I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11977
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:42 am

wosbald wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:14 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:04 pm
If you read vague insinuation and fearmongering into that, I can't really stop you, but honestly, it's just me trying to wrap my mind around it. […] As far as that goes, regardless of whether I'm merely musing or capriciously carping about the Roman Church's contemporary internal affairs, I don't have to deal with Trent in the least. […] it looks like the real confusion in all of this originates within Catholicism itself, and not specifically the pope, nor specifically the current 'age' (though I'm sure they play a part).
Friend, of course you can "deal" or "not deal" as you choose. I'm only saying how your post reads to me. To cut me a wee bit a slack, saying that the Church is essentially confused ("originates in Catholicism itself") seems like a pretty "fearful" suggestion. It sure seems like it trades on the stereotypical Protestant fear of Popish Babylon.

And if that's what you want to do, then I'm cool (in a sense) with it. It would be honesty.

But if that's not what you want to do, then my point is simply that, for a Church so supposedly "confused", you've obviously had no trouble getting the point pretty clearly vis-à-vis Trent. And that, instead of standing agog at the contemporary Church convo, you might consider the invitation to enter into it.
When I said that the confusion "originates within Catholicism itself" I'm not referring to the system or the machinery, but rather the people defined by the boarders of Catholicism, thus if the main point of confusion is stemming from Catholics, it originates within (the boarders of) Catholicism and not from without. Are you of the opinion that there is no confusion amongst Catholics regarding the Pope's statements? Because that's my thrust. That's the "problem" I'm pointing at.

I'm not sure, again, what all the rest you're talking about has to do with anything about all that. But thanks again for the invite.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35619
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Del » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:36 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:42 am
wosbald wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:14 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:04 pm
If you read vague insinuation and fearmongering into that, I can't really stop you, but honestly, it's just me trying to wrap my mind around it. […] As far as that goes, regardless of whether I'm merely musing or capriciously carping about the Roman Church's contemporary internal affairs, I don't have to deal with Trent in the least. […] it looks like the real confusion in all of this originates within Catholicism itself, and not specifically the pope, nor specifically the current 'age' (though I'm sure they play a part).
Friend, of course you can "deal" or "not deal" as you choose. I'm only saying how your post reads to me. To cut me a wee bit a slack, saying that the Church is essentially confused ("originates in Catholicism itself") seems like a pretty "fearful" suggestion. It sure seems like it trades on the stereotypical Protestant fear of Popish Babylon.

And if that's what you want to do, then I'm cool (in a sense) with it. It would be honesty.

But if that's not what you want to do, then my point is simply that, for a Church so supposedly "confused", you've obviously had no trouble getting the point pretty clearly vis-à-vis Trent. And that, instead of standing agog at the contemporary Church convo, you might consider the invitation to enter into it.
When I said that the confusion "originates within Catholicism itself" I'm not referring to the system or the machinery, but rather the people defined by the boarders of Catholicism, thus if the main point of confusion is stemming from Catholics, it originates within (the boarders of) Catholicism and not from without. Are you of the opinion that there is no confusion amongst Catholics regarding the Pope's statements? Because that's my thrust. That's the "problem" I'm pointing at.

I'm not sure, again, what all the rest you're talking about has to do with anything about all that. But thanks again for the invite.
I think Wozzie already answered this question. Things are as confused now as they were before the Reformation. The Pope makes a comment, attempting to provide us with some direction -- and it gets twisted by those who are sowing confusion.

Some Catholics want another Council of Trent -- to clear everything up. This won't work. We just had a Council, and we are still trying to live.

Trent was effective at reforming the Church and clearing up confusion because the world was different then. Before the Reformation, the confusions were in a culture of people who were already fervent Christians, and who desired to be more fervent. Give them a clear dogma, and they were happy to follow it.

Our current confusion is in the midst of a great apostasy, among secular people who desire to be more secular. We will not solve this with more clear statements of dogma. What the culture needs is a New Evangelization.
======================================
Let's apply this to the practical case at hand: The dubia ask Pope Francis if he was changing Catholic teaching and practice concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Pope Francis probably feels like Jesus did when the Pharisees asked him about divorce! Jesus was able to give a firm answer, because he was talking to devout Jews who knew what marriage is -- a covenant, permanently joining a man and a woman into one flesh.

Pope Francis is trying to answer more like St. Paul. Paul was dealing with pagans who treated marriage as a contract and women as tradable property (much as our own culture views secular marriage).

St. Paul allowed women to remarry as Christians if their pagan husbands insisted on divorce. Pope Francis is hinting that this might be a good practice for our time. He wants pastors to have some freedom to say, "You may have been baptized as a Catholic but you have been living like a pagan, contracepting and divorcing and remarrying at will. Are you ready to live now as a Catholic Christian, in faithful marriage to this spouse? Then let us help you!"

Of course, this will mean changing the discipline -- perhaps even inventing a new discipline, one not found in Scripture. But Paul had to invent the discipline for his time, right? Perhaps the biblical principle is to invent a new rule for the saving of souls, rather than clinging to what Paul did in Corinth.

Note that this is changing the discipline, not changing the doctrine. Marriage is still one man and one woman, together for one lifetime, and open to new life. But we may need to change the way that we evaluate annulments and extend mercy to Christians who screw themselves up.

But as soon as Francis makes a rule... there will be discord. Just as my bishop is suffering persecution as he tries to guide us through our latest confusion regarding funerals for persons in gay-marriages. So Francis keeps silent, having pointed the way and then challenging us to sort it out for ourselves.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17937
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:08 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:42 am
When I said that the confusion "originates within Catholicism itself" I'm not referring to the system or the machinery, but rather the people defined by the boarders of Catholicism, thus if the main point of confusion is stemming from Catholics, it originates within (the boarders of) Catholicism and not from without. Are you of the opinion that there is no confusion amongst Catholics regarding the Pope's statements? Because that's my thrust. That's the "problem" I'm pointing at.

I'm not sure, again, what all the rest you're talking about has to do with anything about all that. But thanks again for the invite.
Okay, lemme try again to clarify my meaning by examining this "confusion" in the Church. …

Firstly, when the Pope refers to the moral law, everyone seems pretty clear on what that means. So I would say, no confusion there.

Further, when the Pope says that the moral law can't be changed, one can almost hear the people serenely nodding their heads in unison. No confusion there either, IMO.

So, by adding the two above-given points to my aforementioned point regarding your status vis-à-vis Trent, it would seem at first blush as if contemporary Catholicity has no dearth of hard content providing unambiguous limits.

So the real question is, "About what are Catholics confused?". Cuz if one's gonna broach the topic of Catholic confusion, it would seem to have some clear notion as to about what we''re confused. (That is, unless you think Catholics are randomly pinging-about, bouncing off walls, drooling and subhumanly grunting whilst watching Charles in Charge.) And if you can't answer that, then maybe you're too far on the outside, hence the invite. Cuz if you can't answer about what we're confused, how would you know if you're any less confused than we're supposed to be?




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14545
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:18 am

wosbald wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:08 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:42 am
When I said that the confusion "originates within Catholicism itself" I'm not referring to the system or the machinery, but rather the people defined by the boarders of Catholicism, thus if the main point of confusion is stemming from Catholics, it originates within (the boarders of) Catholicism and not from without. Are you of the opinion that there is no confusion amongst Catholics regarding the Pope's statements? Because that's my thrust. That's the "problem" I'm pointing at.

I'm not sure, again, what all the rest you're talking about has to do with anything about all that. But thanks again for the invite.
Okay, lemme try again to clarify my meaning by examining this "confusion" in the Church. …

Firstly, when the Pope refers to the moral law, everyone seems pretty clear on what that means. So I would say, no confusion there.

Further, when the Pope says that the moral law can't be changed, one can almost hear the people serenely nodding their heads in unison. No confusion there either, IMO.

So, by adding the two above-given points to my aforementioned point regarding your status vis-à-vis Trent, it would seem at first blush as if contemporary Catholicity has no dearth of hard content providing unambiguous limits.

So the real question is, "About what are Catholics confused?". Cuz if one's gonna broach the topic of Catholic confusion, it would seem to have some clear notion as to about what we''re confused. (That is, unless you think Catholics are randomly pinging-about, bouncing off walls, drooling and subhumanly grunting whilst watching Charles in Charge.) And if you can't answer that, then maybe you're too far on the outside, hence the invite. Cuz if you can't answer about what we're confused, how would you know if you're any less confused than we're supposed to be?
Somebody's drunk on too much syphon-brewed coffee.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11977
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:30 am

wosbald wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:08 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:42 am
When I said that the confusion "originates within Catholicism itself" I'm not referring to the system or the machinery, but rather the people defined by the boarders of Catholicism, thus if the main point of confusion is stemming from Catholics, it originates within (the boarders of) Catholicism and not from without. Are you of the opinion that there is no confusion amongst Catholics regarding the Pope's statements? Because that's my thrust. That's the "problem" I'm pointing at.

I'm not sure, again, what all the rest you're talking about has to do with anything about all that. But thanks again for the invite.
Okay, lemme try again to clarify my meaning by examining this "confusion" in the Church. …

Firstly, when the Pope refers to the moral law, everyone seems pretty clear on what that means. So I would say, no confusion there.

Further, when the Pope says that the moral law can't be changed, one can almost hear the people serenely nodding their heads in unison. No confusion there either, IMO.

So, by adding the two above-given points to my aforementioned point regarding your status vis-à-vis Trent, it would seem at first blush as if contemporary Catholicity has no dearth of hard content providing unambiguous limits.

So the real question is, "About what are Catholics confused?". Cuz if one's gonna broach the topic of Catholic confusion, it would seem to have some clear notion as to about what we''re confused. (That is, unless you think Catholics are randomly pinging-about, bouncing off walls, drooling and subhumanly grunting whilst watching Charles in Charge.) And if you can't answer that, then maybe you're too far on the outside, hence the invite. Cuz if you can't answer about what we're confused, how would you know if you're any less confused than we're supposed to be?
Is it really that big of a deal that I hold the opinion, purely from observation, that I believe Catholics are confused about what the Pope is saying? My claim, that I feel like I understand what the Pope is saying in certain cases only puts me on one side of the confusion. My point is that there are Catholics who think the same thing as me and there are Catholics who think pretty much the opposite. Remove me from the situation and everything is still the same. I add, nor subtract, and confusion to the situation. My clarity or misunderstanding has not effect whatsoever on the fact that when the Pope speaks, he has caused confusion among Catholics. So, let's say, the Lutheran woman who asked about taking communion and the Pope, in effect, told her to ask the Lord about it. I think he was giving permission without giving permission. I can see how others might see that he's trying to be gentle and loving towards a woman who has real desire, and is giving her a soft "No", for by telling her to ask the Lord, as a Catholic he and other Catholics ought to believe the answer for her would obviously be No.

I can see both sides, but I fall down on one side. The one I think is the simplest explanation, which is why I think he's being clear. But the whole reason I wound up saying this was essentially confusion among Catholics is because there are Catholics who are doing the same thing I'm doing. Taking a side. And so long as there are other Catholics taking the other side, confusion occurs among Catholics. This is why I think the Pope is clear, but do not deny, whatsoever, that the Pope is confusing. I don't know why this seems like an issue to you.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35619
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Del » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:41 am

tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:30 am
wosbald wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:08 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:42 am
When I said that the confusion "originates within Catholicism itself" I'm not referring to the system or the machinery, but rather the people defined by the boarders of Catholicism, thus if the main point of confusion is stemming from Catholics, it originates within (the boarders of) Catholicism and not from without. Are you of the opinion that there is no confusion amongst Catholics regarding the Pope's statements? Because that's my thrust. That's the "problem" I'm pointing at.

I'm not sure, again, what all the rest you're talking about has to do with anything about all that. But thanks again for the invite.
Okay, lemme try again to clarify my meaning by examining this "confusion" in the Church. …

Firstly, when the Pope refers to the moral law, everyone seems pretty clear on what that means. So I would say, no confusion there.

Further, when the Pope says that the moral law can't be changed, one can almost hear the people serenely nodding their heads in unison. No confusion there either, IMO.

So, by adding the two above-given points to my aforementioned point regarding your status vis-à-vis Trent, it would seem at first blush as if contemporary Catholicity has no dearth of hard content providing unambiguous limits.

So the real question is, "About what are Catholics confused?". Cuz if one's gonna broach the topic of Catholic confusion, it would seem to have some clear notion as to about what we''re confused. (That is, unless you think Catholics are randomly pinging-about, bouncing off walls, drooling and subhumanly grunting whilst watching Charles in Charge.) And if you can't answer that, then maybe you're too far on the outside, hence the invite. Cuz if you can't answer about what we're confused, how would you know if you're any less confused than we're supposed to be?
Is it really that big of a deal that I hold the opinion, purely from observation, that I believe Catholics are confused about what the Pope is saying? My claim, that I feel like I understand what the Pope is saying in certain cases only puts me on one side of the confusion. My point is that there are Catholics who think the same thing as me and there are Catholics who think pretty much the opposite. Remove me from the situation and everything is still the same. I add, nor subtract, and confusion to the situation. My clarity or misunderstanding has not effect whatsoever on the fact that when the Pope speaks, he has caused confusion among Catholics. So, let's say, the Lutheran woman who asked about taking communion and the Pope, in effect, told her to ask the Lord about it. I think he was giving permission without giving permission. I can see how others might see that he's trying to be gentle and loving towards a woman who has real desire, and is giving her a soft "No", for by telling her to ask the Lord, as a Catholic he and other Catholics ought to believe the answer for her would obviously be No.

I can see both sides, but I fall down on one side. The one I think is the simplest explanation, which is why I think he's being clear. But the whole reason I wound up saying this was essentially confusion among Catholics is because there are Catholics who are doing the same thing I'm doing. Taking a side. And so long as there are other Catholics taking the other side, confusion occurs among Catholics. This is why I think the Pope is clear, but do not deny, whatsoever, that the Pope is confusing. I don't know why this seems like an issue to you.
I will keep saying it:

These are confusing times. People have made great messes of our lives, especially regarding marriages & children & the natural law. It is not the pope's fault, nor does he have the ability to fix our disorder.

He could make a firm rule, like a referee. But that's not pastoral care, or even clarity of truth. It's just a legalistic approach to the problem. And there will still be confusion as partisans argue about the legalism.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17937
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:35 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:30 am
Is it really that big of a deal that I hold the opinion, purely from observation, that I believe Catholics are confused about what the Pope is saying? My claim, that I feel like I understand what the Pope is saying in certain cases only puts me on one side of the confusion. My point is that there are Catholics who think the same thing as me and there are Catholics who think pretty much the opposite. Remove me from the situation and everything is still the same. I add, nor subtract, and confusion to the situation. My clarity or misunderstanding has not effect whatsoever on the fact that when the Pope speaks, he has caused confusion among Catholics. So, let's say, the Lutheran woman who asked about taking communion and the Pope, in effect, told her to ask the Lord about it. I think he was giving permission without giving permission. I can see how others might see that he's trying to be gentle and loving towards a woman who has real desire, and is giving her a soft "No", for by telling her to ask the Lord, as a Catholic he and other Catholics ought to believe the answer for her would obviously be No.

I can see both sides, but I fall down on one side. The one I think is the simplest explanation, which is why I think he's being clear. But the whole reason I wound up saying this was essentially confusion among Catholics is because there are Catholics who are doing the same thing I'm doing. Taking a side. And so long as there are other Catholics taking the other side, confusion occurs among Catholics. This is why I think the Pope is clear, but do not deny, whatsoever, that the Pope is confusing. I don't know why this seems like an issue to you.
It's not really an issue. I accept at face value what you're saying. Why would I not?

But I think that the way you pose the question may be eliding a different question. IOW, the issue may not so much be one of a generalized, amorphous "confusion" reigning unchecked within Catholicity. But rather, there may be an issue about what, specifically, you are confused.

Lemme break this down in regard to your example of t"the Pope and the Lutheran woman". Does this example demonstrate mean that …

1) Catholic teaching has changed (keeping in mind that the Pope has affirmed that it both has not changed and cannot change)?

Or

2) Might it mean that the Pope is pastorally issuing a "challenge to grow" to this Lutheran woman? Inviting her to open herself to the fullness of Catholicity?

Now …

Regarding #1, Catholics don't seem to be confused at all. Rather, in this question, there is unity.

Regarding #2, Catholics might very well be confused as to why the Pope would take this pastoral approach. They might well question whether or not this is a prudent approach. In this, there may not be uniformity (i.e. there is confusion), even though the unity of #1 still holds.

The issues at play are very different in #1 and #2, and it is intrinsic to Catholicity to make this distinction. Remember that the expression, "'unity' does not mean 'uniformity'", has long been a very common slogan in Catholic circles.

So, getting back to my point. If you are equating #1 and #2 (expecting that, if there is confusion regarding # 2, then there must be confusion regarding #1), then you may well be missing what it means to live as a Catholic. IOW, what I'm saying by my "invite" is that maybe you should be asking yourself how it is that Catholics can be confused regarding #2, yet without being confused regarding #1.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11977
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:11 pm

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:35 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:30 am
Is it really that big of a deal that I hold the opinion, purely from observation, that I believe Catholics are confused about what the Pope is saying? My claim, that I feel like I understand what the Pope is saying in certain cases only puts me on one side of the confusion. My point is that there are Catholics who think the same thing as me and there are Catholics who think pretty much the opposite. Remove me from the situation and everything is still the same. I add, nor subtract, and confusion to the situation. My clarity or misunderstanding has not effect whatsoever on the fact that when the Pope speaks, he has caused confusion among Catholics. So, let's say, the Lutheran woman who asked about taking communion and the Pope, in effect, told her to ask the Lord about it. I think he was giving permission without giving permission. I can see how others might see that he's trying to be gentle and loving towards a woman who has real desire, and is giving her a soft "No", for by telling her to ask the Lord, as a Catholic he and other Catholics ought to believe the answer for her would obviously be No.

I can see both sides, but I fall down on one side. The one I think is the simplest explanation, which is why I think he's being clear. But the whole reason I wound up saying this was essentially confusion among Catholics is because there are Catholics who are doing the same thing I'm doing. Taking a side. And so long as there are other Catholics taking the other side, confusion occurs among Catholics. This is why I think the Pope is clear, but do not deny, whatsoever, that the Pope is confusing. I don't know why this seems like an issue to you.
It's not really an issue. I accept at face value what you're saying. Why would I not?

But I think that the way you pose the question may be eliding a different question. IOW, the issue may not so much be one of a generalized, amorphous "confusion" reigning unchecked within Catholicity. But rather, there may be an issue about what, specifically, you are confused.

Lemme break this down in regard to your example of t"the Pope and the Lutheran woman". Does this example demonstrate mean that …

1) Catholic teaching has changed (keeping in mind that the Pope has affirmed that it both has not changed and cannot change)?

Or

2) Might it mean that the Pope is pastorally issuing a "challenge to grow" to this Lutheran woman? Inviting her to open herself to the fullness of Catholicity?

Now …

Regarding #1, Catholics don't seem to be confused at all. Rather, in this question, there is unity.

Regarding #2, Catholics might very well be confused as to why the Pope would take this pastoral approach. They might well question whether or not this is a prudent approach. In this, there may not be uniformity (i.e. there is confusion), even though the unity of #1 still holds.

The issues at play are very different in #1 and #2, and it is intrinsic to Catholicity to make this distinction. Remember that the expression, "'unity' does not mean 'uniformity'", has long been a very common slogan in Catholic circles.

So, getting back to my point. If you are equating #1 and #2 (expecting that, if there is confusion regarding # 2, then there must be confusion regarding #1), then you may well be missing what it means to live as a Catholic. IOW, what I'm saying by my "invite" is that maybe you should be asking yourself how it is that Catholics can be confused regarding #2, yet without being confused regarding #1.
Ok. I'm hearing you better. I appreciate you taking the time to cut it into small pieces for me.

I never thought that Catholic teaching had changed. So count me out for # 1.

I definitely thought that it is quite within the realm of possibility for #2, as I made mention above as it was a viable option or 'side' that folks were taking.

But where I'd hazard a guess as to where the confusion is coming from, it is that people who understand #1 are sensing the Pope saying things, intentionally or not, that give the impression that he's leaving certain gates open. I think, from my angle, lots of people within and without hear the Pope saying things that seem like the sheep (or goats) are asking him whether it's okay to pass through the gate, and instead of falling back on the old standby, "No, Catholic Doctrine hasn't changed" he just shrugs and walks away. That is to say, he's been placed in situations where the ability to confirm that the gate is shut is handed to him on a silver platter, and he seems in certain instances to refuse to recognize that such is the case. So then you have lifestock roaming about asking themselves, "Well, is the gate shut or isn't it?" and sides start to form. I'll go one further, the argument isn't whether or not the gate is shut. There is no confusion as to that. You and I know that it is shut in this particular case. And yet the Pope still plays coy. The confusion is why he is playing coy. Why is he being ambiguous about something that's been settled? That is the issue.

Your conjecture (#2) is viable, and I don't have any qualms about it. I was persuaded such was the case, and could be persuaded that such is still the case, but for the time being, it seems to me (no doubt, by way of my own bias) the reason for his being coy is precisely because his hands are tied. When the Protestant hears the Pope being asked about communion and his answer is "Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more." He hears exactly that. "My hands are tied, bro. Roman Catholic doctrine has not changed. I can't say you can...but I'm not going to say you can't. Talk to someone who is above Catholic doctrine, the Lord Jesus Christ. If he's cool or not cool with it, move forward. But I'm not going to say you can, my hands are tied." To that the Protestant heartily agrees and Roman Catholics, who also heard it in this way (and they did), are either rightly outraged or confused about why the Pope passed the ball when he could have easily slam dunked it.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17937
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:33 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:11 pm
And yet the Pope still plays coy. The confusion is why he is playing coy. Why is he being ambiguous about something that's been settled? That is the issue.

Your conjecture (#2) is viable, and I don't have any qualms about it. I was persuaded such was the case, and could be persuaded that such is still the case, but for the time being, it seems to me (no doubt, by way of my own bias) the reason for his being coy is precisely because his hands are tied.

[…]

" … But [I, the Pope am} not going to say you can, my hands are tied." To that the Protestant heartily agrees and Roman Catholics, who also heard it in this way (and they did), are either rightly outraged or confused about why the Pope passed the ball when he could have easily slam dunked it.
Here's the thing.

A) On one hand, you portray the Pope as being coy, as if it hasn't been settled.

B) On the other hand, you portray him unequivocally affirming that his hands are tied, precisely because it has been settled.

So even if the Protestant would "heartily agree" (your words) to "A", would he agree just as heartily to "B" (and all that would along with it, such as the Trentian anathemas) which is presented just as forcefully alongside the "A"?

IOW, did he really pass the ball? Or rather, did he really slam-dunk it (and you just missed it, cuz it was hidden behind a soft-ball)?




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Jester
Elder
Elder
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Jester » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:43 pm

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:33 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:11 pm
And yet the Pope still plays coy. The confusion is why he is playing coy. Why is he being ambiguous about something that's been settled? That is the issue.

Your conjecture (#2) is viable, and I don't have any qualms about it. I was persuaded such was the case, and could be persuaded that such is still the case, but for the time being, it seems to me (no doubt, by way of my own bias) the reason for his being coy is precisely because his hands are tied.

[…]

" … But [I, the Pope am} not going to say you can, my hands are tied." To that the Protestant heartily agrees and Roman Catholics, who also heard it in this way (and they did), are either rightly outraged or confused about why the Pope passed the ball when he could have easily slam dunked it.
Here's the thing.

A) On one hand, you portray the Pope as being coy, as if it hasn't been settled.

B) On the other hand, you portray him unequivocally affirming that his hands are tied, precisely because it has been settled.

So even if the Protestant would "heartily agree" (your words) to "A", would he agree just as heartily to "B" (and all that would along with it, such as the Trentian anathemas) which is presented just as forcefully alongside the "A"?

IOW, did he really pass the ball? Or rather, did he really slam-dunk it (and you just missed it, cuz it was hidden behind a soft-ball)?
All that I know is I have wasted the last 15 minutes at work looking for a GIF of the Pope slam-dunking. This is the best I found......
Image
I smoke a cigar because the body is a temple and the temple needs incense. -Michael Knowles

Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

When chaos manifests itself, what makes you think that anyone tame will be good for anything? -Jordan B. Peterson

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6154
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by infidel » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:09 pm

Jester wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:43 pm
All that I know is I have wasted the last 15 minutes at work looking for a GIF of the Pope slam-dunking. This is the best I found......
Image
Thank God I wasn't the only one :baghead:
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11977
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:33 pm

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:33 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:11 pm
And yet the Pope still plays coy. The confusion is why he is playing coy. Why is he being ambiguous about something that's been settled? That is the issue.

Your conjecture (#2) is viable, and I don't have any qualms about it. I was persuaded such was the case, and could be persuaded that such is still the case, but for the time being, it seems to me (no doubt, by way of my own bias) the reason for his being coy is precisely because his hands are tied.

[…]

" … But [I, the Pope am} not going to say you can, my hands are tied." To that the Protestant heartily agrees and Roman Catholics, who also heard it in this way (and they did), are either rightly outraged or confused about why the Pope passed the ball when he could have easily slam dunked it.
Here's the thing.

A) On one hand, you portray the Pope as being coy, as if it hasn't been settled.

B) On the other hand, you portray him unequivocally affirming that his hands are tied, precisely because it has been settled.

So even if the Protestant would "heartily agree" (your words) to "A", would he agree just as heartily to "B" (and all that would along with it, such as the Trentian anathemas) which is presented just as forcefully alongside the "A"?

IOW, did he really pass the ball? Or rather, did he really slam-dunk it (and you just missed it, cuz it was hidden behind a soft-ball)?
I think, yes, the Pope is being coy (or ambiguous) and it has been settled. Which is causing the confusion. And his ambiguity is making ripples among Catholics. Which is basically everything I've said already.

I've answered a lot of questions. Your turn. Do you think that there is confusion among Catholics over the Pope's ambiguous statements?
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17937
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:35 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:33 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:33 pm
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:11 pm
And yet the Pope still plays coy. The confusion is why he is playing coy. Why is he being ambiguous about something that's been settled? That is the issue.

Your conjecture (#2) is viable, and I don't have any qualms about it. I was persuaded such was the case, and could be persuaded that such is still the case, but for the time being, it seems to me (no doubt, by way of my own bias) the reason for his being coy is precisely because his hands are tied.

[…]

" … But [I, the Pope am} not going to say you can, my hands are tied." To that the Protestant heartily agrees and Roman Catholics, who also heard it in this way (and they did), are either rightly outraged or confused about why the Pope passed the ball when he could have easily slam dunked it.
Here's the thing.

A) On one hand, you portray the Pope as being coy, as if it hasn't been settled.

B) On the other hand, you portray him unequivocally affirming that his hands are tied, precisely because it has been settled.

So even if the Protestant would "heartily agree" (your words) to "A", would he agree just as heartily to "B" (and all that would along with it, such as the Trentian anathemas) which is presented just as forcefully alongside the "A"?

IOW, did he really pass the ball? Or rather, did he really slam-dunk it (and you just missed it, cuz it was hidden behind a soft-ball)?
I think, yes, the Pope is being coy (or ambiguous) and it has been settled. Which is causing the confusion. And his ambiguity is making ripples among Catholics. Which is basically everything I've said already.

I've answered a lot of questions. Your turn. Do you think that there is confusion among Catholics over the Pope's ambiguous statements?
Isn't that a loaded question, considering that we haven't established that he's being ambiguous?

Look at what you said earlier: You said that the Pope says, "Talk to the Lord and then go forward". Fair 'nuff.

But then you said that the Protestant hears, "Talk to someone who is above Catholic doctrine, the Lord Jesus Christ."

But the Pope never said that. Instead, that came from the Protestant's own mind.

And then, you say that "the Protestant heartily agrees" with that which just came from his own mind.

To me, this seems like a circular, internal echo-chamber which the Protestant optimistically projects onto the Pope. (And as Hugo earlier pointed out "… the Lutherans themselves did not interpret it that way. Instead, they sent a delegation.")

The point is that one only gets to this echo-chamber by bracketing out the dogma which the Pope (as shown above in point "B") unambiguously affirms "ties his hands".

Did it occur to you that (as Del notes in the "Reformation Day!" thread), in telling the Lutheran woman to "talk to the Lord", the Pope could've be referring the woman — instead of to Protestant's echo-chamber gloss — precisely to those selfsame dogmas? Those dogmas wherein the words of the Lord speak to both Pope and parishoner alike?

Cuz that seems to be the only way to account for the Pope's words in context of what he actually said, viz., the Both/And of "both 'A' and 'B'". But if you pit the A against the B — pit the Pope against himself, then that would seem to be on you.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14545
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:25 pm

You boys work awfully hard at disagreeing. Whether the pope sews division and discord or whether he's clear as a bell rather depends on one's point of view. I don't think any man can be the same person to all people.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17937
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:28 pm

+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:25 pm
You boys work awfully hard at disagreeing. Whether the pope sews division and discord or whether he's clear as a bell rather depends on one's point of view. I don't think any man can be the same person to all people.
Hey, I've tried admitting that the Pope is ambiguous in a certain sense. Trying to deny that would be trying to deny the obvious kerfuffle in the Church.

But as you say, how could it be otherwise? How could he (or any pope) not be "ambiguous" with respect to different people/groups? The only difference with this Pope is that the groups being "confused" by the "ambiguity" have flip-flopped in recent years.

My point is simply that this "ambiguity" points to a deeper issues and distinctions which won't be resolved or appreciated by habitually lensing the Pope through one's same-old-same-old Protestant lens. This kerfuffle is an invitation and a prime opportunity for Cath-curious Protestants to learn something which they may have had the opportunity to learn had the Church's cultural conditions not shifted, so as to reveal fresh aspects of the problem to weary eyes.

But of course, that's work that I can't do for anyone. Not even the Pope can do it for the "Lutheran woman".




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14545
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:52 pm

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:28 pm
+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:25 pm
You boys work awfully hard at disagreeing. Whether the pope sews division and discord or whether he's clear as a bell rather depends on one's point of view. I don't think any man can be the same person to all people.
Hey, I've tried admitting that the Pope is ambiguous in a certain sense. Trying to deny that would be trying to deny the obvious kerfuffle in the Church.

But as you say, how could it be otherwise? How could he (or any pope) not be "ambiguous" with respect to different people/groups? The only difference with this Pope is that the groups being "confused" by the "ambiguity" have flip-flopped in recent years.

My point is simply that this "ambiguity" points to a deeper issues and distinctions which won't be resolved or appreciated by habitually lensing the Pope through one's same-old-same-old Protestant lens. This kerfuffle is an invitation and a prime opportunity for Cath-curious Protestants to learn something which they may have had the opportunity to learn had the Church's cultural conditions not shifted, so as to reveal fresh aspects of the problem to weary eyes.

But of course, that's work that I can't do for anyone. Not even the Pope can do it for the "Lutheran woman".
Right on. It's also been good for me. When I don't understand, it forces me to think on the matter. Initial confusion can lead to edification.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11977
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:23 am

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:35 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:33 pm
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:33 pm
tuttle wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:11 pm
And yet the Pope still plays coy. The confusion is why he is playing coy. Why is he being ambiguous about something that's been settled? That is the issue.

Your conjecture (#2) is viable, and I don't have any qualms about it. I was persuaded such was the case, and could be persuaded that such is still the case, but for the time being, it seems to me (no doubt, by way of my own bias) the reason for his being coy is precisely because his hands are tied.

[…]

" … But [I, the Pope am} not going to say you can, my hands are tied." To that the Protestant heartily agrees and Roman Catholics, who also heard it in this way (and they did), are either rightly outraged or confused about why the Pope passed the ball when he could have easily slam dunked it.
Here's the thing.

A) On one hand, you portray the Pope as being coy, as if it hasn't been settled.

B) On the other hand, you portray him unequivocally affirming that his hands are tied, precisely because it has been settled.

So even if the Protestant would "heartily agree" (your words) to "A", would he agree just as heartily to "B" (and all that would along with it, such as the Trentian anathemas) which is presented just as forcefully alongside the "A"?

IOW, did he really pass the ball? Or rather, did he really slam-dunk it (and you just missed it, cuz it was hidden behind a soft-ball)?
I think, yes, the Pope is being coy (or ambiguous) and it has been settled. Which is causing the confusion. And his ambiguity is making ripples among Catholics. Which is basically everything I've said already.

I've answered a lot of questions. Your turn. Do you think that there is confusion among Catholics over the Pope's ambiguous statements?
Isn't that a loaded question, considering that we haven't established that he's being ambiguous?

Look at what you said earlier: You said that the Pope says, "Talk to the Lord and then go forward". Fair 'nuff.

But then you said that the Protestant hears, "Talk to someone who is above Catholic doctrine, the Lord Jesus Christ."

But the Pope never said that. Instead, that came from the Protestant's own mind.

And then, you say that "the Protestant heartily agrees" with that which just came from his own mind.

To me, this seems like a circular, internal echo-chamber which the Protestant optimistically projects onto the Pope. (And as Hugo earlier pointed out "… the Lutherans themselves did not interpret it that way. Instead, they sent a delegation.")

The point is that one only gets to this echo-chamber by bracketing out the dogma which the Pope (as shown above in point "B") unambiguously affirms "ties his hands".

Did it occur to you that (as Del notes in the "Reformation Day!" thread), in telling the Lutheran woman to "talk to the Lord", the Pope could've be referring the woman — instead of to Protestant's echo-chamber gloss — precisely to those selfsame dogmas? Those dogmas wherein the words of the Lord speak to both Pope and parishoner alike?

Cuz that seems to be the only way to account for the Pope's words in context of what he actually said, viz., the Both/And of "both 'A' and 'B'". But if you pit the A against the B — pit the Pope against himself, then that would seem to be on you.
It is not a loaded question. It's an easy question. Your spinjitsu is starting to putter. Let me make it easier by removing the word 'ambiguous'. Do you think there is confusion among Catholics regarding the Pope's statements?

1) It has absolutely occurred to me that the Pope could have been referring the woman to Catholic dogma...I think I've said that maybe three times already.

2) Once again, the confusion has nothing whatsoever to do with what Protestants (or secularists for that matter) think. I threw that in there to reveal my perspective on it (since this discussion began from that angle and I'm trying to, for some God-forsaken reason, explain how I went from thinking the Pope confusing to clear...to be honest, it's probably not helped to keep it up as the conversation continues down the stream). And if I haven't already admitted that I don't think Catholics think like Protestants, let me go a head and affirm that now. This, however does not negate my observation that Catholics themselves are confused. A very simple statement. A very easy observation. However it is an observation you've yet to admit.

3) I'm not saying the Pope is confused. I'm not saying Catholic doctrine is confused. I'm saying (a segment of) Catholics are confused. Regardless of the reasons why they might be confused, I still stand by my statement that the problem isn't the Pope, but confusion among Catholics. And not just the John and Jane Doe sitting in the pew for Mass, it's the priests too.

Do you think there is confusion among Catholics regarding the Pope's statements?
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17937
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:27 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:23 am
It is not a loaded question. It's an easy question. Your spinjitsu is starting to putter.

[…]

Do you think there is confusion among Catholics regarding the Pope's statements?
Click.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11977
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:34 am

:lol: I kid you not, I tried to post the following below as you posted what you did above :lol:
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:28 pm
+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:25 pm
You boys work awfully hard at disagreeing. Whether the pope sews division and discord or whether he's clear as a bell rather depends on one's point of view. I don't think any man can be the same person to all people.
Hey, I've tried admitting that the Pope is ambiguous in a certain sense. Trying to deny that would be trying to deny the obvious kerfuffle in the Church.

But as you say, how could it be otherwise? How could he (or any pope) not be "ambiguous" with respect to different people/groups? The only difference with this Pope is that the groups being "confused" by the "ambiguity" have flip-flopped in recent years.

My point is simply that this "ambiguity" points to a deeper issues and distinctions which won't be resolved or appreciated by habitually lensing the Pope through one's same-old-same-old Protestant lens. This kerfuffle is an invitation and a prime opportunity for Cath-curious Protestants to learn something which they may have had the opportunity to learn had the Church's cultural conditions not shifted, so as to reveal fresh aspects of the problem to weary eyes.

But of course, that's work that I can't do for anyone. Not even the Pope can do it for the "Lutheran woman".
This is pretty clarifying to me. It's basically what I was wondering in my post above. So no need to address that one if you feel, like me, that this is an adequate answer.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17937
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:51 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:34 am
:lol: I kid you not, I tried to post the following below as you posted what you did above :lol:
No prob, bro. :thumbsup:

———————————————————————————————————————————
tuttle wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:34 am
This is pretty clarifying to me. It's basically what I was wondering in my post above. So no need to address that one if you feel, like me, that this is an adequate answer.
Aye, no need to address anything more, other than offhandedly noting that we (i.e. the Hugo/Tuttle/Wos constellation) have already pretty much gone over this territory back on page 47 of this selfsame thread.

And the only reason that I mention this is so that, when this sort of issue (i.e. the Church kerfuffle) either intensifies or modally morphs, you might remember this broad, generalized answer and apply it, mutatis mutandis, to the new sitch.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

Post Reply