Papolatry in the Trad World
#51
(03-17-2013, 10:52 AM)Ferd Wrote:
Quote:I'm not sure what message was sent by his not wearing the stole (since different people see it differently) -- or how you can possibly know what message he intended to send. Hmmmm. That one act could be seen as humility or a slap in the face of Tradition. See what I mean?

It is precisely because the renouncing of an act of tradition (refusing to wear the stole) can be interpreted BOTH as a sign of humility and as a slap in the face of Tradition that we know what his intention was (see what I mean?).
The sad thing is that not wearing the stole is seen as a sign of humility. This should not be; it is a false association. The sort of Pope we need is one with humility enough to embrace Tradition together with all its aesthetic trappings but who at the same time can express the importance for all Christians to concern themselves with the needs of the poor.  We do not need a Pope who will embrace the false dichotomy of the simplicity of Christ and High Tradition.
I see your point. But it was still one act and I don't think too much should be made of it. I mean, I know newspapers have to write about something and make up what they think he means by his doing what he does, but, eh. And, as always, trads like to speculate. But, he did put on the stole to make the blessing. So why not focus on what message he "intended" to send by doing that, at least in addition to focusing on why he didn't have it on all the time?

Reply
#52
Quote: It is precisely because the renouncing of an act of tradition (refusing to wear the stole) can be interpreted BOTH as a sign of humility and as a slap in the face of Tradition that we know what his intention was (see what I mean?).

Ah, the abuse of the word "humility".  Not wearing the stole is a sign of PRIDE.
Reply
#53
Quote:But, he did put on the stole to make the blessing. So why not focus on what message he "intended" to send by doing that, at least in addition to focusing on why he didn't have it on all the time?

I do acknowledge and focus on both events, each of which (in my mind) illuminate the other and together contribute to an initial personal impression which in turn, no doubt, will interpret and inform subsequent events and impressions. 
But I will say, for what it is worth, that when attempting to render intelligible the actions of others I always assume an intention on their part even if they themselves are blind to, or mistaken about, what their intention is. And as it happens, I feel nothing but good will towards Francis, and I find that my hope is, based on my opening impressions, that he will be one who listens to others with a true spiritual discernment that will benefit the whole Church. May God bless him.
Reply
#54
(03-17-2013, 11:12 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: It is precisely because the renouncing of an act of tradition (refusing to wear the stole) can be interpreted BOTH as a sign of humility and as a slap in the face of Tradition that we know what his intention was (see what I mean?).

Ah, the abuse of the word "humility".  Not wearing the stole is a sign of PRIDE.

Really?  So, in addition to being an infallible prognosticator of economic doom, you are now able to read hearts, even the heart of Christ's Vicar?

James, you are truly amazing, the kind of Catholic I've always wanted to be but never will.  Please pray for me.  I think you have quite a sway with the heavenly host.  :tiphat:
Reply
#55
Try some spiritual reading, Doc, this is really pretty basic.  Aquinas and Peiper discuss this very topic under humility.  The OFFICE of the Pope demands certain respect, and there are certain customs that go with that.  Even if these actions made Pope Francis feel awkward, then the humble thing would have been to put aside his feelings, and do what is called for.

Instead he put his feelings above his office.

A priest gave a sermon on a somewhat related issue.  He said there is a prescribed range of time for the elevation of the host.  He said if a priest felt that the time was insufficient, and held it up for a long time, he would be guilty of spiritual pride.
Reply
#56
(03-17-2013, 02:35 PM)James02 Wrote: Try some spiritual reading, Doc, this is really pretty basic.  Aquinas and Peiper discuss this very topic under humility.  The OFFICE of the Pope demands certain respect, and there are certain customs that go with that.  Even if these actions made Pope Francis feel awkward, then the humble thing would have been to put aside his feelings, and do what is called for.

Instead he put his feelings above his office.

A priest gave a sermon on a somewhat related issue.  He said there is a prescribed range of time for the elevation of the host.  He said if a priest felt that the time was insufficient, and held it up for a long time, he would be guilty of spiritual pride.

One might say the office of the Pope deserves the kind of respect that does not assume by his actions he is guilty of the sin of pride. QED
Reply
#57
1. Was it a sign of pride when Saint Pius V chose not to wear the elaborate and opulent clothing of the renaissance popes and instead chose to wear the simple white cossack that he had worn his life as a Dominican?

2. Was Saint Pio guilty of pride when he held the consecrated host up at mass for 20 minutes?
Reply
#58
1.  I don't know the background for that.
2.  Yes.  He was violating the rubrics.
Reply
#59
(03-17-2013, 06:54 AM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: Thank you, Vox.  Another way to describe the discourse we've seen here the last few days is black-and-white thinking.  It's a sign of intellectual and emotional immaturity.  Unfortunately, it is endemic to traditional Catholic circles.

To decry this black-and-white thinking is not to say that the faith should be compromised or that it's fine to dump ecclesiastical traditions.  It pertains, rather, to the sphere of prudence and to the virtue of hope. 

In other words, the chastisement is not coming because Pope Francis wears black shoes or gives a generic blessing.

Vox, I see the solution the same way you do.  We have the advantage of being on the ground.  It's a real advantage.  We can help create the conditions for the emergence of a hierarchy in the future that will fully respect ecclesiastical traditions.  Going Orthodox, sedevacantist or fishing will not get the job done.

And one more thing to my hyperventilating brothers and sisters . . . itsa not so bad, SHADDAP YOU FACE.

Is that Robert downy Jr on accordion?

Seriously...as to Pope Francis (who is said to have quipped when coming out on the balcony..."Donn Call me Frank"    :grin:) I think the problem is many of us have seen the Church swerving all over the place for so long....swerving like mad under JP2...swerving a little less with at least his eyes on the road when Former Benedict was driving (till he jumped out of the driver seat unexpectedly) swerve swerve....we long for a solid hand on the wheel and I guess Pope Francis seems like hes going to drive it right of a cliff when he admits to refusing to pray out loud lest it offend non catholics. But me personally Im a wait and see guy...and an optimist....I even hoped for some kind of benefit to the obama presidency (even though I despise his politics). Further on a another note:  I don't like all the "FIRSTS" meaning novelty... with Pope Francis...thats just a gut thing...new and exciting is not what the church needs right now IMO. As to Voxs main point about it not really affecting us in the trenches....well dear friend on that you are wrong. These things have my family divided, my local parish nearly empty, and the Faith a laughing stock in every media outlet you can name. All the stores are open on Sunday.....eating fish on Friday is a joke to anyone catholic or otherwise I mention the practice too. The USA is going to FORCE the catholic social institutions to either close or do abortions...and that is a direct assault on my 1st amendment civil rights...the govt wouldn't ever conceive of this nonsense if the Church leadership up to the Pope weren't seen as effete elites willing to compromise nearly anything for ecumenism....if the Pope could reign in the US Bishops that would affect my personal life...for the better by establishing a more conservative social environment...ie REAL catholic schooling for CATHOLICS. So while I personally dont think its the end of the world....I dont think its unreasonable to be disappointed in former Benedict...and less than enthused about a Pope who is admittedly to the Left of Father Joseph Ratzinger.
Reply
#60
Quote: One might say the office of the Pope deserves the kind of respect that does not assume by his actions he is guilty of the sin of pride. QED
The claim was made that he is doing this to "show his humility" (which is a contradiction).  This does not show humility.  Humility would be to follow the custom.  His office is that of the most powerful man in the universe.  There are reasons behind these customs.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)