I personally liked this article concerning the attitude a Devout, Orthodox Catholic should take to a reigning Pontiff. I have often felt a little confused about this myself and like to have someone spell it right out for me. Bless the person who wrote this: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/01/28/you-dont-have-to-like-a-pope/ Actually I heard a priest at mass the other week telling us all enthusiastically that Pope Francis is the, 'Greatest Pope in history', which as you might imagine caused me to squirm more than a little. Let me see whether I can clarify something. You don’t have to like a pope. You don’t have to like the way he talks to reporters, the way he addresses people in public, or the kinds of shoes he wears. You don’t even have to like the approach he takes to various topics. But you do have to respect the teaching authority of his office when he exercises that authority officially. In making this claim, I’m merely echoing Pope Saint John Paul II who in Ad Tuendam Fidem, a document composed with the explicit intention “of protecting the faith (ad tuendam fidem) of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful,” considered it “absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law. . .new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church.” Thus in the Church’s Profession of Faith, one finds this affirmation: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” Indeed, according to Lumen Gentium, this religious submission of intellect and will “must be shown in such a way that [the Holy Father’s] supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, and the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. . .[which] may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” A Catholic who is disappointed with the pope is a disappointed Catholic. This is a common enough state of affairs in Church history. But a Catholic who imagines that he or she participates more fully in the charism of magisterial authority granted by the Holy Spirit to the pope than does the pope himself – and who decides that he or she has the authority to set the spiritual standard by which the official teaching of a papacy can be judged (and judged a failure) – is making the mistake Martin Luther made. It is the same mistake many modern liberal theologians make. They have made themselves the authority, the touchstone, the standard; and the pope, whoever he is, should, they insist, bring himself into accord with what they think or be spit out like a piece of rotten fruit. This is the way of folly and division. You glean from official Church teachings every bit of wisdom you can find. You “lean in,” so to speak. You let it sink in, challenge you. Especially when it repeats something taught by popes whose sanctity and wisdom is unquestioned. And quite frankly, if you have any disagreement with that teaching, you should be ready to provide serious counter-arguments rather than merely giving vent to some childish expressions of dislike and disappointment. One hardly need add that selectively quoting “proof texts” out of context from popes who were dealing with problems centuries ago to convince contemporary Catholics that they are part of a corrupt church is no more convincing than evangelical Protestants selectively quoting biblical “proof texts” out of context to convince Catholics as a whole that they belong to a corrupt church. Indeed, the similarities between Protestantism and many contemporary forms of anti-papal “traditionalism” are stronger than one would expect. It’s important to remember that Luther had no intention of founding a “Protestant” church; rather he thought of himself as a conservative reforming the true Church that had lost its way by making corrupt additions to the authentic tradition. In a similar vein, many so-called “traditionalists” see themselves as preserving the authentic Catholic tradition that was somehow lost somewhere along the line – even though many of these “traditionalists” look back only to one period of Church history (usually relatively recent) or one special document as the sole standard that defines “the tradition,” just as Luther looked back to a “pure” Christian church that he imagined existed in the early years after Christ’s death (but never did) and to the epistles of Paul (as he, Luther, understood them). If you are a “conservative” who places being an American-style “conservative” above being a Catholic, that’s your choice. But then you do not have room to blame the liberal who places being an American-style “liberal” above being a Catholic. If you’re a Catholic, be a Catholic. And Catholics have an apostolic, magisterial tradition. The Church isn’t a members-only club, a sect, or a political party. For these reasons and others, you cannot allow your annoyance with the personal style of any particular pope, even if he does things you and I might consider foolish, to distract you from the official teaching of this or any papacy. You don’t always get the pope you want. Sometimes you get a silly fisherman who denied three times that he even knew Christ when Jesus needed him most. We don’t believe in the man, no matter how wise or holy. Our faith is in Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of time and to send His Spirit to guide her. If you feel that there are problems in the Church (and there always are; we are a “pilgrim people”), then you fast and pray. You re-double your efforts to live out your call to holiness. But if you think you’ll help the Church by endless speculation about Vatican politics or ceaseless whining about various persons in the curia, you are letting the spirit of division invade where the spirit of union and charity should be. Let the Holy Spirit guide the Ark of the Church through the current storms. We have our work cut out for us for tilling the vineyards in our own backyard.
So glad you found this article Padraig, Inside I love all traditional ceremonies and customs of the Catholic faith and I yearn for them to return. I was thinking of starting a thread about how one can feel pulled to be traditionalist and disregard many of the reforms that happened post V11. As many liturgical reforms have overstepped sacred bounds to say the least, like in your thread 'flower show?', also we have lost so many beautiful practices and devotions which once imbued Our faith and with that loss, also came the loss of the feeling of sacredness for many Catholics toady! However I have always believed that Our wonderful Catholic faith will remain wonderful! and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her, as long as we have Our rock. Our Peter. We are priveledged to still have this rock that Our Lord instituted. The Pope is the sign of Our Lords Church, for only with and to him does the Holy Spirit speaks universally to us! When Peter is gone, then the church will be trully scattered and alone. We must pray much for the safety and preservation of Our Dear Pope.
Great article! I think it's message goes beyond the pope. There are a few people I would have to confess not "liking" in my life. And yet, just as with the pope, I'm called to look beyond that since they are brothers and sisters in Christ. I recall Sunday's 2nd Reading by St. Paul- we can do all sorts of wonderful things, but don't have love, we are nothing. So, the message to me (and I confess again that this is a challenge for me) is to be beyond dealing with not liking someone, but loving them in the Christian sense of that word. Not easy (at least for me)
When I was very ,very young my Spiritual Director and I had a discussion about the difference between, 'Liking ' and 'Loving ' someone. It was very interesting. The Holy Priest (very,very holy) thought that it was possible to love someone without liking them. I however said that if someone said to me that they loved me but did not like me I would be confused and unhappy. I still have my doubts if we can say we love someone but don't like them. What I think it is possible to do is say we love someone but don't like things they are up to or aspects of their character. I think some cerebral people like the author of the article get confused over this. thinking we can love people while disliking them. I am not sure this is true. But there you are. But apart from that a great article.
Once I confessed to a priest that I didn't like someone. He slammed his hand down, hard, and bellowed, "Love...Is...Action!!!!" I find that praying for those I don't like guards my heart from hardening against them, and reminds me that all are my brothers and sisters, and leads me to desire their greatest good.
It's interesting that your priest would say love is an action. We had an auxiliary bishop at Mass on Sunday to kick off the 50th Anniversary of our parish. He was reflecting on Paul's Letter about love. He suggested that we mentally replace the word love with "I" so that the reading says I am patient, I am kind, I will bear all things, etc. So to me I do get the concept of loving someone even if I don't like them. Because love ( agape love ) is not a conditional love. So I don't chose to love someone because they are not good or nice to me
I was born in 1953. I have no memory of anything but love and liking and respect and admiration for any pope since then. As most members here know this regard has continued into the papacy of Pope Francis. I find it hard to help people I do not like but Christianity and Professionalism demand this duty. Fortunately I can think of no-one at this time in my life who I do not like. I may dislike what some people say and do but that is often but not always (for me) different from disliking them. When I was an adult my darling old mum once told me that as a child she could not stand me. She told me quite specifically that she loved me but did not like me. She explained why and I understood and while it did not make it any easier to swallow I did see her point of view. Now she tell me she both likes and loves me and misses me like mad. She is 87. Took her a while but she got there...I think. M Scott Peck talks about the cathartic effect of mutual attraction when boy meets girl and falls in love. This is 'liking' to the extreme and involves an automatic collapse of ego boundaries that allows for emotional takeover by and of each other. As far as I remember when in this state nothing was too much for me to do for the other and every thing was easy to do for the other. Every task was a pleasure to perform, a source of joy, The other was easy to listen to, easy to talk to, easy to be with, never wanting to be apart. As such, while it may be a good kick start to a relationship it is rarely if ever sustainable at that initial level and not exactly voluntary. If this stage progresses well it can persist and change and so he then goes on to differentiate this "liking" from love which he defines as the will to extend yourself in order to nurture your own or another's spiritual growth. He suggests this always involves work or courage or it is not love. So you give up something of your own in order to make up for anything the other lacks. In other words it requires sacrifice. You cannot decide to like someone but you can decide to love them. He says that in love no limit is put to the value of the other and one of the main concerns of love is to facilitate the realization of the other's full potential in life. He said lots more but it's years since I read his book "The Road Less Traveled" most of which I found enlightening. Some of it spoke a little too clearly to me like the need in love for delayed gratification. We have to wait and see while getting on with doing our best. So love is an act of the will based on informed consent that gives rise to a decision that must be followed by action to give it any meaning. True love is always initiated by God. A bit like the conversion experience. It is often easier at the start and harder later on but one other aspect of love, perseverance, brings us back to that first love which scripture tells us God yearns for. When we arrive in heaven there will never be separation from the loved one, God, again, and there will be no more tears. In heaven we are told there is no giving or taking in marriage but through the sacrament of marriage on earth the two have already become one and so if the husband and wife persist in the faith they will be one in their salvation.....I think. Just a few thoughts and memories of my own and Peck's. As for single guys like me --well it's gonna be great too. Beyond my wildest dreams.
43You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. 44But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: 45That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. 46For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? 47And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? 48Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. Thankfully there is nothing about liking our enemies. Pretty hard to 'like' those who enjoy abortion,sodomy etc, But we can pray for them.
I agree Mac. Often people become what they do and say - it takes over or possesses their whole being so the distinction between sin and sinner cannot be made. But only God can really pronounce on this. Until then we have to love them and sometimes the best we can do is not to wish them harm and as you suggest, say a prayer for them. Fr Amorth suggests that ISIS is Satan. True supporters of ISIS have given themselves over entirely to evil and so have become evil.
When I think of Pope Francis I am filled with Joy NOW. It wasnt always the case at first. I had fears. But .....after reading Charlie J. and talking to my spiritual director who is a Bishop.....I learned a few things. I also must say that I prayed a lot about Pope Francis. I prayed to the Holy Spirit to help me understand him and to not fear. I cant really explain HOW Charlie J and my spiritual father helped me except to say that POPE FRANCIS IS THE ONE TO BRING IN THE LOST SHEEP to be the one with a great voice of MERCY to bring in the FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES. NOW..... just about 2 weeks ago....I had a dream. IN MY DREAM I was outside talking to a woman. She was married. I asked her in a light hearted manner.....IS HE YOUR BOYFRIEND OR HUSBAND ? Then I saw a GOLDEN RING. It was a wedding band. Then the next thing I knew.....I was in a large auditorium like building. People......MANY PEOPLE were coming to a MASS. Then I saw a CHALICE and it was being passed around. POPE FRANCIS was there. I could see him right in front and MANY PEOPLE were full of JOY and even DANCING with JOY to be there. I even saw a JEW. The Jewish man was so happy to be there. Then the next thing I saw was the CHALICE of Christs Blood being passed to the people near me and the WEDDING RING. The Chalice came to me and I remember thinking that there were so many people there....that I should only take a DROP so others could drink too. I took the Chalice and I drank....just a drop and then as the cup was being placed into my hand to drink......so also the WEDDING RING was given to me. I placed it on my finger on my LEFT hand. I then gave the CHALICE to POPE FRANCIS when I was done....for he was standing in front of me. I was so moved with JOY to see the HOLY FATHER in front of me.....that as he walked by......I gently grabbed his hand and kissed it and then I took his hand and pulled it to my face and caressed his hand to my cheek. He smiled at me with such gentlness and then walked away. After my dream I prayed to the Holy Spirit to help me understand the dream fully. I then opened the scriptures and it fell to Acts...where Peter is taught by his vision and GOD of the unclean food and the lesson of his that baptism and the church is for GENTILES TOO. I then called my spiritual father and told him of the dream and the verses I recieved and he said that all of this pertained to POPE FRANCIS and the CHURCH. The year of MERCY and the times we are living is and has everything to do with bringing in ALL the SHEEP. Pope Francis is this Shepherd. The SHEPHERD OF MERCY and to many it is like PETER for the first time hearing that he can eat unclean food and not adhere to all those JEWISH traditions that were done away with in the church and also......for A JEW to come to the understanding that GENTILES were chosen too......that was a hard one for PETER and many others. POPE FRANCIS is like CHARLIE J says......he is the POPE OF THE STORM. THE NOAH of OUR DAY. TO call in the wounded and the lame and all those who are so in need of mercy and the gospel of LOVE. I CHOSE THE LINK BELOW because of the commentary . I REALIZE ITS NOT A CATHOLIC LINK but I liked it. GOD BLESS!! http://www.gty.org/resources/study-guides/40-5122/the-salvation-of-the-gentiles-part-3
This "possession" also work for goodness, people who do good things and say good things become good people - like our Pope. They are possessed by goodness - filled with the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, well , I dont 'like' a lot of people. I dislike over half the people in my own parish. I dont like the way they dress. I dont like the way they let their children dress. I dont like the movies they let their children watch , I dont like the music they listen too. I just dont like them. And they probably dont like me. In fact I know plenty who dont I would still help them if they needed help.
'What other people think of me is none of my business." One day I will learn this lesson. Sounds like you are already there Mac. I know you would help your worst enemy if they needed help and asked for help from you. Every time. YOU'RE OK MAC. Your old pal, hothead. Me and you
The priest was so wise in this adivse Kathy I think. Maybe there are three doorways we go through in this. The first is that (and this is the bottom line) we don't act badly towards others. The second is that we don't write of say anything bad about them. ...and the third and highest we love people in such a way that we dislike no one. notice in the lives of the saints there seems to be a certain someone or some people who are a stone in the shoe of the saint. Sometimes for their whole lives. But the saint converts the stick that beats them into the ladder to heaven. For instance in the life of St Therese there was a certain very bad tempered nun who Therese went out of her way to help. Therese was so good at this that the nun asked Therese what she found about her so likeable. I guess the lesson from this is that if we cannot like someone, well at least we can pretend to like them. I would say the holier a person gets the more stones in the shoe. Padre Pio had a mountain of stones in his shoes. St Margaret Mary Aloque seemed to have the entire world raring to tear her to pieces. Jesus....well we know what they did with Jesus.
I am sure he is happy there. I just liked it when he was here. Liking and loving. Still looks more like a stick than a ladder to me. No more from me on that.
Sometimes loving is disliking. Imagine if the comments here had a dislike button. I would feel very loved. by many.
I received very wise advice one time when I was very unhappy about a particular person. I didn't like to even be in their prescence. And this wise advise came from my dear wife who is doing her very best to sanctify me (talk about a hard job!) . Anyhow her words were simple but yet so true: "Mike- sometimes you just have to fake it before you can make it". In other words, stand there and smile and force yourself to be "nice" and you eventually actually get there. Not easy, but worth the try.
