: scandals happen when there is no true relationship with God (Vatican Radio)

Pope Francis's new cardinals mark a rebalancing in the church (Guardian)

How much is that halo? Vatican regulates costs of making saints (Reuters)

And from VIS:

WORLD DAY OF PRAYER FOR VOCATIONS

IN THE CHURCH WE ARE ALL MISSIONARIES AND DISCIPLES

Pope removes cardinals in shake-up of Vatican bank (Reuters)

Pope sticks to his gospel, visits homeless in Rome (Reuters)

Papal Economics, or Francis the Communalist (The Jesuit Post)

GENERAL AUDIENCE: THE DIVISION OF CHRISTIANS MUST STOP (VIS)

Pope Urges Davos Notables to Remember the Less Fortunate (NYT)

POPE'S MESSAGE FOR THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM IN DAVOS (VIS)

Pope Francis graces the cover of Rolling Stone magazine (Guardian)

I remember when JP2 came to power after the untimely death of JP1, he was extremely personable and popular. But it seemed over time he became more conservative.

>24 LesMiserables: Not sure whether he became, or whether it just became more apparent.

25

I'm not sure myself, but I think we have a tendency to become a little more conservative as we get older.

posted in the Christianity group: A graffiti in the Borgo Pio neighbourhood in Rome

>27 2wonderY: And the story to go with it:

Superpope artwork appears near Vatican (Guardian)

The RS article was great, but got simple stuff wrong here and there. I want a general-purpose website for corrigenda.

I wonder if I can still get a copy of the Advocate. Time, the Advocate and RS would make a great framed triptych.

Zenit: "Vatican Spokesman Calls Rolling Stone Article 'Superficial Journalism'"

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/vatican-spokesman-calls-rolling-stone-article-s...

In other news: scientists confirm that rain is wet.

#24: But it seemed over time he became more conservative.

ETA: I realize in re-reading your post that you were talking of JPII - but the question still holds - why do you say this?

With regard to Benedict - I see a far different trajectory. I've not yet exhausted the impressively large corpus of his written work, but what I have read - beginning with his (then Ratzinger's) observations on Vatican II and ending with his papal writings including his encyclicals - points to a liberalisation of thought, an expanding, loving, and compassionate hope that is essentially Christian.

>30 enevada:

Meh. The piece is mostly good. Have you read it?

ETA: I realize in re-reading your post that you were talking of JPII - but the question still holds - why do you say this?

I think there's good reason to say this. Certainly he had more and more ability to push a conservative program as the natural process of death and bishop appointment sidelined liberals and centrists. But I don't think it's mere speculation that Ratzinger grew in influence as JPII's pontificate advanced.

There are books about the church in this period. I've read a few. Others have too. I get the general sense that you don't believe anything anyone says or writes about the church unless it's from the Press Office. Or the Wall Street Journal.

31

I think he had lots of opportunities, given the length of his office, to open the church to fresh thinking on certain issues.

Now, I'm not saying that he should have. Many people ere pleased on stance taken on issues around homosexuality, contraception etc. All I'm suggesting is that he firmed up on those issues over time. I have not thought enough about those issues to be stupid enough to comment on them, bar saying that I am sure many Catholics would be pleased by a pope seeming to hold the line on what some see as non negotiables.

Thinking about these things gives me a sore head so I'll cop out.

As I've said before, for me the biggest problem with John Paul II was his centralising tendency, consolidating and strengthening the authority of the Vatican. On the other hand much of what he wrote on social justice was very good, and he can be credited with opening up the papacy to the world and reaching out to youth.

#32: Fr. Steve Grunow*, an Official Vatican Press Spokesperson who writes for The Wall Street Journal has this to say:

The article has been written by Mark Binelli and it seems to be his purpose to present the Holy Father as a Clintonian-style Democratic liberal who will cast off the conservative overlay of traditional Catholic teaching (especially in regards to sexual morality) and unleash the ideological progressivism that is latent with the Church. I guess in this construal of things the previous pontificate of Benedict XVI is to be accepted as a shill for the ecclesial version of Reagan-style Republican conservatism.

The narrowness of Binelli’s worldview is breathtaking. But people give us what they have. The vision in which everything is but a participation in the American political ethos is a totalizing vision that serves many as the ultimate explanation of all things. This totalizing vision is evidently Binelli’s creed.

http://wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/January-2014/The-Rock-Not-A-Rolling-Ston...

*not really

>35 enevada: everything is but a participation in the American political ethos

Not an uncommon worldview amongst people in the USA, I would say, often even here on LT.

The Catholic Right in the United States has been having conniptions over Francis' popularity for months now.

Every fresh sign of interest or sympathy with Francis among non-Catholics, lapsed Catholics or "liberal" Catholics is met with gritted teeth, and increasingly bizarre attempts to square ideological certainties with simple reality.

First, they believe that Francis has not, cannot and will not "change" anything, or even say anything new. Yet the media reports changes. Therefore, the media is misinterpreting the Pope, no doubt with evil intent.

"The media is misinterpreting the pope" meme is now so pervasive a coping strategy on the Catholic right that Cardinal Burke even used to explain away Francis' own words that, as regards abortion and same-sex marriage, that "it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time." Burke believes "we can never talk enough about that" so, somehow, the media misinterpreted him. (Cue Burke's removal from the Congregation of Bishops in 3, 2, 1...)

Second, the Catholic Right are invested in a Manichaen culture-war, with the secular media at the center of a vast conspiracy against the Catholic church. The Pope is and must be the leader of the other side. Therefore, if the media like Francis, there must be something wrong! The media must not understand him. They must be celebrating a Pope and reporting on his ever move as some sort of crazy false-flag operation to bring down the church! Father Z has been insisting for months now that the media is just setting him up, and will turn on "Pope Fluffy" any day now.

Does the media understand everything about Catholicism? No. Religion reporting is hard. It is also true that most reporters are not practicing Catholics, and are inclined to see things in particularly American colors. The media finds it easier to report on change and conflict than nuanced theology and the larger continuities of life. What's new?

The Rolling Stone piece is not perfect. It caters to the magazine's demographic--or putative demographic, since youth don't actually read it anymore. It even reaches the conclusion that, between rehabilitating Holocaust deniers and having his papers stolen by his butler, Benedict's papacy was something of a disaster. (They didn't even mention the Regensberg speech!) Such obviousness is infuriating disrespect in some quarters.

At the same time, it's a lengthy and sympathetic piece, including sensible narrative and a few details I wasn't familiar with. (I love his joke that some "want to stick the whole world inside a condom.") The upshot: Most readers will be convicned Pope Francis is a man to watch and listen to. And many will come out knowing much more about the Pope and the church than they knew before. Quel désastre!

Now, what does the conservative Catholic media do in return? Are doing the work of understanding Francis that the mainstream media is not? No. They are pretending nothing has changed, nothing interesting going on.

For example, search the Legion of Christ's National Catholic Register, and you will literally ten pages of articles like:

Cardinal Burke Takes on the Modernist Agenda
Cardinal Burke's Advice to Nancy Pelosi
Cardinal Burke Publishes 1st Book
Cardinal Burke: No Communion for Irish Politicians who Support Aboriton
Cardinal Burke Deplores U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Now, as anyone reading the evil "mainstream media" knows, Francis recently made the rather unusual move of dropping the above-mentioned culture warrior Cardinal Burke from the Congregation for Bishops, replacing him with Cardinal Wuerl, with whom Burke had publicly clashed over denying communion to Pro-Choice legislators.

The "mainstream" media picked this up. It was a news story that stood out, even with so much else to cover around the world. With Catholic news a focus at the paper and Burke such an object of their interest, you'd think the NCReg would have covered it. Nope. They never covered it.

Fortunately, however, you can read their "7 Reasons You Shouldn't Be Too Pleased About Pope Francis on the Cover of Rolling Stone." We all have our coping mechanisms.

Cardinal Schönborn: Pope Francis has already changed church (NCR)

(A different) Cardinal says pope wants to 'stir things up,' let people ask questions (NCR)

Pope Francis faces church divided over doctrine, global poll of Catholics finds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/pope-francis-faces-church-divided-over-do...

FWIW, I think it nicely shows that we're not talking about a North-South split on hot-button issues. Latin American is mostly alongside the "north" on these issues.

I note, however, that the poll throws abortion in entirely the wrong light, focusing on an absolute never which, actually, the church doesn't set either, insofar as much of what's considered "saving the life of the mother"—which most Catholics support—is licit on double-effect grounds.

Pope Francis stars in virtual comic strip for children's app (Guardian)

41

I don't like the wording.

They should ask instead of 'Do you...?'

Something more like.... "Do you think the Catholic Church should..."

The difference is huge.

>42 LesMiserables: The report is also rather over the top. It appears to be an atheist website. I think there is a big difference between "disagree with" and "hate", and as you say, the nuance in the wording of the question is important.

Four mini pieces by John Allen, at his new gig at the Boston Globe
http://t.co/vCdSGG3TlK

I note particularly, "Nostalgia for Pope Benedict XVI," on conservative attempts to build arguments against Francis as the real Pope.

"If proof were needed that some Catholic conservatives are feeling a bit nostalgic for Pope Benedict XVI, it came on Feb. 11, the one-year anniversary of his resignation announcement. Two striking essays from high-profile Italian writers, both of whom have a significant following in Catholic circles, make the point.

Worth a read.

>44 timspalding: attempts to build arguments against Francis as the real Pope

This smacks of Sedevacantism. They claim that cardinals were pressured to elect John XXIII. The people quoted by Allen claim that Benedict XVI's arm may have been twisted to resign, leading in this case not to a vacant chair but to Benedict still being pope. A wonderful opportunity for conspiracy theorists!

>45 John5918:

Well, exactly. But, as Allen says, it's not the fringe. A sizable segment of the church, and often its most ardent members, have drifted very far out. If Francis were to do anything—for example, with regard to communion for divorced and remarried Catholics—some of this idle talk is likely to reify into real opposition.

>46 timspalding: OK, but so far he has done absolutely nothing in concrete doctrinal or even disciplinary terms and everything in terms of style, message, perception, charity, etc. If concrete changes such as you suggest are made it will be the result of a synod of bishops, not of Francis alone.

Welcome back JoansKnight. Good to see you're still kicking.

But I do wish you'd stick to looney theology, and avoid antisemitism.

Funnily enough I was just about to post exactly the same message (well, without the kicking, looney theology or antisemitism). Welcome back, Joansknight. Seems like a long time you have been away from this forum.

Well, that page does contain a good bit of antisemitism, and I didn't want to be on record behaving as if it did not…

>51 timspalding: Ah, I see, you actually read that page!

Why are you so in love with the Jews when you should love Christ?

Do you deny the Jews had Christ murdered....do you also agree with them for believing Jesus is not the Christ?

You put Jews before Christ....admit it!

The followers of Christ are the chosen ones....NOT Jews!

I am anti anyone who is NOT Catholic....including you two....so go worship your Francis....along with the Jews and I will follow Christ!

By the way....thank you Tim for the heads-up on LT being hacked!

What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the difinition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.

- Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

Forgive me....I know you both are anti-bishop Sheen....you most likely have an affinity for charlie Sheen....as does all of society....and I know how you love following what society believes and thinks!

I do not hate any people....just what they believe....especially when it is wrong and against the Church....so stop judging me and look at yourselves!

>54 Joansknight: I think the general consensus is that some Jews might have been involved in the killing of Jesus, but you can hardly blame THE Jews. What about all the Jews who lived before his time, or were born after his time, or who didn't live in Jerusalem at that time, or did but had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his death; in other words, the vast majority of Jews had nothing to do with his death.

Was it murder? He was tried by a competent authority and sentenced to death. Whether it was a fair trial or not is another question, but we don't normally refer to the execution even of prisoners who are subsequently found not to have had a fair trial as "murder".

>57 Joansknight: I am anti anyone who is NOT Catholic

But what about charity? Love thy enemies? The Church is not built on being anti; it is built on being pro and on reaching out to all in love.

By the way....THE BOOK THIEF is a very moving book and I loved it!

Someone should write about the Catholics who were persecuted by Hitler....no one cares about that though!

You DO NOT get it do you....Jews reject Christ!

OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION....that is DOGMA!

>59 Joansknight: I have no idea who Bishop Fulton Sheen is. Is he from the USA?

But wait, I just googled him. Seems he was in favour of ecumenism and against the Vietnam War, which surely makes him a dodgy character. Now I understand he is up for canonisation in the false Church under false popes. Strange.

>62 Joansknight: Someone should write about the Catholics who were persecuted by Hitler....no one cares about that though!

It's hardly a secret. I seem to recall references to it in some of the camps in Germany.

>63 Joansknight: Jews reject Christ

Of course they do. That's why they are Jews and not Christians. But that's rather a different statement from "the Jews had Christ murdered".

>64 Joansknight: OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION....that is DOGMA!

No, actually it is not dogma in the Catholic Church. It was nuanced by an ecumenical council of all the Catholic bishops in the world, most of whom were ordained bishop long before the anti-pope John XXIII was falsely elected pope by all the cardinals in the world, who were appointed by his predecessors, who were true popes, apparently. It may be dogma in the Sedevacantist church.

Of course they do. That's why they are Jews and not Christians. But that's rather a different statement from "the Jews had Christ murdered".

Well, yes and no, John. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new, but it's worth saying that:

1. The New Testament considers them to be overlapping groups—that is, one can be a Jew and a believer in Christ. This is fortunate, as virtually all of Jesus' earliest followers were Jews. Demographically, that possibility has narrowed, but obviously not closed.

2. The Gospels make it clear that Jesus was put to death by Roman authorities, who were after all the governing power, but that some Jews at that time wanted the Romans to do what they did. Nostra Aetate said what any reasonable person would say, that "what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." Of course, JK rejects Nostra Aetate, but a "traditionalist" must adhere to Catholic understandings of sin, which requires intention and knowledge, and does not include guilt by virtue of racial or religious ancestry. The bit about ancestry is fortunate, as almost all the Popes have been Italians, whom, in light of the actual responsibility for Jesus' execution, are the real culprits here…

3. That "outside the church there is no salvation" was "nuanced" long before Vatican II--starting, in fact, with the understanding of Jews, especially those who never heard of Christ explicitly. We cannot know what sort of interior rejection is necessary, but we know it must be knowing and deliberate. In truth, the really scary situation is not that of Jews, but of those who knowing and deliberately separate themselves from the church—the sedevacantists.

>67 timspalding: Thanks, Tim, for going deeper.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896: “The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that path of perdition… He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.”

You two are definitely heretics and your souls are lost....

You name the pope who declares that anyone can gain salvation outside the Church....I know you can't....

Invincible ignorance...

You two reject Catholic dogma....you reject Christ!

How soon we forget that Pilate washed his hands....

The Jewish high priests wanted Christ dead....you deny that!

>74 Joansknight:: "The Jewish high priests wanted Christ dead....you deny that!"

But they don't deny that. Rather, they make the reasonable observation that the Jewish high priests are not identical with all Jews everywhere, both in the past and today.

Hitler wanted all the Jews dead. Does that mean that all Germans everywhere, both in the past and today, want all the Jews dead? No.

It's called rational thinking -- apparently a skill not cultivated by today's knights.

(And I can't believe I just got suckered again into wasting time replying to a series of trolling posts.)

Edited to refrain from a personal attack.

And I can't believe I just got suckered again into wasting time replying to a troll.)....You sure are charitable....I am sure Tim wont warn you about name calling....

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

Admit it....you called me a "troll"....I did not attack you....but I am sure if you ask Tim and John to stick up for you they will....

None of us are disputing the Church's dogmatic teaching that Christ offers salvation through the Church alone, as his Bride.

But what most of us realize is that the Church, as Christ's Mystic Bride and Body, and likewise the Body and Community of the Faithful, is not circumscribed by narrow physical limits declared by man. It is Christ who saves, Christ who justifies, Christ who judges, Christ who forgives. The Church may be his instrument for those graces, but those graces are not limited by parochial human judgments.

Rather, those graces are expansive, overflowing, and abundant, offered by Christ freely and lovingly, passionately and profusely. As Pope Clement VI declared in 1343 in defense of offering indulgences:

One drop of Christ’s blood would have sufficed for the redemption of the whole human race. Out of the abundant superfluity of Christ’s sacrifice there has come a treasure which is not to be hidden in a napkin or buried in a field, but to be used.

It is petty human arrogance that seeks to stop up that flow, to restrict it, to close it off to those whom humans alone judge unworthy.

Very clever to edit your "troll" comment....

It is arrogance and pride to assume everyone goes to heaven....you need to read a Catholic bible....

Are you going to heaven for calling me a "troll"?

Christ himself said...."many will be invited....few will be saved".....maybe he was talking about going to Disney World!

I am a "troll" who believes in our LORD Jesus Christ....HIS Most Holy Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines....AMEN!

I didn't realize the "Catholic Bible" did not include the following verses (quoted from the Douay-Rheims, just to forestall objections against more modern translations):

• Matthew 3:6: "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God."
• John 1:29: "The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world." (Notice: it doesn't say "taketh away the sin of just some of the world.")
• John 12:32: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself."
• John 17:2: "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him."
• Romans 5:18-20: "Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound."
• Romans 11:32-34: "For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
• 1 Corinthians 15:22: "And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."
• Colossians 1:19-20: "Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell; And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven."
• 1 Timothy 3-5: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

ETA: It should also be noted that saying all people will be saved is not the same thing as saying that Christ offers salvation to all people. The latter is bedrock dogma and an essential thesis of the Gospel; the former is, indeed, a debatable theological point.

Joansknight, I think you are misinterpreting what is said here. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between "some Jews" and "all Jews", for example. In >80 nathanielcampbell: Nathaniel is talking about the abundance of God's salvific grace; in >82 Joansknight: you turn that into an assumption that "everyone goes to heaven". That's not what he said.

>82 Joansknight: As for Catholic bibles, well, I grew up with the (Catholic) Douai version (and I still have my late mother's copy of it), and progressed to the (Catholic) New Jerusalem Bible via the (Catholic) Jerusalem Bible. I also have the (Catholic) New Jerome Biblical Commentary, which replaced my old (Catholic) Jerome Biblical Commentary when it was looted in 1984. I suggest you consult a good Catholic bible commentary if you haven't done so already.

You also seem to have reverted to quoting bits of Church doctrine out of context with no indication of why you think it is relevant to the conversation. As I have said to you before, none of us disagree with the things you quote because they are Church doctrine which we accept. They are part of the body of Tradition which has developed since the time of Christ, and which is constantly renewed by the Church; it is a living Tradition, not a dead one. But it seems your interpretation of them is different from that of the Church.

>79 Joansknight: I don't "stick up" for Nathaniel; he doesn't need it. He's an academic theologian who knows that side of things better than me; I may have an edge over him on Catholic praxis. When I agree with him I say so; when I don't, I also say so.

Edited to add that this post crossed with Nathaniel's >86 nathanielcampbell:. I'll have to learn to type faster!

>84 Joansknight:: "many will be invited....few will be saved"

Actually, He said, "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14)

(In the Vulgate: Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi.)

Moreover, this was the punchline to the parable of the wedding guests, which makes it a bit more difficult to interpret as a straight-up statement about salvation.

But I grant you that this parable (and other passages with it) does seem to indicate that, though Christ offers to all a seat at the banquet table, not all will choose to accept that seat.

Let's turn, shall we, a few chapters later, to see precisely what it is that Christ says will mark the chosen from those who will be left out on the doorstep. From Matthew 25:31-40:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

Notice: he did not say, "As long as you are a member of a tiny minority Church, you will be blessed." The criteria by which he judges will not be membership cards or catechism tests -- they will rather be whether we allowed his Spirit of Truth and Love to work in our lives to care "for the least of these who are my brethren."

We've been through this before.

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I'm glad you've come back, JK, but your manners have slipped.

How about we get back on topic ("Francis") with one of the latest batch of cardinals he has just appointed, Vincent Nichols? It's not unconnected to Matthew 25 either.

New Catholic cardinal renews attack on 'disgraceful' UK austerity cuts (Guardian)

Turbulent priests: When politicians take on the Church (BBC)

Thank you....you know how stupid us trolls are....

Nathaniel called me a troll....he did not define troll....and he edited his remark to hide the fact!

Ah well, I suppose trying to get back on topic was always a long shot...

troll
trōl/
noun
noun: troll; plural noun: trolls

a mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance....

a·pos·tate
əˈpäsˌtāt,-tit/
noun
noun: apostate; plural noun: apostates

a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle....

Nataniel is right....I'd rather be called a troll!

>95 Joansknight:: Doesn't your whole schtick revolve around renouncing the beliefs and principles of the Church as enunciated over the last 50 years by an ecumenical council and six pontiffs?

I can't see that nathaniel could be an apostate for, unless I'm very mistaken about his age, he has never been a member of Joan's true church. I can't have been either, as I was born in 1971. To be an apostate would surely require being baptized before John XXIII became (anti-)pope, and then being confirmed under or otherwise following the (anti-)church later in life.

>95 Joansknight: Joansknight, it's rather disingenuous to use that definition of troll as that clearly isn't the one being referred to here. Ruth gives the relevant one in >90 2wonderY:.

>96 nathanielcampbell: This is something that I think Joansknight constantly fails to address. All the cardinals who elected John XXIII were (presumably validly) appointed by a "real" pope. The vast majority of the bishops who participated in Vatican II were also appointed not by (anti-)pope John XXIII but by his "real pope" predecessors. I had the privilege of knowing a handful of them personally later. I just can't see how the entire college of "real" cardinals and virtually all of the "real" bishops of the world got subverted so quickly and so completely, nor how the Holy Spirit allowed that to happen.

>97 timspalding: OK, I confess. I'm an "apostate". I was baptised in 1954 and I was confirmed after 1958. I was an altar server and used to know the Tridentine Mass off by heart. It was actually much more fun for wee altar boys than the revised Mass, as there were far more "jobs" to do, moving books and cloths and things backwards and forwards all the time, criss-crossing the sanctuary, plenty of genuflections, more candles to light.

Does anyone think we should open another Sedevacante thread to avoid threads like this from being completely taken over by the topic?

Amen.

98

Yes, unfortunately the Troll resides here

http://www.librarything.com/topic/169237

It starts at #5 and gets only worse.

If there are any violations of the TOS there, let me or @lorannen know.

Francis' cardinal council focusing on financial reform, laity

How do you solve a problem like Pope Francis?

Both from NCR

For Sedevacante-related conversations, I'd just like to remind everybody that a dedicated thread exists within the Catholic Tradition group, here. Let's continue the Sedevacante conversation there.

Pope Francis battles strong winds at the Vatican - in pictures (Guardian)

>102 John5918: Steve Bell on Nick Clegg's welfare row with archbishop – cartoon (Guardian)

CNS: A Pentecostal, a pope and an iPhone for Christian unity
http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/a-pentecostal-a-pope-and-an-iphone-for-c...

The video from the Pope is remarkable. But watch from the beginning.

See also blogger "The Anchoress" http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/02/20/charismatic-the-pope-and-th...

I will tell you this: I watched the whole thing, and was fascinated, and blown away, and — hard as this might be to believe — moved to copious tears.
I have seen some Catholics on Facebook say they forward through the video, only watching the last 15 minutes or so, with Pope Francis. I heartily recommend that you don’t do that — that you, instead, watch it from the beginning and hang in there through the parts that can feel challenging to watch and might seem (to us, as Catholics and as jaded Americans) like “Protestant weirdness”. Hang in and watch it, with a respectfully open mind, as the very least thing one can do for the sake of unity.

We live in interesting times.

Thanks, Tim. Inspiring stuff, and moving indeed.

Heretical too.....

Praying for unity is not heretical.

No doubt the Pope should order the King of America to put the Protestants in jail.

Who is the king of America Tim?

>112 Joansknight:: I believe the King of America is the same as the "anti-Pope".

Francis is the anti-pope and he loves his gay "priests"!

>107 timspalding: Elizabeth Scalia is married to Antonin Scalia?
(Interesting times, indeed!)

New cardinals, among them Archbishop Vincent Nichols, bear Pope's stamp (Guardian)

Why does the Vatican drink so much wine? (Guardian)

Vatican City consumes more wine per head than any other country...

Financial reform shows crafty political side of pope

ROME — Pope Francis may embrace simplicity, but he’s hardly a simple man. The Jesuit pontiff is also an extraordinarily crafty politician, and a financial reform announced by the Vatican yesterday proves the point...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/02/25/financial-reform-shows-crafty-p...

>118 margd: he’s like a linebacker in a cassock

Interesting. I stayed at Pell's palace in Sydney for a couple of nights a decade or so ago. I'm not sure exactly what a linebacker is, but if one were to translate it into language from a more widely recognisable sport, I can picture him as a prop in a cassock!

Brits!

Actually, scratch that. I know the term, but I'm not sure what one is either. This is my "What's Walmart?" moment, no doubt.

The props are the two big hefty blokes in the front row of the scrum who hold up the hooker, while being pushed by the second row and number eight. Meanwhile the scrum half, fly half and the rest of the three quarter line hang around behind, and the full back stands fully back. Rugby, of course.

I may need Google Translate.

Old news(?) but a startling (and depressing) compilation of the challenges that Francis faces. Not for kids. Sometimes, for copyright reasons, I can't access PBS videos from Canada--or CBC ones from the US--so apologies if that's the case with this one:

Public Broadcasting Service:
Secrets of the Vatican
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365187642/

Aired: 02/25/2014
01:23:41
Rating: NR

In Secrets of the Vatican, FRONTLINE tells the epic, inside story of the collapse of the Benedict papacy and illuminates the extraordinary challenges facing Pope Francis as he tries to reform the powerful Vatican bureaucracy, root out corruption and chart a new course for the troubled Catholic Church and its 1.2 billion followers.

Bishops need not be crusaders, but pastors, Francis says (NRC)

The church does not need apologists of its causes nor crusaders of its battles, but sowers humble and confident of the truth...

Those quotes are so good. So good.

Some Catholic leaders need to follow Pope Francis' lead (NCR)

Pope Francis is winning hearts and minds around the world for his emphasis on mercy, personal simplicity and vision for a church that is “bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets.” He rejects culture-war Christianity and aloof moralizing from the safety of the sanctuary. He warns that a fixation on “small-minded rules” can stand in the way of ministering to those on the margins...

Francis sounds like a caring pragmatist. Will he sacrifice doctrine on the alter of popular consensus if it comes to it?

Pope drops the F-bomb: Pontiff gets his Italian mixed up during Sunday blessing

Sorry, but it is the Daily Mail after all.

Good LT staff discussion of this one today. We have two advanced Italian speakers. Apparently this is a common error.

> 129, 130

One of the first things my Italian instructor told us was to be careful to pronounce both consonants where they're doubled, pointing out that ordering "pene" (penis) rather than "penne" in a restaurant could be quite embarrassing!

>131 lilithcat:

Ow. That said, I had a girlfriend who once ordered "fellatio" instead of "focaccia" at a bakery. And I once told a shop-keeper in Turkey that I was an ice-cream (dondurmayum), rather than that I was returning (donuyorum).

My students caught me last Friday with a slip-of-the-tongue on "flux".

Nice.

Non-native English speakers should be very careful to use a long "e", not a short, in words like "beech" and "sheet".

Francis marks anniversary with interview on sex abuse, women, contraception (NCR)

Full text of the interview in English
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/transcript-pope-francis-march-5-interview...

Pope Francis rejects hero-worship and says he is a normal person (Guardian)

He's not normal! He's made of chocolate!

The Francis effect (NCR)

Pope urges priests to have hearts of mercy and compassion (Vatican Radio)

Only those who are not ashamed to touch the wounded flesh of those on the margins of society, he said, will one day be admitted to God’s kingdom to gaze on the glorified flesh of Christ.

How to measure the Francis effect (NCR)

The focus of the Pew Research Report is the traditional one, namely church attendance, and praying. But is that the message that Francis has been trying to promote? I don’t see Francis spending much time and energy on trying to talk more people into regular Mass attendance...

>142 John5918:

I'm afraid I think we'll only know if he had an effect on church adherence and attendance in the west in ten years, and it will be in a slowing of the decline, not a reversal.

After a conclave that demanded reform, a year of 'fresh air' (NCR)

England's Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor put it this way: "We all wanted change and reform, but I don't think any of us expected so much fresh air!"

Pope Francis: revitalising the Catholic church (Guardian)

Pope Francis: has his revolution even started? (Guardian)

One year on, everyone agrees Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air for the Catholic church, but there is less clarity over who he really is. Is he liberal or conservative – or is he something altogether more unpredictable?

146

I'm surprised Donald Trump hasn't responded to his popularity by asking him to produce birth certificates or passports ;-)

Pope Francis marks first year in office (BBC)

currently on a week-long spiritual retreat...

Witnesses recall Pope Francis as young Jesuit saving many people from Argentine death squads
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2014/03/13/survivors-pope-francis-save...

In Argentina, pope's impact has moved beyond spiritual realm (NCR)

Pope Francis: stop to violence in South Sudan (Vatican Radio)

This is now old (October 2013), but I just found it, and it's fantastic.

It's a talk at Villanova by Cardinal McCarrick, who was too old to vote in the conclave, but spoke, is Bergoglio's friend and, according to him, "talked Bergoglio up" after others started doing so. The talk has a few choice details. But the overall tone is simply an appreciation of Bergoglio's authenticity, from someone who knows him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3iaBLqt8vg

Thanks Tim for that link, looking forward to watching that later.

Francis a complete break from predecessors, conference says (NCR)

Queen prepares to meet Pope with thorny questions left in the background (Guardian)

Interesting snippet: the Queen has met Pius XII (before she became monarch), John XXIII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Francis.

Queen meets Pope Francis (BBC)

Other interesting snippet: she appeared in one of her trademark pastel coats with matching hat, rather than what used to be standard for women meeting the Pope in the Vatican, black with a veil. (The BBC report includes a photo from her 2000 meeting with JPII, in which she did wear the black.)

I guess Francis is the kind of Pope who would not be put out by that. And in any case I expect there are "protocol advisors" on both sides who sort these kinds of details well in advance so it wouldn't have been a surprise. Sometimes the most embarassing bit of this kind of meeting is the gifts that they exchange although on the whole I thought his was a bit more classy if less practical.

Queen arrives in Vatican with gifts fit for a pope (Guardian)

British monarch in first meeting with Pope Francis offers gifts including honey 'from her garden' and Scotch whisky...

The videos from that Georgetown event are now up—and are great.

See https://www.youtube.com/user/berkleycenter

If you want a sweet spot from the conference, see the brief presentation of Gerard Mannion on Francis' ecclesiology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=UU75rkFTpzXCG-G...

Pope Francis says human trafficking is 'a crime against humanity' (Guardian)

Asks forgiveness for clerical abuses:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26989991

>161 John5918:

Two pieces from the Tablet

Pope meets sex slaves freed from 'scourge' of human trafficking

Cardinal Nichols and May open global anti-trafficking conference

CBS News' 60 Minutes did a two-part piece on Francis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/pope-francis-part-one/

English hierarchy will not publish results of sexual ethics survey.
BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27060172

On this....the Feast of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (Easter to all you apostates and heretics....yes if you belong to an apostasy....you are an apostate)....I pray that one day you will open your minds and hearts and realize how misguided and ignorant you are....and know that your souls are lost....

http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm

And a blessed and peaceful Feast of the Resurrection to you too, Joansknight. If you're following some of the parallel threads you'll see that we've recently had a conversation where we've highlighted terms like Resurrection and Paschal Feast rather than Easter.

Can I suggest that you take the Cardinal Siri conspiracy theory to the Sedevacante thread, or start another new thread, rather than derailing this particular thread with it? I'll be happy to respond to it there, but not here.

Fine John...but it is NOT a theory....why don't you try reading....try opening your heart to Christ!

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
- Aldous Huxley

You ignore facts John and you are indifferent to the Truth....as long as society has its sex....violence....and greed it will be happy and damn the TRUTH!

I am certain if Christ Himself appeared before you today....you'd ignore Him also....but you'd' be quick to prostrate yourself before Francis....who is Satan's servant!

Joansknight, you've been asked to not troll this thread. I'm flagging you for TOS violation.

168> - 170> Joansknight, I'll be happy to respond on a different thread, as suggested, but not here.

Edited to add: OK, I've done the deed for you - see The Cardinal Siri Thesis, where I have already responded to your posts 168-169.

The Atlantic: The Pope in the Attic: Benedict in the Time of Francis
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/the-pope-in-the-attic/359816...

Somewhat jazzed-up and speculative, but with some telling anecdotes. Kasper on Benedict not driving or using a computer is priceless, as is the anecdote about Cardinal Burke; one hopes he merely misunderstood.

>172 timspalding: From the article: "They are vexed by the thought that the change is irreversible, that the doors John Paul and Benedict strove to push closed—on sexuality, the ordination of women, the authority of the pope—will now stay open."

I'm rather puzzled by this statement, as it seems to say the exact opposite of what Francis has actually said on some of these topics. For example, on the topic of women's ordination, he said the following in the famous airplane interview on the way home from Brazil (see article in NCR):

"With regards to the ordination of women, the church has spoken and says no. Pope John Paul {II} said so with a formula that was definitive. That door is closed."

Francis didn't say that the door on that will stay open--he said that it is definitively closed.

When a reporter is so wrapped up in his own deluded narrative that he makes claims that are the direct opposite of reality, I find it hard to trust other anecdotes he relates, even if they do bear more the stamp of verisimilitude (e.g. the note on the computer).

I'm not sure it's "on some of these topics." It's one—women's ordination. Francis has made it clear that isn't going to be revisited on his watch. In saying "ordination," I don't think he meant to definitively rule out the ordination of female deacons, since JPII didn't rule that out and I think we all get the sense that Francis is not attempting to nail down new doctrine. At the same time, I don't think we'll see that soon.

If there is "hope" here for those who favor women priests, it is simply that Francis is a doctrinal moderate. His episcopal appointments are in line with that, and that means a good deal more nuance and sympathy, and less spleen, toward the majority of European, Americana and Latin American Catholics who (somehow) still support women's ordination.

Similarly, if the doctrine isn't going to change, the doctrine's teeth have, insofar as Francis has taken steps to downgrade the CDF from a hyper-congregation—above all other congregations and above all regional conferences and bishops—to an important congregation in dialogue with the rest of the Vatican and the universal church. Reduced too is the policing that will absolutely prevent treacherous "women-maybe"-ers from becoming bishop. Under Benedict episcopal appointments hinged on fidelity to a set of doctrinal propositions, and Cardinals such as Burke seemed to value the pugnaciousness with which episcopal candidates insisted on these propositions to the exclusion of much else. To people like Burke, Catholics who favor women's ordinations are something like the enemy. I don't get that sense from Francis at all. On the contrary, Francis was clearly close to Martini, who proposed female deacons and, contra JPII, argued that some future council could re-examine women priests as new question. I suppose we shall we shall see, when some German bishop proposes the question is indeed open--without lapsing into some obvious heresy or schism, like taking it upon himself to make some women priests.

"Sexuality" is a big topic, but Francis is clearly proposing a relative deemphasis of hot-button sexual teachings, and an attitude of mercy to situations that may be "sub-optimal," like cohabitation and homosexual partners. Will he proclaim either morally licit? Clearly not. But it's not beyond reason to think that celibate homosexuals will return to seminaries. Already he has made it clear that the church does not absolutely oppose civil unions, and baptized children of gay and unwed couples, whom the Catholic right argues are ipso facto bereft of a "founded hope" that they will raise their children Catholic. There is also clearly movement on the question of divorce and remarriage, although my feeling is that he's out of step with his bishops there, and won't push anything through without them.

As for ecclesiology, as the Georgetown talks I posted early make clear, it's something like a new game. Again, it's not a question of doctrine. But the Pope need not change any doctrine to scale back the effective authority of the pope, change the main narrative from one of "authority" to one of service and pastoral care, and to play up the role of local conferences and bishops.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/05/is-pope-francis-a-loose-ca...

There are some interesting points for discussion in the above post.

Its rather short, so worth giving a quick read if you can.

I do think the author is on to something, about the communicative elements. I agree that the intention is pure, but there is confusion out there, and a comment is likely to be interpreted in some quarters as doctrine.

I'm only really for the first time thinking directly on the heavy responsibility of the Pontiff.

A comment can be picked up by the press and dislodged from context, disseminated instantly across the global media and cause utter confusion in the laity (and perhaps the clergy).

And I would say that issues like sexual abuse, the vows of abstinence, homosexuality, contraception are meat and drink for media sensationalism.

>175 LesMiserables: Thanks. I found that article rather shallow, to be honest. The author exercises the same shallowness that he accuses other authors of, only from the other direction. He fails to recognise Francis' counter-cultural prophetic leadership-by-example. I wonder whether he would have levelled similar criticism against Jesus, who also did some pretty unusual things.

176

I thought exactly the same thing about Jesus' reception as an upstart.

But I think it raises issues around how communication is a serious aspect of the Holy See especially as there so many enemies of Christ out there waiting to pounce.

I know, I was one of them.

Ow.

Parts of talk by Muller against the US nuns cribbed.
http://davidgibson.religionnews.com/2014/05/07/cardinal-mueller-taking-talking-p...

“Abusing a minor is like celebrating a black mass” (Vatican Insider)

Despite the headline, the interview is far more wide-ranging than just child abuse.

Not as much of a block-bluster as the last one. I haven't seen a full transcript. Was he holding back, or was the press?

Interesting comments about the remarriage issue. It looks like administration of communion may be put on the backburner, with annulment procedures / canon law changes more likely to be the concrete outcomes of the Synod.

Also, the comments about married priests may provide more context for the Pope's previous remarks about female priests. One door is open because it is not dogma, so maybe the other closed because it is?

Also put me down as someone keenly looking forward to a common date for Easter, even if that means changes on the Catholic side. That would be a real step towards unity. I will pray to the Venerable Bede, a saint of the undivided Church, that it may be so.

Sounds like Francis made it home safely--bullet-proof pope-mobile or no, in spite of all the crazies in the Holy Land. His hosts must have bent over backward to keep him safe?

********************************************

Six American women will be ordained this month, bringing the number of women priests to 142 in the U.S. and 179 worldwide.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/23/catholic-women-priests.html

The whole history of the Church is one which is a model that is tested by fractures, schisms, divides. The whole remains and thrives.

Pope Francis replaces Vatican financial watchdog board (BBC)

Pope Francis defends Gypsies in Vatican address (Guardian)

How could a pope named after St Francis of Assisi go after animals?? After all, people who abuse animals, too often hurt other people. (I think our dog, especially, brought out a caring side in my kids, that's for sure!) There are many things we could do without in order to help the poor, but Fido or Fluffy's daily kibble should be among the last places to look!

To be sure, Pope Francis was encouraging married couples to welcome children and not try to replace them with pets, but sheesh!

Will Graham Oakley have to end the Church Mice series by having the rector take Sampson the church cat to a shelter?? (I loved that series of kids' books!) ;-)

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/06/06/pope-francis-has-a-po...

>185 margd: But even St. Francis did not subordinate the care of animals to the care of souls -- the preaching of the Gospel took precedence over the pampering of pets.

ETA: Compare the following passage from The Life of St. Francis (First Life, I.58-63):

One day he came to a town called Alviano to preach the word of God. Ascending to where he could be seen by all, he asked for silence. The people became quiet and waited reverently, but a flock of swallows building nests in that place continued to chatter away, making it impossible for the people to hear. Francis said to the noisy birds, “My sisters the swallows, it’s my turn to speak now, because you've already said enough. Listen to the word of God. Stay still and be quiet until it’s over.” To the people’s amazement, the little birds immediately stopped chattering and did not move until Francis had finished preaching. Those who witnessed this sign were filled with wonder and said, “Truly this man is holy and a friend of the Most High.” Praising and blessing God, they devoutly hurried at least to touch his clothing. And it is marvelous how those irrational creatures recognized his affection for them and sensed the sweetness of his love.

>185 margd: I think you're reading too much into what Pope Francis said. As you say, "To be sure, Pope Francis was encouraging married couples to welcome children and not try to replace them with pets". I don't think he's anti-animal, but he is pointing out an anomaly. He's not "going after" animals and I doubt very much whether he is encouraging people to abuse animals.

A few weeks ago I was reminiscing with a South Sudanese protestant pastor and colleague about an advocacy trip to Australia we did together in 2001. In Canberra he was shocked to see people demonstrating against cruelty to pigs. His question was, "Where are the people demonstrating against cruelty to humans in South Sudan?" or indeed anywhere else in the world.

As with most things, it can be both/and rather than either/or. But I have to say, as a dog lover myself (today I was able to enjoy some quiet time with my two Rhodesian Ridgebacks), that I too am shocked when I visit the USA or Britain and see the degree of "pampering of pets", to use Nathaniel's phrase.

My dad used to say, "If you have an animal, you should take care of it." I suppose the coat my Jack Russell wears on winter walks would seem pampering, but she really can't take the cold. (She hates that coat, BTW!) As a child living in Manitoba we had boots for our poodle (which she really hated) but it would get so cold sometimes that her pads would stick to the snow.

Former colleagues who ended up in Zimbabwe and Thailand certainly have stiff expectations for their hunting/guard dogs that I find a little difficult to appreciate, but I suspect that they aren't spending much time on the poor as a result. (Not that I know of anyway.)

My bet is that many people demonstrating for pigs are also active on issues like climate change, etc., which benefit the poor. I myself eat little more than the odd bit of bacon these days...though professionally, I've had to dispatch my share of critters (as humanely as possible).

The Good Father might have chosen preoccupations other than pet ownership to make his point, IMHO. Anyway, never mind. Small quibble.

>188 margd:: Former colleagues who ended up in Zimbabwe and Thailand certainly have stiff expectations for their hunting/guard dogs that I find a little difficult to appreciate
Suspect a lot of people with "working" dogs (shepherds, farmers, police, truffle sniffers etc) have a fairly unsentimental link to them but will take reasonable care of them because of their commercial value.

>189 PossMan: Agreed. I think there is a difference between "taking care of" and "pampering". But different people in different contexts will draw a different line between the two, of course.

The one couple I know who chose not to have kids had dogs, yes, but they also fill their time with travel, foodie pursuits, house projects, classes, socializing, several charities (e.g., Habitat for Humanity) and many, many hobbies. It's probably better--for wouldbe kids as well as adults--that couples who don't desire children don't have them (although this couple would have made good parents, I think), but I wouldn't single out pets as the primary factor displacing children from this couple's life at least.

Dangerous ground it is, second guessing people's choices about whether and how to build their families. As a-parent of foreign-born kids, I'm amazed by people willing to opine that we should have adopted domestically.

>191 margd: But I don't think he did "single out pets as the primary factor displacing children"; I think he was just using it as an example of the modern west, one which is quite striking to non-westerners (as per my example of my South Sudanese friend). I think you're reading too much into it. But as you said earlier, it's not worth quibbling about, and my apologies if I have led us off-topic by my replies.

Pope Francis peace plea at Israel-Palestinian prayer meeting (BBC)

Pope’s peace summit a turning point, even without peace (Boston Globe)

Simplicity and Spontaneity: The pope slips away to lunch with the friars of at {sic} Saint Saviour Monastery

Commonweal, "The Italian Job: Can Pope Francis Manage His Local Opposition?" by Massimo Faggioli
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/italian-job

Fantastic piece.

193

John, I worry when I see prayers being offered to false Gods, especially the Vatican.

There is much you can do to foster peace, but that doesn't include for me, compromising our religion, by implicitly acknowledging that there might be some legitimacy in their religions.

I also note the Muslim prayer was only offered in Arabic. Ecumenicism whatever that is, surely should be a two way street.

>196 LesMiserables: To be sure, there were plenty of precautions. There was no single moment of joint prayer among the pope, Abbas, and Peres, but rather three separate prayers for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Pizzaballa insisted that the leaders were not “praying together’’ but rather “coming together to pray.”

John, I worry when I see prayers being offered to false Gods, especially the Vatican.

The Catholic church does not believe the Jewish God is a false God. That has been a heresy since Marcion at least.

The Catholic church does not believe the Muslim God is a false God either. It never has.

There is much you can do to foster peace, but that doesn't include for me, compromising our religion, by implicitly acknowledging that there might be some legitimacy in their religions.

"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

Nostra Aetate §2, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_...

I also note the Muslim prayer was only offered in Arabic. Ecumenicism whatever that is, surely should be a two way street.

Arabic has a status in Islam different from that of Hebrew or Greek in Judaism or Christianity. One does not, for example, translate the Koran, but "interpret" it into another language. On a few occasions, they have been forced to pray in other languages--for example in the early years of Ataturk. It is regarded as a sacrilege.

We patently understand these things differently.

I believe in the Holy Trinity as our God: The Creed.

Muslims don't consider Christ as divine. And the Jews have Yahweh.

And the Jews have Yahweh.

So do Catholics. You are aware the Old Testament is Catholic scripture? You are aware Jesus and (probably) all the disciples were Jews, praying Jewish prayers at the Jewish temple? You may want to review Catechism §205 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p1.htm#205

Muslims don't consider Christ as divine.

Clearly so. Nor do the Jews. Does it follow that Jews never worshipped God? The Catholic church has obviously always believed that Jews and Muslims have an incomplete understanding of God. It does not follow they worship a different God.

See also Catechism §841

"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

200

Of course, but Yahweh alone. Not the Holy Trinity.

Completely different conception of God.

Stephen, the Catholic Church has always recognised that the God of the Jews and the Muslims is the same One God that we worship; it is basically the God of the Old Testament. Muslims (and I presume Jews too, although I know little about Judaism) also recognise that the three Abrahamic faiths worship the same God, the "People of the Book", as the Muslims describe us all. We Christians, though, obviously believe we have a more developed understanding of that One God than they do, particularly the Trinitarian aspect.

As for using Arabic for prayers, so do all the Christians in Arabic-speaking countries. I regularly attend Mass in Arabic.

202

Christians, though, obviously believe we have a more developed understanding of that One God than they do, particularly the Trinitarian aspect.

John I admire your charitable outreaching here, but I think that many would debate hotly with what Vatican II and the New Catechism says about this, that Allah is the same God as our Lord.

I don't buy it.

>203 LesMiserables: Allah is the same God as Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Old Testament. That Jesus brought a new understanding of God is indisputable, but that the Old Testament God is no longer God is simply false. Some less charitable than me would say that their understanding of God is defective, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the same God.

204

Perhaps John, in some primitive conception in the same vein as Creationism, I accept what you say, but the Holy trinity of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost is an alien concept to the other monotheistic religions and is de facto a different God.
(I think!) :-)
God Bless

>205 LesMiserables: An alien concept, yes. A different God, no. People who have a defective understanding (to use the harshest word) of the God they are worshipping are still worshipping the same God as those who have a more complete understanding. Jesus did not preach about a different God; he preached about a more complete understanding of the existing God.

206

John I'm on my second glass of Shiraz now, so I bow to your sobriety :-)

Anything I add now will be noticeably more pedestrian than my already pedestrian efforts on here., so I will bow out this evening! Cheers.

that Allah is the same God as our Lord

Canard after canard. Allah is just the word God—more particularly a contraction of "the God." As such, it's plural would be used in talking about Zeus and Poseidon, it's feminine when talking about Athena, etc.. It is used as the only word for God by contemporary Arabic-speaking Christians, and was the word used before Islam--as pre-Islamic Arabic translations of the New Testament show. That many in English do not translate it is, again, owes only to the particular focus that Islam has on the Arabic language.

>208 timspalding:: I think this sort of confusion is why T.N. Wright in The New Testament and the People of God and its sequels in the series "Christian Origins and the Question of God" distinguishes between god, God, and YHWH.

Francis: Church Proposes System of Justice That Fully Rehabilitates Wrongdoers (Zenit)

> 211

Amusingly, for an article which seeks to rely on logic, it break a couple of logical rules.

Point 1 is a straight non-sequitur. Saying Islam worships the one God, though with a severely defective understanding of him, is not to say God considers with equanimity the errors held by Muslims (quite the reverse in fact).

Point 2 is baseless, as the Pope is not promoting indifferentism, and could repeat Pope Pius VIII's teaching without difficulty.

Point 3 is the same. Peace in the Middle East, if nothing else, would be a great boon to Chirstians who live or make pilgrimage there. We fought a crusade or two for the same purpose if I remember rightly, and justifiably so IMO (even if the methods used were not always acceptable).

Point 4 fails as it assumes the previous points.

The Vatican made some of these mistakes at the first Assisi Interfaith event (like having everyone join in the same prayers). It does not make them anymore.

Squatters bed down in Vatican church (Guardian)

Rome homeless group has lived for nine days at Saint Mary Major, a papal basilica where Pope Francis regularly prays...

> 213

Sad to hear things are going so poorly for many people in Rome.

I can not imagine a Church would be a real comfortable place to stay - The heating would not be great in winter if nothing else.

POPE'S MESSAGE FOR THE INAUGURATION OF THE WORLD CUP: “MAY IT BE A CELEBRATION OF SOLIDARITY BETWEEN PEOPLES” (VIS)

Pope Francis Warns The Global Economy Is Near Collapse (Huffington Post)

Full text of Pope Francis' Interview with 'La Vanguardia'

Pope enters Scottish independence debate with warning against division (Guardian)

Pope Francis says every independence movement is different, but separation of countries must be 'handled with tweezers'...

Pope and Welby to be joined by Alpha's Nicky Gumbel for meeting focused on combating slavery (Tablet)

Can someone explain this to me?

> 218

Humility? The story related by St Bede, of how St Augustine of Canterbury lost the Welsh bishops at their first meeting, comes to mind.

Humility is a mark of a true Christian.

219

Yup.

You could also say that it is beyond the pale.

A schismatic bishop blessing the bowed head of the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ?

If humility means having a modest or humble opinion of oneself, let him do that in private when he bows to the Head of a Protestant Church. He needs to remember who he is and what he stands for, and his continued gaffs since taking the Petrine Office, have caused consternation, outrage or simply bewilderment.

Then of course when you put this in the context of the Pope's ambiguousness since coming to office around things like his "Who am I to judge?" comment on homosexuality. His contradiction of Benedict XVI on the Summorum Pontificum with respect to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (a traditional and flourishing order in complete union with the Church) and their right to conduct vetus ordo by their own volition and without the authority of any Bishop, and that he reportedly told a woman living with a divorced man that she is free to take Holy Communion, which has not been refuted by the Vatican, instead spun-away through a spokesman along the lines of we won't be commenting on private conversations.

So perhaps once you accept divergence, as the photo shows, what you do is only a matter of degrees afterwards.

In fact you might say that we are witnessing a most irregular period in Church history: a period of heresies?

> 220

Well, like I said, showing a lack of Christain humility to schismatic bishops is what St Bede condemed in St Augustine of Canterbury.

And St Bede was no friend to the Welsh bishops. Their failure to spread the faith to the English peoples, due to what we might consider justifible dislike arising for their own conquest, was something he seems to have taken reasonably personally.

Plus, Pope Francis asks all sorts of people to bless him. It is far from accepting Welby as a bishop or anything.

* Not a hugh fan of St Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran however. That was likely a mistake, but then, even saints make mistakes.

222

It is far from accepting Welby as a bishop or anything.

I don't think we will agree on this.

...showing a lack of Christain humility to schismatic bishops is what St Bede condemed

There are many ways of showing humility. I think if we are being honest about Pope Francis, we might question whether or not he understands the rules of engagement though. But following the modern policy of 'ecumenism at all costs', leaves us with what we have today... Diabolical disorientation?

I think Pope Francis needs our prayers more than anything else at the moment.

> 223

You believe the Pope thinks he is a real Bishop? Now you have me interested - What is your basis for that?

BTW, my entry into the Pope's thinking on this is his friendship with Tony Palmer, who basically teaches the prosperity gospel. He might say and do nice things with Tony Palmer, but if there is anything in the world the Pope would consider heretical it would be the prosperity gospel.

The Pope pointing out heretics:

http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=55707

"Many people say they belong to the Church," Pope Francis said, but they have "only one foot inside," he warned. Pope Francis was speaking about Catholics who pick and choose doctrine and interpret things according to their personal preferences are not full Catholics.

Pope Francis spoke about "uniformists," "alternativists" and "businessists."

Uniformists are rigid and they confuse the teachings of Christ with their "own doctrine of uniformity." They allow no room for diversity. "They are rigid! They do not have that freedom the Holy Spirit gives," he explained. That attitude of rigidity distances them from the Church and the teachings of Christ.

The alternativists interpret Church doctrine to fit their preferences and according to Pope Francis they have "a partial belonging to the Church. These too have one foot outside the Church." These believers were "renting" the Church in his words.

Finally, Pope Francis criticized businessists, Christians who use the Church for personal profit without entering "into the heart of the Church." "We have all seen them in parish or diocesan communities and religious congregations; they are some of the benefactors of the church. They strut around proud of being benefactors, but in the end, under the table, make their deals," he said.:

Uniformists might be some traditionalists, together with not a few progressive liturgy types who want the EF supressed again.

Alternativists would include quite a few progressives, as well as some with odd right wing economic ideas which are inconsistent with Church teachings.

226
Well on that basis, Pope Francis might be described as a Uniform Alternativist!

ie He is a rigid cherry picker.

You believe the Pope thinks he is a real Bishop? Now you have me interested - What is your basis for that?

Is it not a logical conclusion to make considering his inside every Christian is a Jew.” statement, that inside every Anglican is a Catholic?

You see you cannot pick and choose.

I think Pope Francis needs to go away on a retreat and seriously consider his Papacy so far as nothing short of a first class debacle.

> 227

Eh? If it is the logical conclusion, I must be missing the logic.

Saying that "inside every Christian is a Jew" is basically the same as saying the Church is the New Israel, which is pretty orthodox.

I just think the Pope is respectful to people, and saves his (often rather direct) invective for false ideas. To be fair to him, I don't think we have had a Pope so happy to call out errors directly since before VII.

I mean, when he was talking about Pelagians and Gnostics, a large number of people realised the Pope had just called them formal heretics. How many times has that happened in the last 50 years?

228

Saying that "inside every Christian is a Jew" is basically the same as saying the Church is the New Israel, which is pretty orthodox.

No. You miss the intent. The intent is ecumenism rather than orthodoxy.

> 229

Those intents are not necessarily in tension, though I don't think ecumenism applies to inter-faith matters, only with our separated brethren (i.e. heretics and schismatics).

Unless you consider ecumenism in the same light as some Eastern Orthodox, as the "Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism"?

>220 LesMiserables: His contradiction of Benedict XVI on the Summorum Pontificum with respect to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

Stephen, I think it has been pointed out to you more than once that this is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. It had little to do with the Tridentine Mass and much to do with problems within the order, problems which Benedict XVI had begun to engage with before he retired but which it was left to Francis to finish. Far from contradicting Benedict, Francis was continuing what Benedict started.

>223 LesMiserables: the modern policy of 'ecumenism at all costs',

I'm not aware of this policy. It certainly doesn't represent anything I have come across when working ecumenically, nor anything I have seen the Church engaging in officially.

>228 hf22:, >229 LesMiserables: Saying that "inside every Christian is a Jew" is basically the same as saying the Church is the New Israel, which is pretty orthodox.

No. You miss the intent. The intent is ecumenism rather than orthodoxy.

How do you know the intent is ecumenism rather than orthodoxy? In fact Francis is proving to be an extremely orthodox pope when it comes to doctrine and theology, as hf22 points out.

Is it not a logical conclusion to make considering his inside every Christian is a Jew.” statement, that inside every Anglican is a Catholic?

Surely inside every Anglican there is a Catholic. Indeed, since the Oxford movement, Anglicans have wandered toward the Catholic church—and indeed with many leaving it—precisely by recognizing that.

Saying that "inside every Christian is a Jew" is basically the same as saying the Church is the New Israel, which is pretty orthodox.

He clarified his quote in the Vangardia interview:

Q: You told me a year ago that “within every Christian there is a Jew.

A: Perhaps it would be more correct to say “you cannot live your Christianity, you cannot be a real Christian, if you do not recognize your Jewish roots.” I don’t speak of Jewish in the sense of the Semitic race but rather in the religious sense. I think that inter-religious dialogue needs to deepen in this, in Christianity’s Jewish root and in the Christian flowering of Judaism. I understand it is a challenge, a hot potato, but it can be done as brothers. I pray every day the divine office every day with the Psalms of David. We do the 150 psalms in one week. My prayer is Jewish and I have the Eucharist, which is Christian.

With their relatively weaker grasp of the Bible, Catholics don't always get the Jewish roots of Christianity. But they were at the very center of the concerns of the Gospel writers, and Paul, obviously. We worship the Jewish God. We read Jewish scriptures. We say Jewish prayers. Todays Jews are the Jews who don't think the Messiah has come; we are the Jews who think he did. That, when he came, worship of the Jewish God expanded to non-Jews, or that it involved a movement from the Law to a law written on our hearts, was (and is) part of what Jews believed would happen. Christians are simply followers of the Jewish God living in a post-messianic age.

>222 hf22: Not a hugh fan of St Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran however. That was likely a mistake, but then, even saints make mistakes.

JP II kissed the soil of every country when he stepped off plane. Kissing a Koran was likewise meant to show respect, I think.

BTW, thumbing through a comparative religions textbook, I was surprised that key passages from the Koran sounded more familiar to this Christian's ears than did key Jewish texts.

233

Kissing the book that denies the divinity of the Holy Trinity just like the Jews.

BTW, thumbing through a comparative religions textbook, I was surprised that key passages from the Koran sounded more familiar to this Christian's ears than did key Jewish texts.

Read the Pirke Aboth*, the Saying of the Fathers, a short ethical compendium roughly contemporaneous with Jesus (i.e., written later, but including sayings that are both later and earlier). It will make your hair stand on end. Parallelisms with New Testament abound. These are the ideas and modes of expression Jesus was swimming in.

*One translation: http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html

> 231

The wonders of the modern internet age. The fact that the Pope is a Catholic still shocks people. :)

> 232

I don't really want to reopen it, but to add to what you say Tim, it should be remembered where and when the last intellectual attempt to deny Christianity's Jewish roots occurred.

Hint - The fact it was in nineteenth century Germany is not unrelated to what followed.

Error begets hideous error.

> 233

I suspect it was, but I think it was not a great way to do it.

Pope Francis has a better way - Show respect to people, rather than their particular wrong headed ideas (i.e. kiss the hand of the Saudi prince, rather than the Koran).

This seems to me to better accord with Christian teachings.

Kissing the book that denies the divinity of the Holy Trinity just like the Jews.

I don't think that's quite right. To deny the divinity of the Trinity would be to deny God. They deny that God is a trinity.

A Christian cannot push this notion too far. A fully-developed understanding of the Trinity took centuries to develop. It goes without saying that Jews before Jesus did not understand the Trinity. Indeed, given all their polemics against monotheism, can anyone doubt that most of the authors of the Old Testament would have reacted hostly to the idea? Can anyone doubt that Mary or Joseph, asked by a time-travelling reporter in AD 6 whether God was a Trinity, would have vehemently denied it? Heck, the first generations of the church, including the apostles, did not have the understanding we have. Heck, the fathers are Nicaea were willing to leave the divinity of the Holy Spirit uncertain, so long as the divinity of the Christ was laid out clearly.

One may perhaps distinguish ignorance from denial, but then true denial requires true understanding. In my experience, most non-Christians, including Jews, don't really understand what Christians believe about the Trinity. What they think it is--obfuscatory polytheism--is, well, something I also would deny.

I don't really want to reopen it, but to add to what you say Tim, it should be remembered where and when the last intellectual attempt to deny Christianity's Jewish roots occurred.

I'll reopen it. Anti-Judaism is insidious. To turn your back on "the Jew inside" is to turn your back on the Gospel.

> 238

I'll reopen it. Anti-Judaism is insidious. To turn your back on "the Jew inside" is to turn your back on the Gospel.

Agreed. An error at the time of the arch-heretic Maricon, and an error now.

A good article on this topic - The Christian Hope and Christian Dialogue with Jews:

http://scecclesia.com/other-stuff/my-articles/the-christian-hope-and-christian-d...

238

Tim, you haven't really said anything here. Both Islam and Judaism are monotheistic religions that deny the Holy Trinity. Period. Please don't attempt a Kasperian ambiguity on us now! No interpretation through a hermeneutics of continuity will do it either.

Would you agree that every Jew from Moses to Judas Maccabeus "denied" the Trinity?

No interpretation through a hermeneutics of continuity will do it either.

We are continuous with Judaism. I'm not any point could be more easily proved from Scripture. If you want to go off the deep end and reject the Judaism of the New and Old Testament, be my guest. As @hf22 pointed out, the hermeneutic of discontinuity is of great antiquity. Marcion called Judaism a false religion too.

No. I reject the idea of continuity. I embrace Christianity and its historical roots. Judaism rejected Christ and continues to do so, ergo no continuity.

> 243

Ah, rejecting that continuity is rejecting Christianity. The Old Testament is our scripture, the history of Israel our history.

Marcion was excommunicated for this stuff in about 144AD. This has never been the faith of Church.

"Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

"Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone."

- Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Vatican Council II), no. 4.

244

Your not getting this are you. If you read #243 you would see that I- Yes that's ME - am a Christian and accept the roots n all. So how is that rejecting continuity.

I am saying (which you should be able to work out) that I'm rejecting the idea of a universal continuity agreed by Jews and Christians. The former have chosen to remain stuck in Old Testament vibe.

> 246

No, I don't think I am getting it.

What is a "universal continuity"? Obviously, Jews are not Christians, nor are they part of the Church or the salvation promised to it.

Is that all you mean?

No. I reject the idea of continuity. I embrace Christianity and its historical roots. Judaism rejected Christ and continues to do so, ergo no continuity.

This is the classic line. The Jews of today aren't the Jews of yesterday—they're a new religion. It makes an absolute hash of Scripture. See Romans, for starters.

I don't suppose a reference to the Catechism will avail:

"When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus."

nor are they part of the Church or the salvation promised to it

This is the tough question. Paul seems to go back and forth on just what, how and when the Jews share in salvation, leading to the contemporary Catholic theological question.

248

Tim Spalding The Jews of today aren't the Jews of yesterday—they're a new religion

I didn't say that!

> 248

Meh, does not seem so tough to me, and it is a question the Church already has answered (at least by 1441, with Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence#).

Even if you accept a dual covenant theory, all you get IMO is that the Jews are condemned for failing to perfectly follow the old law (pace St Paul), rather than for refusing to follow the new*. And in any case, do you really think the Church should be in the business of deciding 1) who is a Jew and 2) who is a good Jew?

Now that does not preclude hope, which St Paul clearly has, but hope is different from promises.

In any case, as I understand it, many Jews do not understand salvation in Christian terms anyway. Seems disrespectful to tell them their don't understand their own faith - Not to mention dehumanizing to effectively say they are unable to reject Christ.

# This is what I mean when I say many "contemporary Catholic theological questions", which people present as new and interesting, are actually old and boring. Can we at least discuss errors which have not already been formally defined as such by a Great Council of the Church? And if not Florence, Para 9 of Lumen Gentium from VII is clear enough on this point anyway.

As a side note, the revised LOTH which was issued after VII, also continues to have a number of prayers for the conversion of the Jews, as noted in the Article I posted at 240 above.

* Personally, and with the Church, I would reject both any dual-covenant theology which affirmed Jews can be saved merely by being good Jews, and any supersessionism which denies God's continued relationship with the Jewish people.

I would incline to agree with you that Jews cannot be saved merely by being good Jews. But if salvation is indeed possible to those who are not formally part of the church. But God's promises and message to the Jews were not a Mission Impossible note, due to explode when Christ came. It stands to reason that those who worship God as God commanded them to do are doing something very right. And it stands to reason that rabbinic Judaism, which in most respects follows traditions that hew closer to Christian understandings of God's relationship to man and man's relationship to man than the sterile formalities of some Jewish worship that Jesus condemns, puts a person in a different position than those who ignore and reject what God ever said.

In any case, as I understand it, many Jews do not understand salvation in Christian terms anyway. Seems disrespectful to tell them their don't understand their own faith - Not to mention dehumanizing to effectively say they are unable to reject Christ.

No, I don't agree. That's basic doctrine. We have to believe that some who reject Christ are indeed saved, for they said the words but in fact accepted him. It is no doubt very impolite and unhelpful to tell a Jews or an atheist that Christ loves them, or that they are responding to Christ's call, but it is a theological fact we shouldn't deny.

251

We have to believe that some who reject Christ are indeed saved

Ah! And here we come back to the bastardising of the Mass of All Time.

When Bugnini purposely mistranslated multis which means 'many', from the Traditional Mass to 'all' in the Novus Ordo Missae he did so to make Protestant the Mass.

Remember when we use 'many' we mean that Christ's sacrifice, which is what Mass repeats, is an exact description of Christ's Blood and is sufficient to save Mankind, but it doesn't because it is a requirement to cooperate with grace. So the fruits of Christ's sacrifice are only for some, not all, and those who reject the Grace are culpable. This is why the vernacular use in Missals of 'all' is wrong, indeed a heresy. Yet another reason for keeping Latin as the lingua franca of the Catholic Church.

St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus Liguori were very specific about this.

>252 LesMiserables:

I'm sorry, but this stuff is no longer within the realm of reasonable discussion. It's up there with moon-landing and 9/11 conspiracies.

This is cut-and-paste crud, from embittered schismatics with wild-eyed theories. It's absurd to heap up a large and broad-based liturgical renewal onto one man (and didn't you hear, he was a freemason?), and it's risible to confuse the Novus Ordo, which has exactly the same text as the Vetus Ordo, with how some vernacular translations approached the Latin text.

253

and it's risible to confuse the Novus Ordo, which has exactly the same text as the Vetus Ordo,

Did I just read that right?

What in the name of heaven are you on about here Tim? You are either showing profound ignorance or profound deceit!

Go here to educate yourself and look at the difference.

I'm sorry, but this stuff is no longer within the realm of reasonable discussion. It's up there with moon-landing and 9/11 conspiracies.

I have no idea what your talking about. Unless you mean mistranslations?

Are you telling me that the Mass of All Time did not change?

Are you telling me that all the fallout was a result of mass delusion?

Are you telling me that Pope John Paul II's 1984 Indult or Pope Benedict XVI Summorum Pontificum was written to mollify a figment of the imagination?

It's certainly not cut and paste, but is neatly summarised within

The Problems With the New Mass: A Brief Overview of the Major Theological Difficulties Inherent in the Novus Ordo Missae

But, seeing as I am denounced as a loony, I will allow Lutheran Sociologist Dr Berger conclude on the changes from the Mass of All Time to the New Order of Mass...

""If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”

> 251

Tim,

I am not really sure what your argument is here. The Jewish people have a special relationship to God, I am not denying that. But it does not put them inside the Church, visible or invisible.

Also, on what basis is "We have to believe that some who reject Christ are indeed saved" basic doctrine? The concept of "Anonymous Christians" does not and can not extend to those who know of Christ and reject him - That is a clear denial of free will.

This runs into the same problem as universalism - If people are saved in spite of themselves, you have denied their humanity.

Did I just read that right? What in the name of heaven are you on about here Tim? You are either showing profound ignorance or profound deceit!

Pro multis. It's the same text in both versions of the mass. The former was not translated, so it means whatever pro multis means in context. The latter was, when vernacular translations were made, and showed up in a variety of translations in a variety of ways.

Bugnini had a number of different positions related to the liturgy, some more important, some less, but all within large committees with all manner of approvals and oversight. Liturgical reform was broadly embraced by the church at the time—at the Council, in the various commissions, in local bishops conferences, etc.—with a small minority dissenting. It is unreasonable to ascribe to him the sort of power that you and others give him. It's a dumb conspiracy theory, utterly out of touch with the simple narrative of how liturgical reform took place. And and defies understanding of the factual details of text and translations—not to mention understanding of how the translations were written and approved!—to imagine he "purposely mistranslated multis which means 'many', from the Traditional Mass to 'all' in the Novus Ordo Missae."

> 252

Both translations, for many and for all, can be read in a heretical manner. The first can be seen as denying Christ died for all, though he clearly did. The second can be seen as promoting universalism.

The only reason why for many is to be preferred is that is what the Latin, and prior to that the Biblical Greek, actually has.

The argument provided for all is based on a highly speculative theory about the Aramaic presumably used by Jesus. It is an insufficient basis to overturn the actual, and inspired, Greek text.

>256 timspalding:

I don't disagree. I think there's a good case that "for many" is too restrictive, since the Greek word has a wider resonance than the English. But on balance, if the Latin text is to stand, and therefore the quote from those passages and not other—equally inspired—passages about Christ dying for all is to stand, then "for many" is the better translation. Given the fact that the previous version was never translated, and the new one is now being changed, there is a very delicate issue there, in making it seem like the church has changed its mind about Christ dying for all. That said, the translation is more accurate.

Now, it would be nice if the rest of the translation were accurate, and faithful to the Greek original, such as not translating the absolutely vanilla word for "cup" as "chalice." Also it would be nice if it were written in English, not this crazy mishmash of English words, often amusing banality and Latin grammar. But that's another story.

>255 hf22:

The point is that one may believe oneself to reject Christ, and not reject him, just as one may believe oneself to have embraced him, and have done nothing of the sort. Obviously a true rejection would be a true rejection. And indeed to deny that would be to deny human free will. Whether a Jew today who worships God and behaves toward man with true humility, charity, mercy and love—and who has no more "rejected" Christ than I have "rejected" Taoism (which I've never given much of a thought to and don't understand), is up to God. I do not consider the mere fact of one man being labelled a Christian and another Jew to be definite proof of their ultimate destination. God sees men souls. He isn't checking for tefillin and throwing people into Hell for it.

> 254

The book you recommend was written by a sedevacantist, a position which basically requires that the Church has already fallen. It is incoherent.

>252 LesMiserables: We have to believe that some who reject Christ are indeed saved

It is quite clearly the teaching of the Church that some outside the Church are saved. There is no question about it; it is set out clearly in the documents of Vatican II.

When Bugnini purposely mistranslated multis which means 'many', from the Traditional Mass to 'all' in the Novus Ordo Missae he did so to make Protestant the Mass.

You seem to know a lot about his intentions.

This is why the vernacular use in Missals of 'all' is wrong, indeed a heresy. Yet another reason for keeping Latin as the lingua franca of the Catholic Church.

All is not in the missal. It says many. If it was mistranslated in the earlier English vernacular, it has now been corrected. And Latin still is the lingua franca of the Church in the sense that the normative version is the Latin one, not any of the vernacular translations, so the vernacular translations can always be checked against the Latin and adjusted if necessary.

>254 LesMiserables: the Mass of All Time

There is no Mass of All Time, at least not in the sense of particular rites, rubrics, liturgies, translations and words. The Mass as celebrated in the early Church was not the same as the multiple rites used during later periods (Celtic, Sarum, Syriac, Roman, etc). The Tridentine Mass became fairly standardised after the Council of Trent for about 400 years, ie about 20% of the life of the Church, but it was not the same as earlier masses. If you mean that the meaning of the Mass and its efficacy don't change, then I can agree with a term like "Mass of All Time", but if you refer to the form, then I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Edited to add: The English translation of the normal Mass used in that link is the old one, eg it has "And also with you" instead of "And with your spirit". It also omits the other changes which were made to the English translation two or three years ago. Some of these changes rather undermine some of the points the website is trying to make (eg "all" v "many").

> 258

I could live with "for the many" or something, if everyone agreed it felt broader.

On the other point, clearly one can "believe oneself to have embraced him, and have done nothing of the sort". However, I am not sure the reverse is true.

Pretty fine point however, with unclear practical implications even if possible. I might leave it at the fact that God's mercy might save a whole lot of people for whatever reasons please him, but we can not know who and have to act like he will not.

>261 hf22:

It comes down to this: Do you believe that all those who are not formally Christians are damned? That's clearly not the teaching of the church.

I could live with "for the many" or something, if everyone agreed it felt broader.

Right. I would add that the lack of an English second-person plural also makes it feel smaller than vobis. Is Christ talking to me? No, he's talking to we.

> 260

John,

Just because it is a bugbear, some outside the visible Church may be saved.

We still believe "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", even if only in a circular manner (i.e. salvation makes you part of the Church).

Plus, given the Gospel is now available to the whole world more or less, I am not really sure if "Anonymous Christians" can still be a major thing. At the very least, we can not act like they are, as who may be is known only to God.

> 262

Well, no it does not.

Those who are not formally Christian are outside God's promises, though not his mercy. Accordingly we have to act like they need to become formally Christian.

Neither presumption nor despair, like in all things.

>263 hf22: Thanks; no problem.

> 265

John,

Like I said, just a bugbear. More talking to myself than you. Sorry.

Plus, given the Gospel is now available to the whole world more or less

Yeah, I don't buy that. God is merciful, but even if he's not, he's fair and just. A just God is not condemning someone who's never really had and rejected the Gospel in a serious way. That most everyone in the world has heard of Christianity is hardly the point. And it has strange moral implications. Surely the good news is GOOD NEWS. If the mere existence of some information about Jesus out there in the world unexamined by most is enough to establish rejection, then Christians should have hardly told anyone anything. Every mile more they spread the idea, the more they were damning. These are ultimately very Protestant conceptions, of a cut-and-dried acceptance and rejection.

> 267

Every mile more they spread the idea, the more they were damning.

This is actually my issue with the way "Anonymous Christians" are talked about. If anything, being an "Anonymous Christian" is going to harder than a formal one, not easier.

I think we have to take as our starting point Lumen Gentium, rather than Karl Rahner various presentations of the idea, where it states:

"Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."

If you "sincerely seek God" in most of the modern world, I think looking into this Jesus guy some people keep going on about is going to be a requirement.

But then, like I said, known only to God. Our job is to spread the Good News, not judge who is saved.

My only real baseline is that if our idea of "Anonymous Christians" limits our evangelising. Then it is an issue and likely an error.

Agreed on that!

> 269

:)

Plus, given the Gospel is now available to the whole world more or less

Yeah, I'm not sure I buy this either. Looking up information about the Gospel online, or hearing about Jesus in a book, is not the same as having heard the kerygma and being invited into a relationship with him. The information may be widely available, but we've hardly fulfilled the command to "preach the Gospel to all creation."

> 271

Sure, the issue of ideas limiting our evangelising cuts both ways. I agree with what you are saying 100%. A web link does not meet our obligations in this regard.

The thing is, we need to remember the salvation of souls may well hang on us sharing the kerygma. We can not use possibilities such as "Anonymous Christians" to avoid this responsibility, any more than we can farm it out on others by requiring them to come to us.

That is the risk I am trying to avoid. Not trying to push the responsibility on to others (which is I think the impression I have mistakenly given you).

No argument here. :-)

Pope Francis ‘excommunicates’ Italian mafia

http://rt.com/news/167580-pope-excommunicated-italy-mafia/
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2014/06/in-calabria-popes-bomb-mafia-is....
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/06/21/pope-francis-calls-ndrangheta-ad...

etc.

274

Interesting this one. Can a group be excommunicated? How can that excommunication differentiate between those who are willingly involved as opposed to those who are in part involved through ignorance (in the case of minors) or those living in grave fear?

>267 timspalding: That most everyone in the world has heard of Christianity is hardly the point

Although I do recall 30 years ago this year staring down the gun barrels of a group of wild-eyed youths who wanted to kill me because I'm an Arab (most of them had never seen either an Arab or a European). When we explained to them that I'm not an Arab, I'm not an American working for the oil company which they hated as much as the Arabs, and that I work for the Church, none of them had ever heard of said Church. Fortunately we were eventually rescued by an officer who understood what the Church was.

If you "sincerely seek God" in most of the modern world, I think looking into this Jesus guy some people keep going on about is going to be a requirement.

Not necessarily. If you are brought up in a culture which is solidly Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist you probably already sincerely believe that you have found the God you seek. That probably accounts for at least a third of the modern world. (Edited to add: And one might indeed sincerely look into him and find that in all sincerity he does not appear any better than one's original belief).

And I also agree with what Jonathan says in >271 sullijo:.

>275 LesMiserables: The second of those links states, "canonists will take pains to emphasize that the 'excommunicated' statement is by no means a formal decree with legal effect", so I think that answers your query. But it points out that it is very potent in terms of "symbolics and public perception". But I also think Francis explains himself in a way when he says, "Those who in their lives follow this path of evil, as Mafiosi do, are not in communion with God. They are excommunicated” (first link) or, "Those who in their lives have taken this evil road, this road of evil, such as the mobsters, they are not in communion with God, they are excommunicated” (third link). It is they who wilfully separate themselves from communion with God. So "those who are in part involved through ignorance (in the case of minors) or those living in grave fear", as you say, would presumably not be included.

>276 John5918:

Right. And most people are not like us. Sincerely looking for God is not the same thing as "being really interested in religion." Most people live their lives without getting really interested in such topics, and that's not a moral failing. They accept their context and work within it.

>277 John5918:

Right. He's using strong language, but it's not a formal decree of any sort.

> 276

John,

To your first point, there are always exceptions. I could think of a few others as well.

To your second point, it does not matter how you cut it, your examples do not come within the teaching of Lumen Gentium. To repeat:

"Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."

And indeed, your edited to add comments where you say "one might indeed sincerely look into him and find that in all sincerity he does not appear any better than one's original belief", is precisely rejecting Christ.

Salvation is not a right, for us or anyone else. Freedom of will is however, otherwise we are not human.

I understand your motivations, but where it is taking you is not the Gospel. It does not even respect the human person, even though I think that is your aim. It is rather degrading to the human person's great dignity, their nature as an image of God, which allows them to choose their own fate.

Think of the poem Invictus, and the dignity is shows. This is what you would in effect deny.

> 278

Rejecting God for a lesser good or goods is precisely a moral failing. Perhaps THE moral failing.

I know "religion" gets a bad name, and I don't think any great intellectual engagment or reems of reading is needed (or helpful at all if it comes to that).

But sincerely looking for God requires God. Not just managing not to murder anyone, paying your taxes etc.

277

So they are not canonically excommunicated.

Rather they are reminded of their grave sins.

>279 hf22: You highlight only one part of that sentence. I prefer to read it as a whole which includes, "yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience". They sincerely seek God, they strive by deeds to do his will as far as it is known to them, they follow the dictates of their own conscience and, perhaps most importantly, they are moved by grace. That's God's ineffable grace, not your or my interpretation of it.

As to "through no fault of their own do not know the gospel", I would refer you back to >271 sullijo:. What do we mean by "do not know the gospel"? Certainly it means more than having heard the name in the context of some foreign and alien religion. Maybe we're talking about two different things. It seems some of what you say may be true in individualistic pluralistic secular western societies, but it doesn't seem to make much sense in the huge swathes of the world (not just a few "exceptions") where religion permeates everyday life, where communal values are at least as important as individual choices, and where Christianity is hardly known. What little is known about it is often very negative as it is perceived as being part of a western value system which is not universally appreciated.

I'm not sure how it degrades nor fails to respect someone when I respect the dictates of their own conscience moved by God's grace. I say that as someone who has spent much of my adult life at the sharp end of primary evangelisation, trying to live and witness the gospel in the midst of people who either haven't heard of it at all or who are firmly grounded in their own faith tradition.

> 281

John,

I prefer to read it as a whole

With respect, that is precisely the opposite of what you are doing. What you are doing is ignoring the bits you don't like.

It is pretty clear those terms build on each other, such that all are needed, rather than them being alternatives.

I mean you are perfectly free to ignore the teaching authority of VII, but let us be clear that is what is happening here.

through no fault of their own do not know the gospel

Well, again, your examples are not "not knowing" the gospel. They are just various reasons for rejecting it.

One may well put belonging to a particular community over the gospel. I have done so myself at various times, with less justification than those you are speaking of. Unfornuately, Jesus had some sharp words for those who do (c/f Luke 14:26).

I'm not sure how it degrades nor fails to respect someone when I respect the dictates of their own conscience

Because a human person is more than a conscience. We also have free wills and immortal souls.

And when you when you say, oh they say they reject Christ but they really can't, you deny their personhood.

And when you say, oh they hold to errors which put them beyond God's promise of salvation, but what concern is that of mine because God's grace will sort it out, you deny the value of their souls.

as someone who has spent much of my adult life at the sharp end of primary evangelisation

I truly acknowledge, respect and thank you for this. I also enjoying discussing these matters with you, and think you are genuine in your comments.

However, that just makes you (much) more saintly than me, not right in relation to these questions.

>282 hf22: Thanks, but I think on this one we will just have to agree to disagree. I believe that you are cherry-picking from that sentence; you believe I am. I think you would also have to set that sentence in the context of Nostra Aetate. In no way does it remove our obligation to proclaim and witness to the gospel, but it does not exclude salvation for those who have an incomplete understanding of God. I think perhaps you underestimate the power of God's grace.

Our experiences of religion, life, culture and society are obviously very different. With all due respect I think you (and most people who live in the western pluralistic individualistic world) have very little understanding of the realities in a traditional society, particularly one where faith plays a very strong role and where communal values are seen as a benefit, not an imposition. It's not about denying free will, but recognising that free will plays out differently in different milieux. The understanding of it which is dominant in the western world is not the only one nor necessarily the best one.

I certainly don't claim to be saintly, but I think it was Nathaniel who once pointed out that one of the other reasons I disagree often with some posters here is that I see things from a pastoral perspective more than an argument about intellectual assertions. The creative tension between the "lawyers" and the "holy men" (as it is often characterised within Sudanese Islam) will continue, just as it did in the time of Jesus and every era since then.

> 283

The context of Nostra Aetate

Out of interest, how do you think Nostra Aetate modifies the meaning of this teaching? I think I am reading it in context, but you might have a different approach worth considering.

But it does not exclude salvation for those who have an incomplete understanding of God.

The thing is, I agree with that statement. I am not trying to set myself up in God's judgement seat, nor am I counting the members of Hell.

We can not put limits on God's mercy - The possiblity has to remain open. To do otherwise would be despair, not Christain Hope.

What I think you are doing however, is again not Christian Hope, but presumption.

I think you (and most people who live in the western pluralistic individualistic world) have very little understanding of the realities in a traditional society

I might not, but Jesus, the Apostles and their early followers understood them plenty. And they did not accept it as an excuse.

Do you really think it was easy for the early disciples to accept getting kicked out of the synagogues, as they certainly were at some point? If I accept your logic, there should be no Church, as everyone would have initially remained in the faith of their fathers / mothers.

I see things from a pastoral perspective

I suppose my issue is that I don't think your approach is pastoral on this one. And in any case, I would reject any real tension between truth and pastoral realities.

Right belief must lead to right action, otherwise there is something wrong our understanding of the belief.

I certainly don't claim to be saintly

Thats alright, saints never do :)

>284 hf22: I think Nostra Aetate reinforces my view that if you take the texts as a whole, the words you highlighted do not stand alone but are to be interpreted along with all the rest; they are not the sole condition for salvation, and salvation is available to people of good will who are sincerely seeking God, and trying to do God's will. And I would reiterate that for me the most important words are "moved by grace". I certainly don't want to impose conditions on how God moves people by grace, and if God is moving them by grace, then it would seem a little presumptuous to assume that God is not offering salvation to those God moves by grace.

I think there's a difference between a splinter movement breaking away from the dominant religion in the euphoria of a new-found faith in their newly resurrected master, particularly as in some ways it could be seen as a development of their existing faith rather than a completely foreign one, and an individual Muslim or Hindu in a highly religious society breaking away on her own. It does happen, of course, but it's not quite so simple as you seem to imply from the viewpoint of an individualistic and pluralistic society.

I would reject any real tension between truth and pastoral realities

You've now introduced the word truth in place of "intellectual assertions", which gives a different nuance. You've also removed the word "creative". There's a difference between "creative tension" (which has a positive sense) and simply "tension" (which can be negative). More "conservative" pastors are constantly making exceptions for "pastoral necessity", and indeed that's what the internal forum is to some extent (and has been for a long, long time). More progressive ones are asking what are the implications for theology and doctrine if we are having to make so many exceptions all the time. Hence praxis theology, which is some ways is connected with lex orandi, lex credendi. As Dom Helder Camar said, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."

> 285

Over long post to follow - Apologies in advance.

I think Nostra Aetate reinforces my view

OK. I went away and reread Nostra Aetate, and it does not provide support for your contention, either in its specific teachings or its overall tenor. Indeed it rather seems to me that the Council Fathers were in this document very careful not to suggest, as you seem to be, that salvation is consistent with choosing (passively or actively) to stay outside the visible Church.

That if you take the texts as a whole, the words you highlighted do not stand alone but are to be interpreted along with all the rest; They are not the sole condition for salvation, and salvation is available to people of good will who are sincerely seeking God, and trying to do God's will.

Well, on rereading your comments, I am confirmed in the view that you are not reading the texts as a whole.

For example, I am precisely not saying the highlighted words are the sole condition of salvation. I am saying they are one of the conditions, as does Lumen Gentium, without contradiction by Nostra Aetate. It is you who are trying to say they are not a condition at all.

I am sorry, but your view is not supported by VII, and more seriously is not consistent with an acceptance of the Council.

And I would reiterate that for me the most important words are "moved by grace". I certainly don't want to impose conditions on how God moves people by grace, and if God is moving them by grace, then it would seem a little presumptuous to assume that God is not offering salvation to those God moves by grace.

Well, the thing is God is undoubtedly offering his grace and salvation to those outside the Church. That is not the question. The question is if they accept his grace and salvation, and indeed if they are in fact full humans who can reject it.

Grace is not irresistible, that is a Calvinist error, so salvation does not automatically follow from a person being moved by grace. To say otherwise is a confusion of categories I suspect.

I think there's a difference between a splinter movement breaking away from the dominant religion in the euphoria of a new-found faith in their newly resurrected master, particularly as in some ways it could be seen as a development of their existing faith rather than a completely foreign one, and an individual Muslim or Hindu in a highly religious society breaking away on her own. It does happen, of course, but it's not quite so simple as you seem to imply from the viewpoint of an individualistic and pluralistic society.

I never said it was simple. I suspect it is difficult. The point is that it is not unjust for God to ask it, as it would be for someone who literally never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel, even if they searched their whole lives to find it.

Moreover, I rather think it was actually harder for the first followers of Christ. What did they have? No new community to welcome them, just the promise of rejection by their family, friends and countrymen. Their sacrifice for God was heroic, and mostly in the case of the stories we have about the apostles, ended in martyrdom.

I would quote John Milton's Paradise Lost at this point:

"So spake the Seraph Abdiel faithful found
Among the faithless, faithful only he"

To take this rather bookish example, all of the others among Satan's countless angels are condemned because the one who shows it was possible to refuse his commands, and be faithful to God.

Or perhaps the Gospel according to Luke, which has words which speak directly to people in communal and traditional societies:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

No one ever said following Christ was easy. If it was, I would be much better at it.

More "conservative" pastors are constantly making exceptions for "pastoral necessity" ... implications for theology and doctrine if we are having to make so many exceptions all the time

I agree with you here. If I was thinking of my actions as "pastoral exceptions", then my options would seem to be that:

1. I should not have performed the action;
2. I don't understand the full teachings of the Church, which in fact allow / require my action; or
3. There is something wrong with the teaching of the Church, either in principle or in currency.

A pastoral exception is an oxymoron.

>286 hf22: What an extraordinary post!

I am sorry, but your view is not supported by VII, and more seriously is not consistent with an acceptance of the Council.

Well, they are certainly not consistent with your interpretation of Vatican II.

A pastoral exception is an oxymoron

You can quibble over the term, but the reality is that pastoral necessity is a dynamic found throughout the Church, and internal forum solutions far pre-date Vatican II.

And now for an entertaining read: www.salon.com/2014/06/22/pope_franciss_liberal_reformer_image_is_all_smoke_and_mirrors_partner/

Apparently, if the pope doesn't support abortion, women's ordination, and gay marriage, he's an "old-time conservative" and "sexist, nun-hating, poverty-perpetuating, pedophile-protecting homophobe." If I wanted to write a parody about how to completely misinterpret the pope by thinking he must fit into the polarized categories of American (secular) politics, this is how I'd do it. The thing is, the author doesn't seem to recognize that she's writing parody.

> 287

Well, they are certainly not consistent with your interpretation of Vatican II.

If you have an actual reason why I am mistaken, please let me know. I do not wish to labour in ignorance, nor to be unfair to you.

How do you square your view with an acceptance of VII? What makes your approach any better than the traditionalists? Because it sure looks precisely the same from where I am sitting - The Council is only right when it agrees with your prior ideology / theology.

You can quibble over the term

Like I said, I was agreeing with you.

If an action is truly pastorally required, it is then not really an exception, but a true application of our faith to a particular situation.

Internal forum solutions are one example of a thing which can, quite properly in various cases, be accepted as such a true application.

253

Tim, why the reference to Freemasonry?

>290 LesMiserables: He was mocking the conspiracy-theory mumbo-jumbo that tries to make Bugnini the arch-heretic at whose hands the destruction of the entire modern Church was orchestrated -- it's just as ludicrous as the ideas that Freemasons are in secret control of the world.

You claim in >252 LesMiserables: that Bugnini "translated" pro multis as "for all" instead of "for many", when in fact he did no such thing. As was subsequently pointed out, in regards to the prayer of consecration, the Vetus and Novus Ordines are identical in that regard (since the authoritative language for both is, in fact, Latin). The translation of the prayers into various vernaculars resulted in some variation--which is to be expected, given that each language expresses ideas in different ways; and the ICEL translation of the English as "for all", which has since been superseded by a correction to "for many," was NOT produced by Bugnini (though it was influenced by his perspectives on liturgy).

Any attempt to claim that the Novus Ordo is not legitimately promulgated by the Roman Pontiff lands you right in sedevacantist territory.

291

Any attempt to claim that the Novus Ordo is not legitimately promulgated by the Roman Pontiff lands you right in sedevacantist territory.

How so? It is understandable that sometimes one will disagree with formal decrees, laws etc that have come from the Vatican. If this is not the case then we would be stuck with every heresy that has reared its ugly head.

Disagreement is not rejection. You don't through the baby out with the bath-water.

As far as I am aware, sedevacantists, reject the legitimacy of the current Pope. I do not hold with that position. I think that John Paul II was out of his mind at Assisi, but I do not reject his legitimacy as a Pope. et cetera

>290 LesMiserables:, >291 nathanielcampbell:

No, that's a real thing. Various fringe-y groups assert that Bugnini was a freemason, alongside many other secure freemasons in the curia. There's a whole "I've got a list of secret freemasons" thing in these circles. It's only slightly more ludicrous than the original charge--that Bugnini masterminded some sort of Protestant destruction of the liturgy.

As often happens, the radical traditionalists have gotten hold of the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annibale_Bugnini . Indeed, the first author of the page seems to have only created it in order to retail such theories. You can see more at https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=bugnini+freemason&a... .

> 293

And, as irony would have it, the traditionalists add more freemason related nonsense to the internet as we speak:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-needs-conspiracy-theories-when.html

>286 hf22:

To back up my contention at >286 hf22:, and my reading of VII, a further quote from Ad Gentes paragraph 7:

"Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.

A similar teaching is also found at Lumen Gentium 14.

The Magisterium has also confirmed it in the CDF's "Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization" in 2007.

The best support for John's position would seem to come from Redemptoris Missio 9 & 10, which specifically mentions at 10 the issues which exist from a cultural and social perspective. However, even here, the following are stressed:

- The individuals do not have an opportunity to come to know the Gospel, or come to accept the Gospel, or enter the Church.
- The importance of free cooperation with grace.

Despite this, Redemptoris Missio does expand the concept somewhat beyond what I had being saying (i.e. not knowing the Gospel), to not having an opportunity to accept the Gospel or enter the Church. Therefore I would concede this expansion. In particular, I can see how this expansion is necessary, particularly with respect of those subject to significant moral coercion, such as younger people and women in some cultural contexts.

In this example, I can agree individuals may really have no opportunity to explicitly accept the Gospel, as they have no ability to follow up (i.e. they are not free, due to coercion, to look up this Jesus guy).

However, I still maintain John's examples at >276 John5918: are not within even this expanded concept*, and that there is no warrant to believe the concept could be further expanded to include them.

* I.e. "Already sincerely believing that you have found the God you seek" or "sincerely look into Jesus and findig that in all sincerity he does not appear any better than one's original belief".

>295 hf22:

I don't really see how we can nail the council's words down any farther, insofar as it is patently obvious they chose billowy phrases that mean different things to different people. To put it another way, if the council wrote the legal agreements I periodically have to hash out with another party—data licenses, changes in corporate form, etc.—phrases like like "cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it" are the sort of phrases I'd seek to strike out, or which I'd try to sneak in.

To me, that phrase is a loophole the size of Mars. It seems to me rather like contemporary thinking on suicide. Yes, fully sane and conscious suicide is an act of despair—a deliberate rejection of God. But can anyone really be in such a state? How many really are? I think now most would agree that few suicides meet such a standard. Rather, suicide is almost definitionally a screwed-up attempt to communicate and be loved, or the result of mind so warped by pain or illness that it can't be said to have intended it in the first place.

Can someone similarly be truly aware that the church is necessary for salvation, yet intentionally reject it? The devil, maybe? But Joe, the checkout guy at Safeway, whose uncle told him the church was important, but whined his way out of confirmation classes, and later just followed along with the predominant secular culture? Or how about Margaret, the insurance salesman who "found Jesus" at 16, but lost her faith in God when her first child was stillborn? Because that's who we're talking about here, not some rational intellectual convinced of the theology yet bent to reject God out of a clear-eyed hatred. Now, I don't pretend to know what God will do with them, or me. But the formulation doesn't say much.

>296 timspalding:

Sorry, you replied before I finished editing by comment at >295 hf22:. On further reading, there are some further documents from the Magisterium, which do nail the words down somewhat. I have added my extra comments in this regard at >295 hf22:.

Can someone similarly be truly aware that the church is necessary for salvation, yet intentionally reject it?

Well, that is precisely what the Devil did, so it is perfectly possible. Adam and Eve as well, without any clear eyed hatred.

Plus, every other day, one reads of someone who says if heaven is like the Church teaches, they would prefer to be in Hell where all the fun is.

Like I said somewhere up thread, we all choose lesser goods over God all the time. Even when we know plenty. Why would that change once we die, and if we think it does, what are we saying about our time living?

If our lives are pointless suffering, with no bearing on what comes after, why don't we just skip to the after? It makes a nonsense of the Gospel.

Well, that is precisely what the Devil did, so it is perfectly possible. Adam and Eve as well.

Right. I mentioned the devil. That your other example is Adam and Eve points out the problem. They are paradigms. That guy you know isn't a paradigm. You aren't one either.

Plus, every other day, one reads of someone who says if heaven is like the Church teaches, they would prefer to be in Hell where all the fun is.

Right. But they don't actually mean it. And they don't understand it. For the church doesn't really teach anything about what hell "is." Such people imagine harp playing, or whatever. But the church does teach that Hell is no fun. So if someone wishes that, they are definitionally excluded from any notion of "awareness."

I don't have the quote to hand, but it reminds me of a sympathetic Christian take on The Golden Compass. If religion and the church were really as he believes it to be, we should all join Lyra and oppose the church.

I think you entirely overrate trivial rejections of God. To quote Flannery O'Connor, in a letter about "A Good Man is Hard to Find":

"Grace to the Catholic way of thinking, can and does use as its medium the imperfect, purely human, and even hypocritical. Cutting yourself off from Grace is a very decided matter, requiring a real choice, act of will, and affecting the very ground of the soul."

>298 timspalding:

But this just gets back to a denial of free will and human dignity.

Oh you might say, I know you lived your entire life a certain way, but you did not really mean it.

But how we live our life is the only way we can mean anything.

To quote a fellow Australian, Tracy Rowland, over at CWR:

The bourgeois Pelagians want to believe that there are no eternal consequences of our life choices here and now. As Ratzinger described them, “they want to believe that everyone is automatically guaranteed an entry ticket to an egalitarian heaven where it does not matter what one has made of the gift of life on earth.” Against this mentality, in Spe Salvi as Pope Benedict, he offered the following words of caution:

Grace does not cancel out justice. It does not make wrong into right. It is not a sponge which wipes everything away, so that whatever someone has done on earth ends up being of equal value. Dostoevsky, for example, was right to protest against this kind of Heaven and this kind of grace in his novel The Brothers Karamazov. Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened.

What we do, and what we think, and how we live, it all matters. If not, you are denying those others you gave as examples are real people, who are able to will. It is almost gnostic - Only the enlightened need concern themselves with God.

The Pope speaks with the young Franciscans of the Immaculate (Vatican Insider):

On the motu proprio, Pope Francis said he did not want to deviate from the line of Benedict XVI, and reiterated that the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate remained free to celebrate the old mass, even if for the moment, in light of the controversies surrounding the exclusive right to use that missal – an element that did not constitute part of the founding charisma of the institution – they required “a discernment” with the superior and with the bishop if it concerned celebrations in parish churches, sanctuaries and teaching houses. The Pope explained that there must be freedom, both for those who wish to celebrate with the old rite, and those who wish to celebrate with the new rite, without the rite becoming an ideological banner.

One question concerned the interpretation of the II Vatican Council. Francis once again expressed his appreciation for the work of Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, defining it as “the best hermeneutic” of the Council. He then responded to the objection according to which the II Vatican would only be a pastoral council, which has damaged the church. The Pope said that although it is has been pastoral, it contains doctrinal elements and is a Catholic council, reaffirming the line of the hermeneutics of reform in the continuity of the one-subject church, presented by Benedict XVI in his speech to the Roman Curia in December 2005. He then reminded them that all councils have provoked uproar and reactions, because the demon “does not want the church to become strong”. He also said that we must move forwards with a theological and not ideological hermeneutic of the II Vatican.

Let's see how the arch-traditionalists manage to misconstrue this one...

296 Time Spalding I don't really see how we can nail the council's words down any farther, insofar as it is patently obvious they chose billowy phrases that mean different things to different people. To put it another way, if the council wrote the legal agreements I periodically have to hash out with another party—data licenses, changes in corporate form, etc.—phrases like like "cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it" are the sort of phrases I'd seek to strike out, or which I'd try to sneak in.

Absolutely spot on. And it is done so purposely.

297 hf22 Plus, every other day, one reads of someone who says if heaven is like the Church teaches, they would prefer to be in Hell where all the fun is.

That is the problem with the wish-washy Church of today. They are scared to upset people and folk just don't realise what's in store for them. It's even like people think along the lines that if this act is a sin, then I wan't more of this. That's why comments like who am I to judge? are downright corrupting, coming from a Pope.

298 Tims Spalding For the church doesn't really teach anything about what hell "is." Such people imagine harp playing, or whatever. But the church does teach that Hell is no fun. So if someone wishes that, they are definitionally excluded from any notion of "awareness."

That is an extremely dangerous idea to play around with. Whatever Hell is, it is eternal damnation. Is that not enough to frighten anyone? The second point, is John's book of Revelations. If we dismiss John, we dismiss our Marian Tradition. We can't cherry pick it.

Revelation 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

And from our Lord Himself in Mark 9:47–48 "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched."

And of course the Catechism http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

IV. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbour or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. 613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. 614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," 615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!" 616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." 617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." 618

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth." 619
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; 620 for this, a wilful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance" :621

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

or the Creed

He descended into hell

So for me, not too much wiggle room there unless of course you are some kind of protestant, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormon etc

299 hf22 What we do, and what we think, and how we live, it all matters.

Right. More so after we leave this earth.

>300 nathanielcampbell:

Count me, with the Pope, as a fan of Archbishop Agostino Marchetto.

>301 LesMiserables:

FWIW I meant "what heaven 'is.'" My point is that people who say "if heaven is like the Church teaches, they would prefer to be in Hell where all the fun is" don't understand either heaven or hell.

This sort of sentiment is spouted by those who imagine heaven is the place of no fun, where everyone is a bored, harp-playing angel. Meanwhile, hell is where the rock music is. This sort of puerile declaration is worthless as a measure of acceptance of rejection of God. They don't get it. That might be enough to damn them, but let's not damn them for rejecting something they don't understand at all.

302 hf22

Can you elaborate on this?

303 Tim Spalding

FWIW I meant "what heaven 'is.'"

Now you tell me.

>304 LesMiserables:

Archbishop Agostino Marchetto is the guy who, from a scholarly perspective, has done the most to reject the "Spirit of VII" and the Bologna School.

He basically provides the intellectual backbone for Pope Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity / reform".

>303 timspalding:

Once again, this is just patronising. Just like you noted in the context of the sensus fidelium, people can disagree. Or decide they don't care enough to be informed.

Even with / in respect of God.

Their moral agency in this must be respected, not ignored, like they were children, the mentally ill or animals etc.

306

Ok, thanks. I think that the real changes in liturgy that VII ushered in was bad enough for some, but worse still would be an open season interpretation. So yes, I can see now how Benedict would comment on the hermeneutic of continuity.

And still, I suppose people have and must analyse whether that hermeneutic of continuity really is what it says it is. In fact you might consider for an embattled post-conciliar Vatican, a Bologna School fight would might just be what it needed to give them a platform to come across as maintaining tradition, when they, it might be argued have not.

Now you tell me.

Well, the point is the same either way. But yeah :)

Their moral agency in this must be respected, not ignored, like they were children, the mentally ill or animals etc.

I think you pin a lot on moral agency. Fair enough. But it can lead to a mechanistic view of sin and salvation. If there are problems with salvation being less clear and knowable, there were problems with the opposite view. Time was when serious Catholics believed that a man who misses mass commits a mortal sin, and if he's killed before he can confess, the jig is up and he's self-evidently damned. Time was when Catholics assumed most Protestants, whatever their intentions, were simply and uncomplicatedly going to Hell for it. (Apparently you think that's still true of Jews.) It makes for a very unpersuasive religion. And it makes a hash of the problem of evil. Only so much can be merely contingent on happenstance without undermining the essential fairness and justice of God. We aren't living in David Lodge's game of snakes and ladders, from How Far Can You Go? We are living in something much more loving and unknowable.

Incidentally, Catholics have a method of dealing with these problems that Protestants don't--a purgatorial fire. What happens to the sinner who does not truly reject God? Is it treating him like a child to imagine he learns the error of his ways? For my part, while I don't expect that I'll find Heaven is an exclusively Catholic affair, I do expect to reach God with difficultly, learning in anguish all the ways I've failed him. My preferred mental model was once The Great Divorce, but I'm now partial to Neil Gaiman's "Other People" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-K5p3VrrjQ ).

Lastly, with St. Gregory of Nysa and von Balthasar, I pray that, in the end, all may in fact be redeemed. We don't know if that's so or not, but we can pray it and I do. And I'll resist simple and schematic solutions that extinguish that hope.

308 Tim Spalding

Incidentally, Catholics have a method of dealing with these problems that Protestants don't--a purgatorial fire.

What would the Bologna School call that?

Detox? :-)

>309 timspalding:

Well, that is different from what you were saying before, at least as I understood you. I agree it is known only to God, and we must have Hope. Even for the Jews, and everyone else besides.

I am just saying people can put themselves beyond God's promises, and thus their souls are at risk. They can even ensure that they end up lost. Even while they think they are within the Church, let alone those who reject it. Anything else is Presumption, not Hope.

As for the rest of your comments, I still don't think the issues identified amount to much, and your approach causes more problems than it solves.

But we are getting close to trying to number the members of Hell, which is not a question we should try to answer.

Let us leave it at that fact we must have Hope, rather than presumption or despair.

>306 hf22: The Spirit of Vatican II is alive and well, in both pope emeritus and current pope, as well as in the Church at large. So is the hermeneutic of reform in continuity with tradition. Or did you mean something else when you put it in inverted commas?

I have to confess to never having heard of the Bologna School, though.

>312 John5918:

The Bologna School, together with the Traditionalists, there the people Pope Benedict was addressing with his "hermeneutic of reform in continuity with tradition".

The Spirit of Vatican II in this context was the "hermeneutic of rupture" which was being used to override the actual text and teaching of the Council, not to mention the rest of the Tradition which VII reaffirmed.

Some details on his book are as follows:

In its description of Archbishop Marchetto’s The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council, published in English in 2010, the University of Chicago Press states:

This important study by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto makes a significant contribution to the debate that surrounds the interpretation of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Archbishop Marchetto critiques the Bologna School, which, he suggests, presents the Council as a kind of “Copernican revolution,” a transformation to “another Catholicism.” Instead Marchetto invites readers to reconsider the Council directly, through its official documents, commentaries, and histories.In a recent essay published in L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Kurt Koch, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, wrote that the interpretation of the Council offered by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto is more relevant than ever. Archbishop Marchetto, wrote Cardinal Koch, has “taken up and deepened the hermeneutic of reform supported by Pope Benedict XVI.”

Who am I to judge?

Every action has a consequence.

Yeah, people might feel welcome in church. Horrors.

315

Yes, confession is normally half an hour before mass starts.

>316 LesMiserables:

Being gay isn't a sin.

317

Being gay isn't a sin.

I suppose having a homosexual thought isn't a sin unless it is willed upon and or acted upon.

Homosexuality is de facto sinful as it breaks so many teachings of the Church.

But hey, who am I to judge, in the face of liberalism?

I'll let Saint Augustine have the last word...

"Those foul offences that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust". (Confessions; III.8)

I suppose having a homosexual thought isn't a sin unless it is willed upon and or acted upon.

You suppose right.

Homosexuality is de facto sinful as it breaks so many teachings of the Church.

I'm unclear on the distinction you draw. Homosexuality is what one calls the state of being attracted to people of the same sex. If the attraction is not a sin, the state of being attracted is not a sin.

319

Homosexuality is what one calls the state of being attracted to people of the same sex

And I agree with you.

What you obviously don't want to agree with is the teaching of the Catholic church.

Acting on those thoughts either mentally and or physically is sinful. If a thought occurs, one must banish it and be remorseful before God and ask for his forgiveness.

I thought Augustine had the last word on this but let the prescient St. John Chrysostom have it so...

"The worst of it is that such an abomination is committed boldly and that the monstrosity becomes the law. Nobody nowadays fears, nobody blushes. They boast and they laugh at these actions. The people who abstain appear stupid and they who condemn are regarded as fools. If they appear to be the weaker ones they are crushed with blows. If they are stronger, people laugh, people mock them and make many jokes about them. They have no redress in tribunals or in law." ... "I have heard also many men who are surprised that up to the present a new shower of fire has not fallen on us and that the chastisement of Sodom has not fallen again on our town which is even more deserving of punishment since it did not learn from the evils of the Sodomites. Although after two thousand years this place accursed and overwhelmed which was Sodom cries to the whole world by its appearance more eloquently than any one voice could, not to dare to commit such heinous offences, our fellow citizens have committed these offences not with less effrontery but quite on the contrary they show themselves more daring and unashamed as if they were determined to do battle with God and that they wish to prove that they wish to add to their crimes, in proportion as the threats become more terrible. How is it that according as the crimes of Sodom renew themselves the chastisement of Sodom is not also renewed? Ah, the reason is that a more terrible fire waits them and that a chastisement is reserved for them which will have no end." (Against the opponents of Monastic Life, III.8)

So Tim, do you disagree with those Church fathers?

But hey, who am I to judge?

Every action has a consequence.

>320 LesMiserables:

To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ." Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."

Same sex attraction is just an example of concupiscence. It might not be our particular sinful temptation, but it does not differ in nature from those ones we do have.

The requirement is for us to manfully resist the temptation, and not to act on it, which is what your quote from St. John Chrysostom is talking about.

Acting on those thoughts either mentally and or physically is sinful. If a thought occurs, one must banish it and be remorseful before God and ask for his forgiveness.

No. The church requires that a thought be willful. Being attracted to men is no more sinful than being attracted to women for the simple reason that neither is itself sinful. Certainly you must be penitent if you mentally dwell on the shapely curves of your neighbor's wife, and wonder if she'd cheat on her husband with you. But being attracted to her in itself is not a sin. On the contrary, if the church is going to assert that the gay person has absolutely no legitimate romantic or sexual outlet, but must live in loneliness and deprivation, without a spouse and cut off from rearing children, because their natural, God-given inclination cannot be expressed without grave sin, then I think it follows that the church has a particular duty to welcome and love those so afflicted.

>321 hf22:

Concupiscence is not a "natural, God-given inclination". Not a sin in itself, but not God given.

Anyway, all sinners should be welcome in the Church. If concupiscence is a bar, I am going to have to kick myself out.

>323 hf22:

Can I refer to my sexuality as God-given?

>324 timspalding:

I don't know. I don't know what your sexuality is, nor do I have any interest in finding out.

>324 timspalding:

Heh. I'm straight. I won't go into any details, but I like big books and I cannot lie.

The way I think you're figuring it, a straight person's sexuality is God-given, because it has a licit object. Of course, like all people, I am subject to concupiscence in the person of the 3,586,000 women in the world I'm attracted to that aren't my wife. But the gay person's sexuality is not God-given. It has no licit object. It's all and only concupiscence. Right?

321

It might not be our particular sinful temptation, but it does not differ in nature from those ones we do have.

I have to disagree on this point.

If a man is attracted to a woman and wishes to get to know her, that is not sinful. (unless of course that man or woman are aware of any impediment to such a relationship)

The Church teaching on attraction to same sex is clear. It is a disorder. Now there are arguments of course that a person who is gay has no choice. We've all heard the 'I was was born a girl/boy in the body of boy/girl'.

That doesn't hold water for me I'm afraid. There is every reason to think that environmental influence has precipitated that mental position.

Furthermore, whether or not that is the case, the Church teachings since our roots have made it clear that it is against who God created order. It is against nature and reason.

In #320 I said Acting on those thoughts either mentally and or physically is sinful.

in #322 Tim said...

No. The church requires that a thought be willful.

Er, you're agreeing with me.

>326 timspalding:

More or less. It might not all be concupiscence - Stuff is complex etc. Love can still have a licit end (like maybe with say Cardinal John Henry Newman), just not in actual homosexual acts.

I don't want to pretend it is all black and white.

>327 LesMiserables:

You are just underestimating my own temptations. Church teaching on a couple of them are pretty clear to, so I struggle against them.

Even simple ones - Love your neighbour. Suck at it.

329

Don't misunderstand me. Because one perceives a sin in another, especially a grave sin, does not mean that we should not have charity and mercy towards them. But it certainly does not mean we should turn away from God's plan for order and the Catholic Church.

The pic I posted in #314 above was in fact posted on this 'Francis" thread to show how careful the Holy father needs to be. I'm not sure he has fully appreciated the weight of his position and the consequences of his words and gestures and associations.

>329 hf22:

Yeah, I think that, even within your constraints, you can affirm the goodness of such a sexuality.

For my part, I think the teaching needs reconsideration, much as happened in regard to slavery. These days not even the SSPX* cite the ample scriptural and patristic support for the practice, or urge a return to it—a practice not absolutely condemned until 1880 or even until Gaudium et Spes. If a Pope were to defend slave markets, receive and distribute slaves to favored cardinals, or actually order the enslavement of a civilian population by papal bull, well, I think he would be an ex-pope pretty quickly.

It is, of course, insisted that ancient slavery was not like modern slavery--a practice the church sometimes criticized. This argument is wrong--ancient slavery was a beastly thing, as anyone who's studied it seriously knows. But the form of the argument is important. If slavery can become wrong because ancient slavery and modern slavery are so "different," surely one must take note of the difference between ancient and modern "homosexuality"—namely between the the sexual domination of children, slaves and other inferiors, which is by definition exploitative, and the completely different relationships of a contemporary gay person.

Even simple ones - Love your neighbour. Suck at it.

I'm good at the neighbors. It's the people on the internet I struggle with ;)

---

*Never mind. I found pro-slavery sentiment on SSPX sites. (Like good and bad anti-semitism in the SSPX, it's about good slavery and bad slavery.) Damn if these guys aren't a parody of themselves. Well, I suppose we can add that to Francis' rejection of tradition. He not only met with an Anglican Bishop—they conspired to destroy a god-ordained institution!

331

*Never mind. I found pro-slavery sentiment on SSPX sites.

Link please.

>331 timspalding:

I can affirm goodness where ever it is found. But I still don't think the teaching needs to change, and don't think it can really.

Plus, I know slavery is the example everyone uses to support this and every other proposed change. But is really a very complex case study, which can not be broadly applied like that.

A discussion for another time perhaps (I am thinking of writing something more substantial on the subject at some point, but it needs more attention to detail then I have time available).

>33 LesMiserables: "I'm not sure he has fully appreciated the weight of his position and the consequences of his words and gestures and associations."

So the lapsed Catholic who a year ago was an agnostic-leaning-atheist better knows "the weight" and "consequences" of the Pope's theology than does the Holy Father himself? May I ask -- how many years of formal theological education and seminary formation do you have? How many books of moral and practical theology have you written (Pope Francis' LibraryThing page lists 31 works, though some are admittedly anthologies)? How many years have you been an ordained priest and consecrated bishop of the Church? And when did the Holy Spirit inspire the prelates of God's Holy Church to choose you as their Supreme Pontiff?

334

So the lapsed Catholic who a year ago was an agnostic-leaning-atheist better knows "the weight" and "consequences" of the Pope's theology than does the Holy Father himself?

Because one has erred in the past, been away from the faith, does not mean I cannot have an opinion.

My next point is that I do not think this is theology. Rather I think it is an off the cuff remark that was as a result of an ill-advised impromptu press conference.

May I ask -- how many years of formal theological education and seminary formation do you have?

Three.

Plus, I know slavery is the example everyone uses to support this and every other proposed change. But is really a very complex case study, which can not be broadly applied like that.

I think there are a number of other good examples. Lending at interest, capital punishment, the perfidy of the Jews, the impossibility of accepting democracy, etc.

Significant progress can be made within the current framework. There is, for example, no reason for the Pope to renew Benedict's newfangled and cruel prohibition against (celibate) gays becoming priests, on the grounds that gay people cannot "give up paternity" like straight people can.* Such rules belong in the dust bin, alongside the prohibition against bastard children and people missing a finger becoming priests. Similarly, if the current line is that being gay is no sin, then one wonders why there isn't a single Catholic bishop who cops to being gay--leaving aside a small number, such as Keith O'Brien, who have been removed from their posts for transgressions. The answer is clear: Doctrine aside, the church is a hostile place for gay people, even celibate ones! Lastly, there is no doctrinal barrier to the church acknowledging the factual reality and justice advantages of secular unions and "marriages," which obviously won't be recognized by the church as marriages. And it would be nice if the presumption--and often merely the rumor--that two people had homosexual sex were placed alongside other sins, sexual or not, which rarely get you fired from your teaching job, removed as a church singer and excluded from communion.

I certainly would agree that real doctrinal change could never be effected without decades or centuries of examination, and indeed probably a council. For my part, this is the sort of issue that should be explored, but not agitated about. There is a difference between discussion, dialogue… and protest and dissent. As a matter of clear-eyed analysis I don't see any serious change happening for many, many years. And if by some crazy chance a Pope or unrepresentative council were to push real change through, it would surely split the church in two. I can't believe that would ever be right. I note that if Catholic abolitionists stayed with a church, those who leave over this issue—although quite numerous—have a fundamentally flawed ecclesiology.

Link please.

http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#slavery No, it's not advocating for a return to slavery. But it defends the practice as moral, and makes anti-vellum-style arguments about virtuous Southern slaveowners and Northern wage-slaves, etc. It's an embarrassing essay.

---

* So, can we have gay Eastern Catholic and ex-Anglican clergy?

Oh, man, after the slavery link, I explored some of the other "FAQs" on the SSPX site. I particularly enjoyed their take on cremation:

"The liberalization of the law forbidding cremation is without a doubt a concession to the ever increasing influence of Freemasons" (source)

To which the only reply can be:

>336 timspalding:

Capital punishment is my preferred example. It demonstrates most clearly some of the possibilities for, as well as limits to, change.

Agree regarding the rule about priests etc.

About civil gay marriage, I suppose from the Church's point of view these developments are bad for society, more than bad for the Church itself. But that is true of a lot of things, so once it has happened, we will get over it. No need to go to the mattresses over it.

I am never a big fan of saying things may change in the future. Feels a bit like a cop out. But that is not important.

>338 hf22:

Right. As you say, "No need to go to the mattresses over it." The notion that this is a unique "non-negotiable" can't stand. It would be one thing if the church made it a universal thing to fight tooth and nail to keep Protestants from buying condoms and against divorce laws. But they don't. Whether you like it or not, this one is lost.

That said, I am not sanguine losing this won't be a long-term disaster for the church. We're going to see Catholic agencies struck from charitable work. And it's one of the main factors leading people out of the church in the west. It's a steamroller.

I am never a big fan of saying things may change in the future. Feels a bit like a cop out.

Sounds like hope to me. You against hope? ;)

Tim, in #331 you said *Never mind. I found pro-slavery sentiment on SSPX sites.

On being smoked out you provide the link and qualify your last by saying in #336 ...

No, it's not advocating for a return to slavery.

The essay is clearly offering a historical analysis of slavery and condemns slavery.

Tim you really are quite bitter about the SSPX aren't you? That is a real shame.

Your ridiculous anti-Semite remarks added to this slavery nonsense really marks you down as desperate Tim. I don't know why you hold such aggressive views on fellow Catholics but perhaps you have personal reasons that you don't want to share.

I encourage everyone to read the essay Tim has linked to, to determine whether the SSPX are pro-Slavery.

This charge Tim is so farcical that I consider any further response on the matter beneath decency.

The essay is clearly offering a historical analysis of slavery and condemns slavery.

It's a theological reflection, and actually does NOT condemn slavery, but only some forms of slavery:

"However, slavery need not be understood in this sense. It can be simply the ownership of a man’s ability to work, his abilities, his productivity. Understood in this sense, it does not violate a man’s free will, nor his duty to love and serve God, and is consequently not opposed to the natural law."

"Furthermore, slavery is not opposed to the divine positive law, i.e., to the law promulgated by God Himself."

"This does not, however, mean that the Church condemned every slave owner. There were certainly Catholic slave owners, who took real care of their slaves, supported their families, provided for all their needs, gave them every facility to become Catholic and save their souls, and who consequently committed no sin, but rather acts of virtue"

You probably don't recognize pro-slavery rhetoric, but the arguments about slavery and the north comes straight out of George Fitzhugh, James Henry Hammond and John C. Calhoun—that slaves were better off than northern workers, who were the true slaves:

"The struggles for the rights of workers demonstrate that despite their technical freedom, they were just as oppressed as the slaves of old, and very often more so, for the slaves at least were provided with all the necessities of life. The question of slavery is consequently of little importance in the discussion of right and wrong in the Civil War."

This was a morally perverse view in the 1840s. It is even more so two hundred and fifty years later. I'm sure you realize that, like your defense of SSPX anti-Semites, these sentiments simply can't be said in polite company. People not trapped in the theology of two centuries ago do not debate whether Jews are the greatest enemies of the church or slaves were in fact better off than free people.

Your ridiculous anti-Semite remarks

Among other things, I directly quote the founder, current leader and two of the four remaining bishops in directly and disgustingly anti-semitic remarks. That you don't admit the problem is what's ridiculous.

341

Tim you clearly have a major issue with the Society of Saint Pius X.

I don't know why.

Perhaps they are too Catholic for you?

Perhaps not protestant enough?

Perhaps personal reasons you're not sharing.

What is abundantly clear is that you hate them.

Your insane remarks about their faithful on anti-semitism, slavery and now you're even resorting to cremation is just too much.

Hate is so bad. Very much like anger. I cannot engage with these bitter tirades of yours Tim. Sorry.

All the best.

They're not masonic enough for me.

>343 timspalding:

:) Very droll.

>336 timspalding: For me the one positive thing about SSPX is that they appear to be against capitalism - see the following quote from that link:

the real question was not one of slavery at all, but one of economic control. It was the capitalists of the North, with their factories, mines, means of production, forcing an industrial and economic revolution on the agrarian South. The Northerners had long had slaves of their own. However, the Industrial Revolution produced a new kind of slavery, that of the factory workers, who would sweat very long hours for little income, for the profit of their capitalist masters.

Benedict's newfangled and cruel prohibition against (celibate) gays becoming priests

A significant percentage of priests and bishops are gay, at least in the western world. They are not openly gay, and whether or not they are celibate I have no idea as I don't ask them. But let's not pretend that we don't have gay priests and bishops, and that they are not influential in the culture of the Church.

>345 John5918:

It seems to be what was done with same sex attracted men in decades past. Need to be celibate anyway - Why not try the priesthood?

I am not sure overall it was a great idea.

>334 nathanielcampbell: One's conscience trumps, doesn't it, and therefore even those of us without extensive training have a right to our opinions, which may change as debated here?

"Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

Bishops follow pope's lead: This is news? (NCR)

Anybody ready to click the "Continue this topic in another topic" button now that it is nearly 350 posts long and getting slow to load?