Showing posts with label Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Show all posts
16 April 2014
31 January 2014
The Divine Liturgy epistle from Weds.
James 3:11-4:6 From the DRB
Doth a fountain send forth, out of the same hole, sweet and bitter water? [12] Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear grapes; or the vine, figs? So neither can the salt water yield sweet. [13]Who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew, by a good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom. [14] But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the truth. [15] For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish.
[16] For where envying and contention is, there is inconstancy, and every evil work. [17] But the wisdom, that is from above, first indeed is chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and good fruits, without judging, without dissimulation. [18] And the fruit of justice is sown in peace, to them that make peace. Doth a fountain send forth, out of the same hole, sweet and bitter water?
From whence are wars and contentions among you? Are they not hence, from your concupiscences, which war in your members? [2] You covet, and have not: you kill, and envy, and can not obtain. You contend and war, and you have not, because you ask not. [3] You ask, and receive not; because you ask amiss: that you may consume it on your concupiscences. [4]Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God. [5] Or do you think that the scripture saith in vain: To envy doth the spirit covet which dwelleth in you?
[6] But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble
I was singing the epistle and somethings came to mind…in particular in verse 3 (I don't dare quote the NAB, which was the translation used in the Liturgy): You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss: that you may consume it on your concupiscences.
As we know from the catechism, concupiscence is the tendency towards sin, or an intense human desire.
We often times put ourselves first, when we're asking for things in prayer. I know I tend to fall into this trap too. So often we often ask, Why doesn't God answer our prayers…and often times the answer given is that God answers all prayers, and in His will, this is most certainly true, but perhaps, also we asked for something that will confirm us in our weaknesses? (Think of, I really want that 105' flat screen ;)….or I want car x)…God in His infinite Wisdom, knows our weaknesses and He will not confirm us in our weaknesses, as He wants us to get closer to Him…and confirming us in our weaknesses will not do such.
Perhaps the questions we should ask when praying are:
1. Does what I'm asking for lead me closer to Him? If yes, ask in prayer…if NOT, don't.
2. Am I seeking to do my own will or God's? Of course the latter isn't given with some lightbulb moment with unicorns and dancing rainbows.
Another thing that came to my mind during the singing of the Epistle: in verse 6 "God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. "
Pride is of course a major form of idolatry, and all of us can fall into it. It comes in its various forms. I can tell you for myself, I'm one of the most self-determined people on the face of the planet….often times there are times when I should break myself and seek help, but I refuse because I do not want the help. (I of course am trying to fix this, but it's rather difficult)…giving grace to the humble. But of course humility is not merely a public display. Humility is the recognition that everything is God's first, yours last. (if at all). As I've mentioned before on this blog it'd be a false sense of humility to place one's own preferences ahead of one's duties. Something that comes to mind is the letter Pope Benedict XVI sent to the Bishops involving the removing of the excommunications of the SSPX Bishops. His grace is most certainly a free gift, we must certainly choose to accept it.
Upon doing some self reflecting, I can see situations where I've done the exact opposite of humility. It's quite tempting to want to go in and change things right away. (In certain situations it's absolutely necessary)….It's more humble to work with someone you disagree with than overtake them with might. The questions to think on humility are:
1. Do we recognize our gifts as from God, or from our own so called merits?
2. Are there situations where we exalt ourselves and our own preferences rather than working within what is given?
I pray that all of us are able to grow in both our prayer life and our humility in our daily lives and actions.
Pax Vobis
08 January 2014
BXVI vs Francis and The game of what does the Pope really mean...
Honestly, I've had it, and that's being semi-compassionate...I'm sure feathers are going to be ruffled but that's alright....
Let us begin...
1. Is it absolutely necessary that we interpret EVERYTHING the Holy Father says as orthodox? The dogma of infallibility is very specific for a reason...
From the 1st Vatican council:
The condition for this is clear:
The excuses that are made:
a. It's a matter of translation, the Holy Father does not speak English natively.
This is a point, and a good one to consider, it simply means the process of information and expression is different. That said, this excuse doesn't hold....One can translate expressions faithfully and there still be a problem. There are times when this is a legitimate excuse as we've seen with Evangelii Gaudium in the excuse of a translation of "por si mismo" as "inevitably" instead of "by itself." When there's a deliberate mis-translation of particular words, this does change the meaning, and often it's best to give the benefit of the doubt to the original wording. This is why it was proper for those to defend the Holy Father in this case. The original wording did not convey what was being expressed in the translation and a benefit of the doubt should always be given to our dear Holy Father. (Thus it can properly be said that the Pope, even though he doesn't have a full grasp of economics, that he doesn't condemn capitalism as is, but simply points out the obvious...any economic system does not work without moral people).....That said, what happens when the original language is the problem in the first place? Since the Holy Father's first language is Spanish, I'm using his Spanish texts as the originals from which the others are derived from...This is from his Angelus address on June 2nd, 2013...
Emphasis mine:
To hear of the Holy Father using the same "the miracle in the feeding was the sharing, and not the actual multiplication of the loaves is discouraging and makes me think of all the wishy washy sermons I've heard...(As an Eastern priest told me, the miracle actually happened, it was the multiplication, but getting the Jews at that time to share was a miracle too)....This time around it isn't an issue of language, it's an issue of something completely wrong. But you'll notice he doesn't deny the miracle, but rather re-defines the miracle that takes place.
You see here two different situations of language, one where the language was manipulated, in the other language wasn't manipulated. (The intention behind manipulation, who am I to judge? :p)...Each having its own consequences, one where people get riled up over something that wasn't meant, the other where people have an absolute right to be upset.
I'm sorry, but the miracle not being the multiplication of the loaves is at heterodox at best, and heretical at worst. There's no twisting this statement into something orthodox, when it isn't. As I tell my students all the time whether in written communication or verbal communication, be sure to get all of your points across clearly and with distinction and clarity. Do not make me have to search for meaning within your works. (Bear in mind, I'm a physics and math teacher, so the double implication thing doesn't apply)...If it takes a panel of experts and they're confused, one ought to re-consider how one is communicating their points across. No matter what language one is communicating in, one should always seek to be clear and precise and ambiguities should be avoided whenever possible. And lest anyone think I'm ripping on the new regime, if we remember the whole Pope Benedict XVI situation with the condom comments, the only major difference between these situations, there was no way to take Pope Benedict XVI as intending something different than the Faith of Christ Jesus as everyone knew exactly where he stood and for the most part Pope Francis is still a mystery to us.
b. He's new
Fine, fine, yes, he's new, but that doesn't excuse anything...One gets a grace period to learn their job, but after a while that wears off. Ignorance does not excuse anyone.
c. He's from South America
Okay, and what? Just because someone is from somewhere else doesn't mean we excuse them from not being clear. It's one thing making mistakes in communication, that happens often enough, everyone does it. It's another thing to not try and fix those mistakes to get better at communication. Now I happen to be fluent in Spanish and can tell you while situation a does happen from time to time, it really is a matter of word choice, sometimes things are really said in such a way that one goes, huh?
d. He knows what he's doing, he's doing it on purpose...
If he's causing confusion on purpose, or telling people what they wish to hear, wouldn't that make him manipulating of people to get a point across? In someways like a politician. We're supposed to teach the Truth in season and out of season, whether people wish to hear it or whether they don't. Obviously one should recognize one's audience, but that does not mean watering down truth too. For me it's cause to concern when the biggest known enemies of the Faith are rejoicing (if Cardinal Mahony is doing backflips...there's a problem) over various statements (or the lack of statements)....And while he does say he's a son of the Church, with all of these various confusing statements, it's almost as if he's trying to displace himself....(I'm a Son of the Church, but...*insert confusing or ambiguous statement here*) Now I tend to think that the Holy Father is above this type of working style and that he communicates exactly what he means (not very well, but does so). When things are faithful, they're faithful, when they're wrong, they're wrong. As I've stated earlier, I think it's a bit too much to call the Holy Father a heretic with all of his various statements (I truly think he's naïve to most everything, and he's said so himself)....And while I'm on this point, the insults (neatly organized here)...have to stop. Whether it's intentional or not, insults are beneath everyone and people should not do them....So no, I would not think our Holy Father is manipulating the left and right, I simply think that the Holy Father speaks un-restrained, and this is a huge problem.
2) Two different philosophies between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis...does it mean that they're an antithesis between them?
a. Attitude towards the office of the Papacy
Pope Francis by ditching the symbols that have come with the office, for better or for worse is making it more about himself, than he ever would have by wearing the symbols of the papacy. Pope Francis by not living in the Papal "palace" is using more energy than he would by living in the papal palace alone. While I don't believe that Pope Francis is evil by ditching the symbols, I do believe that he's unintentionally communicating the opposite message that he wishes to communicate. (Other words, a false humility)....Doesn't mean that Pope Francis isn't humble, just in this regard, not so much
Compared to Pope Benedict XVI who used all the symbols (except the tiara) as a service to all of us. The catechism of beauty (something I'm a fan of) because beauty points to Beauty itself. He wore the various symbols of the office perhaps in one sense out of obligation (an ISTJ characteristic...I know, I am one :p), but never was it about personality of Pope Benedict XVI (though I'm sure that he did like the vestment choices....anything is an improvement over Marini I). A true sense of humility towards the office (recognizing it is not about one's own personal taste, likes and dislikes)...
Over time perhaps this may end up not being so, but from what I've seen, the absolute distain for the symbols of the office point to me a disdain of the office. It is not the person of the pope. The Pope is the vicar of Christ and quite frankly, should look like it.
b. Attitudes towards the Liturgy
Pope Francis seems to be Liturgically indifferent at best, but at worst a distain for particulars of the Liturgy. Now to be fair, Pope Francis does follow the book and doesn't ab lib. However, the vestment choices, and Holy Thursday have been epic failures at various points. The Liturgy is not a place to impose one's personality...and again to be fair, the Pope keeps himself out of it. Since I have seen videos of the Holy Father genuflecting before, I assume the reason he doesn't genuflect is because it'd be a chore to do so without some type of aid. (Granted if he needed help to kneel, I think a kneeler should be provided to help him)...if he wants to bow, he should offer the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or St Basil ;)....granted he wouldn't be able to do that because all the parts are sung. (having one lung and all)...By choosing the non-ornate vestments, while not in of itself evil or horrible...it kind of means we're not giving to God our best. We should give him the most beautiful that we have, not because God per se needs it, but out of our love for Him, and for justice.
Pope Benedict XVI was a servant of the Liturgy as well and made himself disappear (It was when he was Cardinal Ratzinger offering the Papal funeral Liturgy of Pope JPII which got me to go back to Mass after a few years of absence) Order and beauty are attractive, and worked on little sinner that is me. Everything was for His glory and not for our glory. The pope endured much (Marini I) but after Marini I was fired, we really got to see the beauty of the Liturgy come out. The Liturgy was the spear of the New Evangelization, after all, how can we bring Christ to people if the Christ we encounter during the Liturgy is veiled by abuses and various other problems? He knew that if our Liturgy wasn't right everything else would falter on through. Thanks be to God he gave us Summorum Pontificum, while some say it was an act of tolerance (and to some degree that's true), really it's a matter of justice...an issue I've spoken of before.
There are similarities between the two as well, both have echoed concern about the poor, and our occasional idolatry of the various economic systems. Both mentioned love of neighbor. Both of them called us to the Magisterium. Both have excommunicated disobedient priests. And various other things. But do not let their similarities overshadow the differences between the two. It doesn't mean Pope Francis is evil or horrible, it simply means that the two are different, and there's no need to try and transform Pope Francis into Pope Benedict XVI and vise versa. It's okay for each person to stand on their own without help from one another.
But of course, let us pray for our Holy Father Francis, and our emeritus Benedict XVI...
Let us begin...
1. Is it absolutely necessary that we interpret EVERYTHING the Holy Father says as orthodox? The dogma of infallibility is very specific for a reason...
From the 1st Vatican council:
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
- The Pope must be teaching ALL of the Faithful, in his capacity
- must be on a matter of faith and morals
The extension being anything that does not fit this condition does not fall under the infallibility guarantee. That is to say 99.999999% of what the Pope says could be classified as fallible. the 0.000001% infallible.
Oh the chaos that would ensue if the Pope were infallible on every little detail, I don't even wish to think about such things.
There have been several attempts at mental gymnastics, so much so, one might think that they're undertaking supernatural abilities to convert statements into something tangible.
That is to say it's very possible in the vast majority of the actions of the Holy Father that he'll say something that doesn't correlate to the Faith. Does it mean he's evil and the anti-Christ? Absolutely not!! It's rather simple, as a private theologian, or even a local teacher, he has the ability to make mistakes, or even commit heresies...The important thing to remember about the Pope is that he can't DEFINE a doctrine that's heretical for belief. We've had more than our fair share of heretical Popes, but none of them have defined dogma that is heretical.
To translate, if something sounds slightly off, there's no need to transform it into something that it clearly isn't. I think it would be a bit too much to call the Pope a heretic (does anyone really think that during the 60's that the Faith was taught properly to the clergy?)
To translate, if something sounds slightly off, there's no need to transform it into something that it clearly isn't. I think it would be a bit too much to call the Pope a heretic (does anyone really think that during the 60's that the Faith was taught properly to the clergy?)
The excuses that are made:
a. It's a matter of translation, the Holy Father does not speak English natively.
This is a point, and a good one to consider, it simply means the process of information and expression is different. That said, this excuse doesn't hold....One can translate expressions faithfully and there still be a problem. There are times when this is a legitimate excuse as we've seen with Evangelii Gaudium in the excuse of a translation of "por si mismo" as "inevitably" instead of "by itself." When there's a deliberate mis-translation of particular words, this does change the meaning, and often it's best to give the benefit of the doubt to the original wording. This is why it was proper for those to defend the Holy Father in this case. The original wording did not convey what was being expressed in the translation and a benefit of the doubt should always be given to our dear Holy Father. (Thus it can properly be said that the Pope, even though he doesn't have a full grasp of economics, that he doesn't condemn capitalism as is, but simply points out the obvious...any economic system does not work without moral people).....That said, what happens when the original language is the problem in the first place? Since the Holy Father's first language is Spanish, I'm using his Spanish texts as the originals from which the others are derived from...This is from his Angelus address on June 2nd, 2013...
Emphasis mine:
Jesus’ outlook is very different; it is dictated by his union with the Father and his compassion for the people, that mercifulness of Jesus for us all. Jesus senses our problems, he senses our weaknesses, he senses our needs. Looking at those five loaves, Jesus thinks: this is Providence! From this small amount, God can make it suffice for everyone. Jesus trusts in the heavenly Father without reserve; he knows that for him everything is possible. Thus he tells his disciples to have the people sit down in groups of 50 — this is not merely coincidental, for it means that they are no longer a crowd but become communities nourished by God’s bread. Jesus then takes those loaves and fish, looks up to heaven, recites the blessing — the reference to the Eucharist is clear — and breaks them and gives them to the disciples who distribute them... and the loaves and fish do not run out, they do not run out! This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity.
You see here two different situations of language, one where the language was manipulated, in the other language wasn't manipulated. (The intention behind manipulation, who am I to judge? :p)...Each having its own consequences, one where people get riled up over something that wasn't meant, the other where people have an absolute right to be upset.
I'm sorry, but the miracle not being the multiplication of the loaves is at heterodox at best, and heretical at worst. There's no twisting this statement into something orthodox, when it isn't. As I tell my students all the time whether in written communication or verbal communication, be sure to get all of your points across clearly and with distinction and clarity. Do not make me have to search for meaning within your works. (Bear in mind, I'm a physics and math teacher, so the double implication thing doesn't apply)...If it takes a panel of experts and they're confused, one ought to re-consider how one is communicating their points across. No matter what language one is communicating in, one should always seek to be clear and precise and ambiguities should be avoided whenever possible. And lest anyone think I'm ripping on the new regime, if we remember the whole Pope Benedict XVI situation with the condom comments, the only major difference between these situations, there was no way to take Pope Benedict XVI as intending something different than the Faith of Christ Jesus as everyone knew exactly where he stood and for the most part Pope Francis is still a mystery to us.
b. He's new
Fine, fine, yes, he's new, but that doesn't excuse anything...One gets a grace period to learn their job, but after a while that wears off. Ignorance does not excuse anyone.
c. He's from South America
Okay, and what? Just because someone is from somewhere else doesn't mean we excuse them from not being clear. It's one thing making mistakes in communication, that happens often enough, everyone does it. It's another thing to not try and fix those mistakes to get better at communication. Now I happen to be fluent in Spanish and can tell you while situation a does happen from time to time, it really is a matter of word choice, sometimes things are really said in such a way that one goes, huh?
d. He knows what he's doing, he's doing it on purpose...
If he's causing confusion on purpose, or telling people what they wish to hear, wouldn't that make him manipulating of people to get a point across? In someways like a politician. We're supposed to teach the Truth in season and out of season, whether people wish to hear it or whether they don't. Obviously one should recognize one's audience, but that does not mean watering down truth too. For me it's cause to concern when the biggest known enemies of the Faith are rejoicing (if Cardinal Mahony is doing backflips...there's a problem) over various statements (or the lack of statements)....And while he does say he's a son of the Church, with all of these various confusing statements, it's almost as if he's trying to displace himself....(I'm a Son of the Church, but...*insert confusing or ambiguous statement here*) Now I tend to think that the Holy Father is above this type of working style and that he communicates exactly what he means (not very well, but does so). When things are faithful, they're faithful, when they're wrong, they're wrong. As I've stated earlier, I think it's a bit too much to call the Holy Father a heretic with all of his various statements (I truly think he's naïve to most everything, and he's said so himself)....And while I'm on this point, the insults (neatly organized here)...have to stop. Whether it's intentional or not, insults are beneath everyone and people should not do them....So no, I would not think our Holy Father is manipulating the left and right, I simply think that the Holy Father speaks un-restrained, and this is a huge problem.
2) Two different philosophies between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis...does it mean that they're an antithesis between them?
a. Attitude towards the office of the Papacy
Pope Francis by ditching the symbols that have come with the office, for better or for worse is making it more about himself, than he ever would have by wearing the symbols of the papacy. Pope Francis by not living in the Papal "palace" is using more energy than he would by living in the papal palace alone. While I don't believe that Pope Francis is evil by ditching the symbols, I do believe that he's unintentionally communicating the opposite message that he wishes to communicate. (Other words, a false humility)....Doesn't mean that Pope Francis isn't humble, just in this regard, not so much
Compared to Pope Benedict XVI who used all the symbols (except the tiara) as a service to all of us. The catechism of beauty (something I'm a fan of) because beauty points to Beauty itself. He wore the various symbols of the office perhaps in one sense out of obligation (an ISTJ characteristic...I know, I am one :p), but never was it about personality of Pope Benedict XVI (though I'm sure that he did like the vestment choices....anything is an improvement over Marini I). A true sense of humility towards the office (recognizing it is not about one's own personal taste, likes and dislikes)...
Over time perhaps this may end up not being so, but from what I've seen, the absolute distain for the symbols of the office point to me a disdain of the office. It is not the person of the pope. The Pope is the vicar of Christ and quite frankly, should look like it.
b. Attitudes towards the Liturgy
Pope Francis seems to be Liturgically indifferent at best, but at worst a distain for particulars of the Liturgy. Now to be fair, Pope Francis does follow the book and doesn't ab lib. However, the vestment choices, and Holy Thursday have been epic failures at various points. The Liturgy is not a place to impose one's personality...and again to be fair, the Pope keeps himself out of it. Since I have seen videos of the Holy Father genuflecting before, I assume the reason he doesn't genuflect is because it'd be a chore to do so without some type of aid. (Granted if he needed help to kneel, I think a kneeler should be provided to help him)...if he wants to bow, he should offer the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or St Basil ;)....granted he wouldn't be able to do that because all the parts are sung. (having one lung and all)...By choosing the non-ornate vestments, while not in of itself evil or horrible...it kind of means we're not giving to God our best. We should give him the most beautiful that we have, not because God per se needs it, but out of our love for Him, and for justice.
Pope Benedict XVI was a servant of the Liturgy as well and made himself disappear (It was when he was Cardinal Ratzinger offering the Papal funeral Liturgy of Pope JPII which got me to go back to Mass after a few years of absence) Order and beauty are attractive, and worked on little sinner that is me. Everything was for His glory and not for our glory. The pope endured much (Marini I) but after Marini I was fired, we really got to see the beauty of the Liturgy come out. The Liturgy was the spear of the New Evangelization, after all, how can we bring Christ to people if the Christ we encounter during the Liturgy is veiled by abuses and various other problems? He knew that if our Liturgy wasn't right everything else would falter on through. Thanks be to God he gave us Summorum Pontificum, while some say it was an act of tolerance (and to some degree that's true), really it's a matter of justice...an issue I've spoken of before.
There are similarities between the two as well, both have echoed concern about the poor, and our occasional idolatry of the various economic systems. Both mentioned love of neighbor. Both of them called us to the Magisterium. Both have excommunicated disobedient priests. And various other things. But do not let their similarities overshadow the differences between the two. It doesn't mean Pope Francis is evil or horrible, it simply means that the two are different, and there's no need to try and transform Pope Francis into Pope Benedict XVI and vise versa. It's okay for each person to stand on their own without help from one another.
But of course, let us pray for our Holy Father Francis, and our emeritus Benedict XVI...
18 November 2013
Has the Liturgy become subjective?
I hear often times in various circles that it doesn't matter how Mass is celebrated, all that matters is that Jesus is there. Stop worrying about the music, the rubrics, etc. And while I sympathize with much of this...it just can't be done. The commandments and the virtues do not allow us to be so indifferent towards things.
Justice as defined in the catechism is as follows: 1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the "virtue of religion." Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. the just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."68 "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."69
That is to say that it is Justice to give back to God what we ought to. It is not necessarily that God per se, needs our gratitude, God is God, but it is proper for us to give back to Him who gave us life right worship, correctly and by the rubrics established by Holy Mother Church.
The virtue of justice commands us to follow the rubrics of Holy Mother Church...everyone, the Pope included is not exempt from this. The virtue of justice means that we give to God the best e have, nothing banal, anthrocentric, devoid of beauty. It is justice that requires of us that we give to God the most solemn worship possible.
In the Christian East there is no such thing as "low Mass"...everything is sung. This the normative for the Roman Liturgy as well, the sung solemn Mass is the norm for the Roman Church, anything less is an exception to the norm and not the norm established by the Church.
One might say, but what if Father has a horrible voice ala Justin Bieber? Well, as my mom used to say, God gave us a voice, we ought to use it. (She always complained that I never sung in church....of course with Haugen-Haas greatest hits, can you blame me for not singing? ;)...even though I was no perfect Catholic as a child, I knew horrible music when I heard it :p)...(of course now I'm always singing at church (see what happens when there's good music, I sing ;))...God cares that we try to give justice to Him...
The willful ignoring of the rubrics of Holy Mother Church leads to an elevation of the dictatorship of relativism which goes on in our culture. Our love for God should command us to justice to serve the rubrics of Holy Mother Church and not disobey them at arms command.
One could very well argue with our Liturgically indifferent Pope at present that this is a contribution to the losing of the culture war. We can't transform the world if we don't have our relationship/worship with God correct. This isn't to say that from the Mass should flow certain things (Mass is meritorious in of itself regardless of the persons cooperation (or lack there of) with graces received)...but if we veil Jesus Christ at the Liturgy, how in the world do we bring Christ into the world? We don't, or we bring in a distorted version of Christ that is at the service of us, rather than us at the service of Him.
For example, that Christ supports gov't program x, or that Christ would support so called gay marriage, is this the Christ that we're supposed to bring into the universe? I don't think so.
Our understanding of Jesus primarily comes from the Liturgy, it is where He comes in His love for us Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist, it is He who we need to bring out to transform the world, but this can't be done at the expense of our Liturgy.
Religion also follows under this justice. Religion, listening to our leaders (when they preach the orthodox Faith) comes under the virtue of justice. It is difficult, especially since the dis-enlightenment which wanted to define man as the centre of the world. This is especially true in American society which has its moments of independent mindset...We become selfish and we in a way become like the rich fool in the parable of the foolish rich man where we get concerned about ourselves and not about the 2 great commandments to Love God and to love neighbor.
The Church and her Liturgy is not a subjective thing where our own opinions matter....no, no, we are but humble servants to the Liturgy and we follow her rubrics out of Love for our God, period. The rubrics emancipate us as to focus on Christ himself.
Pax Vobis
Justice as defined in the catechism is as follows: 1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the "virtue of religion." Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. the just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."68 "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."69
That is to say that it is Justice to give back to God what we ought to. It is not necessarily that God per se, needs our gratitude, God is God, but it is proper for us to give back to Him who gave us life right worship, correctly and by the rubrics established by Holy Mother Church.
The virtue of justice commands us to follow the rubrics of Holy Mother Church...everyone, the Pope included is not exempt from this. The virtue of justice means that we give to God the best e have, nothing banal, anthrocentric, devoid of beauty. It is justice that requires of us that we give to God the most solemn worship possible.
In the Christian East there is no such thing as "low Mass"...everything is sung. This the normative for the Roman Liturgy as well, the sung solemn Mass is the norm for the Roman Church, anything less is an exception to the norm and not the norm established by the Church.
One might say, but what if Father has a horrible voice ala Justin Bieber? Well, as my mom used to say, God gave us a voice, we ought to use it. (She always complained that I never sung in church....of course with Haugen-Haas greatest hits, can you blame me for not singing? ;)...even though I was no perfect Catholic as a child, I knew horrible music when I heard it :p)...(of course now I'm always singing at church (see what happens when there's good music, I sing ;))...God cares that we try to give justice to Him...
The willful ignoring of the rubrics of Holy Mother Church leads to an elevation of the dictatorship of relativism which goes on in our culture. Our love for God should command us to justice to serve the rubrics of Holy Mother Church and not disobey them at arms command.
One could very well argue with our Liturgically indifferent Pope at present that this is a contribution to the losing of the culture war. We can't transform the world if we don't have our relationship/worship with God correct. This isn't to say that from the Mass should flow certain things (Mass is meritorious in of itself regardless of the persons cooperation (or lack there of) with graces received)...but if we veil Jesus Christ at the Liturgy, how in the world do we bring Christ into the world? We don't, or we bring in a distorted version of Christ that is at the service of us, rather than us at the service of Him.
For example, that Christ supports gov't program x, or that Christ would support so called gay marriage, is this the Christ that we're supposed to bring into the universe? I don't think so.
Our understanding of Jesus primarily comes from the Liturgy, it is where He comes in His love for us Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist, it is He who we need to bring out to transform the world, but this can't be done at the expense of our Liturgy.
Religion also follows under this justice. Religion, listening to our leaders (when they preach the orthodox Faith) comes under the virtue of justice. It is difficult, especially since the dis-enlightenment which wanted to define man as the centre of the world. This is especially true in American society which has its moments of independent mindset...We become selfish and we in a way become like the rich fool in the parable of the foolish rich man where we get concerned about ourselves and not about the 2 great commandments to Love God and to love neighbor.
The Church and her Liturgy is not a subjective thing where our own opinions matter....no, no, we are but humble servants to the Liturgy and we follow her rubrics out of Love for our God, period. The rubrics emancipate us as to focus on Christ himself.
Pax Vobis
03 November 2013
How do we define what is "essential"?
I hear a lot lately of people focusing on the "essentials" of *insert x* whether it be Catholicism, problems in society, or whatever the so called issue of the day may be.
To which I respond: How do we define what is essential? Especially when it comes to our Faith.
In the secular world in particular in my fields of math and physics, this question is easy to solve. The essentials can be defined as those from which without them, you'd be completely lost...For exampe, fi one does not know algebra and trigonometry, calculus would be very difficult. (I don't say impossible, as I'll be teaching my future kids Calculus at age 1 ;)). Another example is in physics without understanding the laws of motion at non relativistic level, one can't extend that concept to the quantum level. There are so many situations by which one has to have a basis from which to begin.
But how can we do with with the Logos, the Word Himself? How do we define essential teachings? To devalue the teaching on the Eucharist causes damages to various other teachings in the Church Universal...This domino effect does not exist as much in the secular disciplines as it does in the teachings of the Church. That is to say one doesn't necessarily go into all of the details of various disciplines in the secular world (hence the idea of majors in university study)
The thing about the Church is that if we decide to de-emphasize something, there are severe consequences when we do that. For example, the Church teaches that the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of the same Sacrifice on Calvary. (Christ is not re-crucified at Mass, Jesus died once and for all)...in many places the Mass is treated as a glorified social gathering....by doing this we give grave harm to the virtue of Justice in which we give to God what is due unto Him (proper worship, which falls under religion) in exchange for self-idolatry...(Something that Pope Benedict XVI severely warned us against)
The same effect happens for the "red letter" Bibles that place emphasis on the words that Jesus said. What? Is the rest of the Bible not God inspired or not as important? God inspired the whole Bible, not just the words of Christ, although He's the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity...what are the 1st and the 3rd persons of the Trinity not important? You can see where I'm going with this can you not? That is to say that is to say in the Church, all of Her teachings are important. One can't simply discard them for the sake of an interview, or to be comfortable with someone. The Truth is the Truth, and we need not apologize for it.
Prudence is not the ability to be sissy about the Truth...it is not prudent to not teach the Truths of the Church. It may very well be a matter of respect that one acts according to the rules of the owner, but this is not prudence, it falls under a different category.
Enough with the capitulation of the Truth, we need to speak it whether people want to hear it or not. Whether they get offended, or praise us. The Truth is the Truth, we need to speak it with charity and clearness. Not to eliminate "non-essential things"...all of Her teachings are essential...ALL of them, not one, not two, ALL....just as ALL of Christ is important, not just his human nature, not just his Divine Nature, All of Christ.
Pax Vobis
To which I respond: How do we define what is essential? Especially when it comes to our Faith.
In the secular world in particular in my fields of math and physics, this question is easy to solve. The essentials can be defined as those from which without them, you'd be completely lost...For exampe, fi one does not know algebra and trigonometry, calculus would be very difficult. (I don't say impossible, as I'll be teaching my future kids Calculus at age 1 ;)). Another example is in physics without understanding the laws of motion at non relativistic level, one can't extend that concept to the quantum level. There are so many situations by which one has to have a basis from which to begin.
But how can we do with with the Logos, the Word Himself? How do we define essential teachings? To devalue the teaching on the Eucharist causes damages to various other teachings in the Church Universal...This domino effect does not exist as much in the secular disciplines as it does in the teachings of the Church. That is to say one doesn't necessarily go into all of the details of various disciplines in the secular world (hence the idea of majors in university study)
The thing about the Church is that if we decide to de-emphasize something, there are severe consequences when we do that. For example, the Church teaches that the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of the same Sacrifice on Calvary. (Christ is not re-crucified at Mass, Jesus died once and for all)...in many places the Mass is treated as a glorified social gathering....by doing this we give grave harm to the virtue of Justice in which we give to God what is due unto Him (proper worship, which falls under religion) in exchange for self-idolatry...(Something that Pope Benedict XVI severely warned us against)
The same effect happens for the "red letter" Bibles that place emphasis on the words that Jesus said. What? Is the rest of the Bible not God inspired or not as important? God inspired the whole Bible, not just the words of Christ, although He's the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity...what are the 1st and the 3rd persons of the Trinity not important? You can see where I'm going with this can you not? That is to say that is to say in the Church, all of Her teachings are important. One can't simply discard them for the sake of an interview, or to be comfortable with someone. The Truth is the Truth, and we need not apologize for it.
Prudence is not the ability to be sissy about the Truth...it is not prudent to not teach the Truths of the Church. It may very well be a matter of respect that one acts according to the rules of the owner, but this is not prudence, it falls under a different category.
Enough with the capitulation of the Truth, we need to speak it whether people want to hear it or not. Whether they get offended, or praise us. The Truth is the Truth, we need to speak it with charity and clearness. Not to eliminate "non-essential things"...all of Her teachings are essential...ALL of them, not one, not two, ALL....just as ALL of Christ is important, not just his human nature, not just his Divine Nature, All of Christ.
Pax Vobis
14 October 2013
Introducing Tatyana Thérèse
Mondays are horrible...and so I introduce to you to my new kitty Tatyana Thérèse.
23 September 2013
Some people ask why? let me help
I was reflecting last night and I came to some thoughts.
Every time one goes to a parish, there are some parishes with a "peace and justice" ministry which we all know is code for anything but peace and justice. They actually do go out and help the poor, feed in the soup kitchens, do outreach and things like that....and yet, pretty much all of these parishes have atrocious liturgies (and that's being nice) and they're typically ran by Sr Mary Pants suit, or insert some person with liberal agenda here....
Is it any wonder why those that are in traditional circles are a bit put off by going to the outreaches? (Not to say that it should be this way) Associations matter for better or for worse....think about it: When the USCCB supports some DNC talking point, those of us that are in the conservative movement typically run away to the opposite point, whenever it's available. Or if Cardinal Mahony says x, one more than likely is to think y instead.
Rather unfortunately the liberals have "the poor" and it shouldn't be this way. Most certainly all of us should be involved in helping the poor. Which is why I don't think Pope Francis is completely wrong on this point....but then again for those of us who followed BXVI's teachings closely, we saw that these things went hand and hand together. That is to say, one must love God to have capacity to love neighbor, neither needs to be excluded....And like our dear Emeritus, didn't put much fan fare or attention to the love of neighbor, it came naturally from our love of God...You'd see us in prisons, helping the poor, but it's almost as if we're not there, because we let Christ shine through and not force the situation. Pope Benedict visited prisons several times, no attention was paid to them of course....Pope Benedict XVI also mentioned various things about immigration...no one ever noticed....for you see, these things came naturally from the love of God expressed highest through the Liturgy.
There is a self built wall by those on both sides....perhaps this is what Pope Francis is getting at, and for once, I can actually agree with him. There need not be dichotomy between the two....but we also don't need to lose decorum and proper Liturgy to do this.
Pax Vobis
Every time one goes to a parish, there are some parishes with a "peace and justice" ministry which we all know is code for anything but peace and justice. They actually do go out and help the poor, feed in the soup kitchens, do outreach and things like that....and yet, pretty much all of these parishes have atrocious liturgies (and that's being nice) and they're typically ran by Sr Mary Pants suit, or insert some person with liberal agenda here....
Is it any wonder why those that are in traditional circles are a bit put off by going to the outreaches? (Not to say that it should be this way) Associations matter for better or for worse....think about it: When the USCCB supports some DNC talking point, those of us that are in the conservative movement typically run away to the opposite point, whenever it's available. Or if Cardinal Mahony says x, one more than likely is to think y instead.
Rather unfortunately the liberals have "the poor" and it shouldn't be this way. Most certainly all of us should be involved in helping the poor. Which is why I don't think Pope Francis is completely wrong on this point....but then again for those of us who followed BXVI's teachings closely, we saw that these things went hand and hand together. That is to say, one must love God to have capacity to love neighbor, neither needs to be excluded....And like our dear Emeritus, didn't put much fan fare or attention to the love of neighbor, it came naturally from our love of God...You'd see us in prisons, helping the poor, but it's almost as if we're not there, because we let Christ shine through and not force the situation. Pope Benedict visited prisons several times, no attention was paid to them of course....Pope Benedict XVI also mentioned various things about immigration...no one ever noticed....for you see, these things came naturally from the love of God expressed highest through the Liturgy.
There is a self built wall by those on both sides....perhaps this is what Pope Francis is getting at, and for once, I can actually agree with him. There need not be dichotomy between the two....but we also don't need to lose decorum and proper Liturgy to do this.
Pax Vobis
18 September 2013
I'll probably have to go to the box, but I need to say this...
Upon reflection, I think I finally realized what disturbs me so much about the present pontificate...
The poor are being elevated at the expense of everyone and everything else....
This is of course not to say that we shouldn't be helping the poor, we absolutely should, and most certainly this is apart of the spirutal works of mercy of which all of us in our capacity should do.
As Father Blake mentioned on his blog, working with the poor is not as romanticized as we often see it protrayed.
Often times there are various addictions, messes and various other issues to deal with, it is by no means easy. It is a rather big challenge that all of us are called to do in whatever our capacity in life is.
But in case you haven't noticed, the so called "war on poverty" has actually created more people in poverty, interesting is it not? I'm going to make a statement that will probably take all of you a back...but here...
The papal elevation of the poor will have disaterous consequences, resulting in more people in spiritual poverty..Or rather, things will be made worse.
The poor have been elevated in exchange for the lack of decorum, lack of public statements, and the lack of action to the crisis that is infecting the Church.
Again this isn't to say that the poor aren't important, or should not be taken care of, but not at the expense of everything, but not at the expense of everyone or everything else. It's almost as if they're being used for an agenda.
The poor we we will always have with us, and clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, feeding the hungry, are all works of mercy and we should all be doing these things to the degree that we are able.
Our Lord does not say whether a gov't program, or a private entity should take care of the poor (and for good reason), it is up to us to do so. But in trying to do so (the war on poverty), it's almost as if we're taking the Words of Our Lord upside down....trying to eliminate a so called problem.
Strictly speaking we're not just talking about the material poor, we're also talking about those that are spiritually poor as well.
The elevation of the material poor will result in the ignoring of the spirutally poor. There are those of us that are served by beauty (of which I consider myself one of them), one of the reasons the pontificate of Pope Benedict spoke to me personally. Order and beauty are things that I think all humans need (even within the subjectivity of what defines or what can be classified as beautiful)...The poor are not an end in of themselves, and I think that people on the left tend to get this point confused.
We most certainly are to help them, but we are not to let them become a form of idolatry where we ignore everything else. Everything makes sense in the proper order, God first, evreyone else second, you last.
Justice requires that we do everything well and to the best of our ability....We worship God the best that we can. (By following the rubrics, paying attention, giving to God rightly what is due to Him, beautiful vestments, and all of the Church so called bling is not for the glorificatrion of ourselves or the priests/deacons/religious wearing them, but rather so that the person disappears and that Christ is made present.
Perhaps I'm just wierd, but I'm a bit put off by this elevation of people at the expense of everything else. Or maybe it's just my extremely introverted side coming out. I just think that doing these things on a more low key level would be appropriate....that is to say there's a point that one can emphasize anything to the point of ad nausem.
Does everyone remember when Pope Benedict XVI came to visit the US? Does anyone remember the impromptu visiting with the sex abuse victims in DC? Of course not, it happened unannounced, and was kept completely low key.
In otherwords, to be humble one should first recognize that God gives the gift, and then disappear. In otherwords, proclaiming one's humility does the opposite of what one intends. There is no need to proclaim such a thing. While I understand Pope Francis is not in control of how he is protrayed, he is in control of what he says...and to do nothing to curtail this just mind boggles me.
May Our Lord have mercy on us
Pax Vobis
The poor are being elevated at the expense of everyone and everything else....
This is of course not to say that we shouldn't be helping the poor, we absolutely should, and most certainly this is apart of the spirutal works of mercy of which all of us in our capacity should do.
As Father Blake mentioned on his blog, working with the poor is not as romanticized as we often see it protrayed.
Often times there are various addictions, messes and various other issues to deal with, it is by no means easy. It is a rather big challenge that all of us are called to do in whatever our capacity in life is.
But in case you haven't noticed, the so called "war on poverty" has actually created more people in poverty, interesting is it not? I'm going to make a statement that will probably take all of you a back...but here...
The papal elevation of the poor will have disaterous consequences, resulting in more people in spiritual poverty..Or rather, things will be made worse.
The poor have been elevated in exchange for the lack of decorum, lack of public statements, and the lack of action to the crisis that is infecting the Church.
Again this isn't to say that the poor aren't important, or should not be taken care of, but not at the expense of everything, but not at the expense of everyone or everything else. It's almost as if they're being used for an agenda.
The poor we we will always have with us, and clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, feeding the hungry, are all works of mercy and we should all be doing these things to the degree that we are able.
Our Lord does not say whether a gov't program, or a private entity should take care of the poor (and for good reason), it is up to us to do so. But in trying to do so (the war on poverty), it's almost as if we're taking the Words of Our Lord upside down....trying to eliminate a so called problem.
Strictly speaking we're not just talking about the material poor, we're also talking about those that are spiritually poor as well.
The elevation of the material poor will result in the ignoring of the spirutally poor. There are those of us that are served by beauty (of which I consider myself one of them), one of the reasons the pontificate of Pope Benedict spoke to me personally. Order and beauty are things that I think all humans need (even within the subjectivity of what defines or what can be classified as beautiful)...The poor are not an end in of themselves, and I think that people on the left tend to get this point confused.
We most certainly are to help them, but we are not to let them become a form of idolatry where we ignore everything else. Everything makes sense in the proper order, God first, evreyone else second, you last.
Justice requires that we do everything well and to the best of our ability....We worship God the best that we can. (By following the rubrics, paying attention, giving to God rightly what is due to Him, beautiful vestments, and all of the Church so called bling is not for the glorificatrion of ourselves or the priests/deacons/religious wearing them, but rather so that the person disappears and that Christ is made present.
Perhaps I'm just wierd, but I'm a bit put off by this elevation of people at the expense of everything else. Or maybe it's just my extremely introverted side coming out. I just think that doing these things on a more low key level would be appropriate....that is to say there's a point that one can emphasize anything to the point of ad nausem.
Does everyone remember when Pope Benedict XVI came to visit the US? Does anyone remember the impromptu visiting with the sex abuse victims in DC? Of course not, it happened unannounced, and was kept completely low key.
In otherwords, to be humble one should first recognize that God gives the gift, and then disappear. In otherwords, proclaiming one's humility does the opposite of what one intends. There is no need to proclaim such a thing. While I understand Pope Francis is not in control of how he is protrayed, he is in control of what he says...and to do nothing to curtail this just mind boggles me.
May Our Lord have mercy on us
Pax Vobis
01 August 2013
On the merits of words themselves
If one’s words need assistance to stand, perhaps, one needs to re-evaluate what one is saying. That is to say words should be able to stand on their own and without a machine, filter, or human be able to be understood generally speaking. (Of course there are times where one might wish to go deeper)
Most certainly those with an agenda, or with the intent to do malice will do so, and there is absolutely no way to stop them from doing so. But there is a way to limit the damage done by these people...speaking unambiguously...and cutting those who wish to do harm off at the pass before their message gets out....let me give a few examples:
- acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the sum of external forces and inversely proportional to its mass. (Newton’s 2nd Law)
- hope and change
c. Insert Pope Francis statement here
In the first statement, there is a clear understanding of the effect, cause, and the opposition to motion...Acceleration is the effect, the sum of external forces is the cause, and mass is the resistance to motion....This statement can be taken to it’s logical conclusion that a smaller mass has a larger acceleration, and a larger mass has a smaller acceleration. The reason the law is stated this way often times is because this statement is less ambiguous than the other (and incorrect) form of the statement “Force equals mass time acceleration.” You don’t need to be a physics major to see the logic behind statement a. Your intuition can see this logic, you can’t make an F-150 accelerate as fast as one of those smart cars.
In the second statement we have zero’s slogan for his 08 campaign. What is clear about this statement? Hope in what? What is he trying to change? Now of course this hope and change was often accompanied by a picture of himself looking up. The idea being to conjure up emotion, to get people to vote for him based upon these ambiguous words. These words by themselves need explanation because they are not attached to anything specific, people can run with these words anywhere they want, and THAT is a problem. As a person trying to communicate, one wants to be in control of the message that is being received. It should be important to be clearly understood regardless of who is playing the message through. Only later did we come to find out what these words mean, the transformation of America into something different than it was, and hope in a person who our hope should not be in.
Pope Francis, mind you, I love him, but as I’ve stated before he gives me headaches because he’s not clear with what he’s saying. It’s often times not the fact that he’s said something (He’s usually for the most part on the ball)...it’s the ambiguous way in which it was said that gives me headaches. The fact that people manipulate his words to their own ends (people would do that anyway)...frustrates me...even more frustrating is the fact that I’m sure he knows this and doesn’t try to get the clearest message out for people to understand him. I’ve seen various blogs try to explain away his actions or his words. Just stop, let his words and actions on their own merits. The Holy Father should keep off the cuff remarks to a minimum and STICK TO THE TEXT....in general....I most certainly hope that he’s learning that he can’t do off the cuff things anymore (or to a lesser extent) than what he’s used to. As the Pope the target and the microscope are zoomed in at their maximum levels. He must recognize this, and learn to speak clearly. Does it mean that he’s never allowed to screw up? Absolutely not, no one’s perfect, even Pope Benedict XVI made a few mistakes along the way (condom incident anyone?...I don’t consider Ragensburg a mistake))...I hope the one lesson that comes out of this is clarity and precision is needed. As any scientist will tell you, if you are not clear and precise in your research, everything falls)...but I guess this means that we all need to pray for him that much more.
Perhaps one can say that ambiguity is the perfect way to manipulate people towards an end whatever direction one wishes to take it. Outside of the situations where ambiguity is necessary, I for one am absolutely sick of it, in particular from those where ambiguity should not be necessary.
In particular coming from leaders in the Church, I (nor anyone else) shouldn’t have to go through filters to find the “true meaning” of words that were said. That is to say one should be clearly understood the first time one says something (whenever it’s possible, obviously there are exceptions)
Whether it’s “Immigration reform” what exactly are you trying to reform? why are you trying to reform it? To what end are you seeking this? Why is it necessary to change the system? One can’t get support (at least from a half-way intelligent person) without being clear and concise with one is trying to do.
Or it’s comments on the situation in the Church, be clear with what needs to be said, say it, let us digest the words, then only if necessary add clarifications....Let me give an example of how things SHOULD be said...
USCCB: We need you to stand up for Immigration Reform
What the USCCB should say (if they actually want to be listened to):
- This is a matter where 2 people can disagree, it is not necessary to agree with us on this particular issue.
- We will not support anyone breaking the present immigration laws. Anyone seeking to enter the country, must follow the laws that are on the books at present.
- The complexity of each situation for the various families are to be respected.
- Those that are at present breaking the law are obliged to follow the law and make reparations for breaking the laws.
- This nation has a right to enforce its own laws, but they should enforce those laws in charity and with respect to the dignity of the human person and must not go on witch-hunts.
- The process for legal immigration should be streamlined so that it does not take decades to attain citizenship.
- Those that are here illegally do not have a right to citizenship, but do have a right to their dignity as human persons.
Or whether it’s the situation with the gay lobby, or homosexuality in general
Pope Francis (insert off the cuff un-prepared remarks)
What Pope Francis should have said:
- Those homosexuals that are living chaste lives have the opportunity by the grace of God to get to heaven.
- Homosexual behaviour is absolutely unacceptable and cannot be supported in any fashion.
- Homosexual persons should not be discriminated and maltreated.
- Homosexual actions are a block to the priesthood in the Church.
Now, could the above still be manipulated? Absolutely, but one can’t say that these statements above weren’t clear in their intention and understanding.
Anyone should be able to read Pope Francis (or anyone else) on their own merits, and not have a situation where they constantly need to be re-fashioned to fit a narrative (right or left)....That is to say people should be able to “Read Francis through Francis” and not someone else’s lens.
Quite frankly I’m sick of the ambiguity, stand up, confront, and be not afraid. Be clearly understood in your fights,....And if you happen to be the Bishop of Rome, please, more preparation, less off the cuff and un-prepared remarks....
Pax Vobis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)