|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 10, 2023 15:49:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 10, 2023 23:07:47 GMT
It's like a strange attempt to bring back a "bottom-up" approach amidst revolutionary forces.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 10, 2023 23:14:27 GMT
It's like a strange attempt to bring back a "bottom-up" approach amidst revolutionary forces. But wouldn't that be a return to the "early Church", the same way that restoration of communal worship in the vernacular is, the same way that communion in the hand is, and so on? Broader question: when is "getting back to the early Church" a good thing, and when is "getting back to the early Church" a bad thing? I don't think any of us want to go back to draconian public penances after having been to confession (which I'm pretty sure was public as well), and I don't think any of us want to go back to the catacombs (though, admittedly, the latter was forced upon the early Christians, they certainly didn't choose it). But as to other things? |
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 11, 2023 19:27:26 GMT
The article is a quite hypocritical and actually another example of conservatives shooting themselves in the foot. It's so over-the-top self-serving that it reads like a parody.
The Medieval popes that conservatives most admire, Pope Gregory I, Pope Gregory VII and Innocent III, were all extremely centralizing popes. So were other popes in their pantheon, like Pope Julius II, Pope Pius V, and Pope Pius IX. Conservatives are unanimously gung-ho for autocratic centralizing popes, just not when they disagree with the reigning pope.
Wierdly, their two main complaints about Pope Francis are mutually contradictory. They complain that he is not authoritarian enough because he doesn't give them the black and white answers they want to hear, and they complain that he is a "dictator" when he reins in dissenters on the far right. They're trying to eat their cake, and have it, too.
Also, by questioning and undermining the authority of Pope Francis, they have made it all but impossible for a future pope to reassert that authority and contain the genie that they themselves released. If, say, by some bizarre chance, someone like Cardinal Sarah were to be elected in the next conclave, he would be starting from a very weak position, thanks to the conservatives. Regaining centralized power that has been lost is nigh impossible in this day and age. The internet is far too powerful a decentralizing force, and it's still in its infancy.
I don't know what the Church of the future is going to look like, exactly, but it certainly isn't going to look anything like the Church under Pope Innocent III that Traditionalists and conservatives dream about, or under Pope Pius IX or Pope Benedict XVI, for that matter. Those shoes are worn out beyond repair.
Pope Francis is perfectly fine with the new reality and able to adapt and thrive. He sees the great opportunity cleaning the garage of useless junk can bring. His opponents are clinging to the useless junk: the broken hula hoop, the busted snowblower, the eight-track player they rescued from that old gremlin uncle Ned gave them for their sixteenth birthday.
Pope Francis is pruning the tree of dead wood and suckers so that next years harvest will be abundant. Unlike his detractors, he has a realistic vision and a realistic mission, and the courage to forge boldly ahead into the glorious future.
As our Lord said, you cannot put new wine in old wineskins.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 11, 2023 23:15:17 GMT
It's like a strange attempt to bring back a "bottom-up" approach amidst revolutionary forces. But wouldn't that be a return to the "early Church", the same way that restoration of communal worship in the vernacular is, the same way that communion in the hand is, and so on? Broader question: when is "getting back to the early Church" a good thing, and when is "getting back to the early Church" a bad thing? I don't think any of us want to go back to draconian public penances after having been to confession (which I'm pretty sure was public as well), and I don't think any of us want to go back to the catacombs (though, admittedly, the latter was forced upon the early Christians, they certainly didn't choose it). But as to other things?
Read the writer's description of that approach. I don't think that's what was involved in a return to the early Church.
To answer your question, I think it's a good thing if it makes sense (e.g., most people speak the vernacular, they tend to be communal, and there aren't enough priests such that in order to finish the Mass in order to allow for the next batch, CITH had to be used together with lay ministers) and a bad thing if it isn't (e.g., no public penances because of more complex legal systems, separation of Church and State, the seal of confession).
You can see this in relation to catacombs. Early Christians went to them because of oppression. For obvious reasons, the Church won't require this.
|
|
