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
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19152
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:38 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:As a protestant, when I hear something that seems to have the flavor of a Pope reaching out protestants, when I go looking to see if that's the case, I'm usually told that it's really just the Pope drawing me in closer so as to smack me easier with a 2 x 4.
It simply has to be that way. It has to be both A) a "drawing in" and B) a smackdown. It has to be Both/And.

Some Catholic syntheses will lean more toward the irenical "A" whilst others will lean towards the polemical "B". But all orthodox Catholic syntheses have to contain both elements (both A and B), even if one of the elements is only implicitly affirmed.

As I've said with regard to the Catholic attitude toward all non-Catholic worldviews (e.g. in the "Are we not worshiping the same God?" thread) the answer can only be both Yes and No. Both A and B.

But you certainly seem as if you want it reduced to a simple and pat Either/Or.

But maybe it's just this dynamic irreducibility of Catholicity which both fascinates and frustrates you. Maybe it's precisely this which you find repulsive, yet strangely attractive.
You say it has to be that way...but that's not what the Pope is saying.
If you already know what the Pope is saying, then why even ask?
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12922
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:17 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:As a protestant, when I hear something that seems to have the flavor of a Pope reaching out protestants, when I go looking to see if that's the case, I'm usually told that it's really just the Pope drawing me in closer so as to smack me easier with a 2 x 4.
It simply has to be that way. It has to be both A) a "drawing in" and B) a smackdown. It has to be Both/And.

Some Catholic syntheses will lean more toward the irenical "A" whilst others will lean towards the polemical "B". But all orthodox Catholic syntheses have to contain both elements (both A and B), even if one of the elements is only implicitly affirmed.

As I've said with regard to the Catholic attitude toward all non-Catholic worldviews (e.g. in the "Are we not worshiping the same God?" thread) the answer can only be both Yes and No. Both A and B.

But you certainly seem as if you want it reduced to a simple and pat Either/Or.

But maybe it's just this dynamic irreducibility of Catholicity which both fascinates and frustrates you. Maybe it's precisely this which you find repulsive, yet strangely attractive.
You say it has to be that way...but that's not what the Pope is saying.
If you already know what the Pope is saying, then why even ask?
You said it has to be that way, draw em in and whack with a stick. I'm saying the Pope isn't delivering the stick, his followers are, and oddly enough some are whacking one way when others are whacking another way.

As it is, I ask because I am ignorant to certain things that you gentlemen kindly reveal. Sometimes I'll come away satisfied with your explanations...other times I'll remain mystified. This time around I think hugo had a good explanation to the question at hand. I can follow your explanation, but only if it is divorced from the initial question...

Actually after this conversation with hugo, I actually am beginning to think he's not as confusing as I first believed. I'm beginning to wonder if he actually means what he says and one doesn't always need to dive through layers of Catholic doctrine to attain the key of interpretation.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16309
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:04 pm

tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:As a protestant, when I hear something that seems to have the flavor of a Pope reaching out protestants, when I go looking to see if that's the case, I'm usually told that it's really just the Pope drawing me in closer so as to smack me easier with a 2 x 4.
It simply has to be that way. It has to be both A) a "drawing in" and B) a smackdown. It has to be Both/And.

Some Catholic syntheses will lean more toward the irenical "A" whilst others will lean towards the polemical "B". But all orthodox Catholic syntheses have to contain both elements (both A and B), even if one of the elements is only implicitly affirmed.

As I've said with regard to the Catholic attitude toward all non-Catholic worldviews (e.g. in the "Are we not worshiping the same God?" thread) the answer can only be both Yes and No. Both A and B.

But you certainly seem as if you want it reduced to a simple and pat Either/Or.

But maybe it's just this dynamic irreducibility of Catholicity which both fascinates and frustrates you. Maybe it's precisely this which you find repulsive, yet strangely attractive.
You say it has to be that way...but that's not what the Pope is saying.
If you already know what the Pope is saying, then why even ask?
You said it has to be that way, draw em in and whack with a stick. I'm saying the Pope isn't delivering the stick, his followers are, and oddly enough some are whacking one way when others are whacking another way.

As it is, I ask because I am ignorant to certain things that you gentlemen kindly reveal. Sometimes I'll come away satisfied with your explanations...other times I'll remain mystified. This time around I think hugo had a good explanation to the question at hand. I can follow your explanation, but only if it is divorced from the initial question...

Actually after this conversation with hugo, I actually am beginning to think he's not as confusing as I first believed. I'm beginning to wonder if he actually means what he says and one doesn't always need to dive through layers of Catholic doctrine to attain the key of interpretation.
That's a very interesting last line. I don't think there could be a more Protestant statement than "I don't need to know the backstory, or what else has been said, or what nuances exist in the argument, thanks, I just need the text, standing alone."

It seems to me to highlight the fundamental difference between protestant and Catholic thought. The Catholic sees a vast continuum in which scripture, the teachings of the saints, and the tradition within the Church all inform him as to what a statement, an action, or a text means. Contrast this with the protestant approach, which comes across to me as a fundamental distrust of all that a Catholic says, an a priori feeling that the Catholic is wrong, and an belief that he can cut through all the carp and the entanglements and figure it out on his own.

Because of the different approaches, both sides view the other as arrogant. A protestant thinks the Catholic is arrogant for the complexities--it just has to be simpler than that! A Catholic thinks the protestant is arrogant for thinking himself a competent theologian--can't you see it's more complex than that?

It's that b.s. preconceived notions on both sides that keep the dialogue so fiery. You, Tuttle, have come a long way in changing my mind about how protestants think. But that old mistrust crops up time and again.

Lower the gloves a bit. Not too far, because I'm not above the occasional jab. We don't do what the street preachers do and which so offends the Catholic--it's not in my Ken to know whether anyone is going to hell!

Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions. Have I missed something?
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19152
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:48 pm

+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.

FWIW, here's the text of the original prepared remarks (sans the reported, impromptu "proselytization/venom" remarks):

Francis receives a pilgrimage of a thousand Lutherans: God’s mercy unites us, 13.10.2016

Like all Vatican pronouncements, this one can be interpreted in a Catholic sense, just as well as at it can be subject to misinterpretation. The meagre length, along with the abundance of diplomatic niceties, is a fair indication of the doctrinal weight which should be ascribed to the statement.

But if we are really eager to parse at all costs, we could always zero-in on this part: "The apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single Body of Christ." Hmm … Now, do "we" all believe in Baptismal Regeneration? That could be read as sounding kinda provocative. Divisive and polemical, even.

To be sure, the credulous Calvinist-in-the-queue could well read this as "… by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single [Visible] Body of Christ", thereby keeping his hopes alive that Rome will finally wake up and smell the coffee. Therein lies the rub of interpretation.

And so, the proof will be in the pudding. Not in political encomiums.

If the day were to come when Catholics were to hear that "We no longer believe in 'A'" (or, conversely, that We no longer believe in B), then, Houston, there'd be a problem. Cuz that's precisely what can't happen upon pain of "the gates of hell" and all that jazz.

But (and this is a big butt) short of that reductive impossibility, all bets are off. Anything can happen. And it usually does. Just look at Catholic history.
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12922
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:13 am

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying. Wos went the route of telling me about those who were "in house" regarding ecumenism and hugo gave me a low down on the meaning the Pope would have injected into the word "proselytize". As hugo's was more in the vein that I was reading the Pope, I latched on to his thoughts. I still don't think that wos' explanation that the Pope wasn't including Lutherans in his discussing ecumenism is right. Chalk it up to me being Protestant but even in the link wos sent I read the Pope saying: "The apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single Body of Christ. The various members, in fact, form one body. Therefore, we belong to each other and when one suffers, all suffer; when one rejoices, we all rejoice. We can continue trustfully on our ecumenical path, because we know that despite the many issues that still separate us, we are already united. What unites us is far greater than what divides."

The Pope is speaking to Lutherans and Catholics here (very much in the context of ecumenism), discussing the spiritual unity that is had through Baptism (differing from institutional unity that I mentioned earlier in the thread) and pointing out that we are already united even though we are (institutionally) separated. That doesn't sound like what wos was trying to convey. At all. Sounds like the Pope is talking to "in house" Catholics and (if wos is right) "out of the house" Lutherans but he's speaking to them in the context of ecumenism, which they (Lutherans) are a part of.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19152
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:29 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying.
Well, of course. We're not mind readers. Only the Pope knows what he's really saying. I don't speak for the Pope and he doesn't speak for me.

What matters is not whether Hugo and I have the exact same interpretation (a virtual impossibility) but, rather, that both of our interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy. If we assume that the Pope's own meaning falls within those same bounds (an assumption which we are obliged to extend to all those who claim Catholicity), then we have unity-in-diversity.
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16309
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:33 am

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying.
Well, of course. We're not mind readers. Only the Pope knows what he's really saying. I don't speak for the Pope and he doesn't speak for me.

What matters is not whether Hugo and I have the exact same interpretation (a virtual impossibility) but, rather, that both of our interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy. If we assume that the Pope's own meaning falls within those same bounds (an assumption which we are obliged to extend to all those who claim Catholicity), then we have unity-in-diversity.
Aye, tis true.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16309
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:38 am

tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying. Wos went the route of telling me about those who were "in house" regarding ecumenism and hugo gave me a low down on the meaning the Pope would have injected into the word "proselytize". As hugo's was more in the vein that I was reading the Pope, I latched on to his thoughts. I still don't think that wos' explanation that the Pope wasn't including Lutherans in his discussing ecumenism is right. Chalk it up to me being Protestant but even in the link wos sent I read the Pope saying: "The apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single Body of Christ. The various members, in fact, form one body. Therefore, we belong to each other and when one suffers, all suffer; when one rejoices, we all rejoice. We can continue trustfully on our ecumenical path, because we know that despite the many issues that still separate us, we are already united. What unites us is far greater than what divides."

The Pope is speaking to Lutherans and Catholics here (very much in the context of ecumenism), discussing the spiritual unity that is had through Baptism (differing from institutional unity that I mentioned earlier in the thread) and pointing out that we are already united even though we are (institutionally) separated. That doesn't sound like what wos was trying to convey. At all. Sounds like the Pope is talking to "in house" Catholics and (if wos is right) "out of the house" Lutherans but he's speaking to them in the context of ecumenism, which they (Lutherans) are a part of.
Tuttle, have you read much on the Catholic views on non-Catholic Christian worship? You might want to dig around a little. I'll look later and see what I can find. It might provide a bit of an "aha!" Moment for you.

Short answer: you and wos are both correct. The hinge is how Christian is defined.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12922
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:32 am

hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying.
Well, of course. We're not mind readers. Only the Pope knows what he's really saying. I don't speak for the Pope and he doesn't speak for me.

What matters is not whether Hugo and I have the exact same interpretation (a virtual impossibility) but, rather, that both of our interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy. If we assume that the Pope's own meaning falls within those same bounds (an assumption which we are obliged to extend to all those who claim Catholicity), then we have unity-in-diversity.
Aye, tis true.
(Kind of lumping you both in here)

The Pope doesn't speak for you...but does he speak for the faith, for Roman Catholicism?

I see that both of your interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy...again, I'm not sure if I ever even questioned that. But you do point out that you are obligated to assume the Pope's meaning falls within those same bounds. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but what happens when the Pope really does say something that is out of bounds? Is he free to state basically whatever if you are obliged to assume whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy?

Again, I see the Pope saying things to and about Protestants that don't align with what Catholicism teaches (or what I've been told Catholicism teaches whether historically or dogmatically). And I know Catholics hear it too, because they are always rushing to say that the Pope really means 'business as usual'. "Lutherans can take the Eucharist"...not really. "Ecumenism is taking place between Catholics and Lutherans"...not really. But if you are obliged to assume that whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy, I guess I kind of found my answer as to why I always thought this Pope was so confusing.

I realize I'm beginning to open up a can of worms here. These are simply questions/observations from my pov and not attempted provocations.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12922
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:33 am

hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying. Wos went the route of telling me about those who were "in house" regarding ecumenism and hugo gave me a low down on the meaning the Pope would have injected into the word "proselytize". As hugo's was more in the vein that I was reading the Pope, I latched on to his thoughts. I still don't think that wos' explanation that the Pope wasn't including Lutherans in his discussing ecumenism is right. Chalk it up to me being Protestant but even in the link wos sent I read the Pope saying: "The apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the single Body of Christ. The various members, in fact, form one body. Therefore, we belong to each other and when one suffers, all suffer; when one rejoices, we all rejoice. We can continue trustfully on our ecumenical path, because we know that despite the many issues that still separate us, we are already united. What unites us is far greater than what divides."

The Pope is speaking to Lutherans and Catholics here (very much in the context of ecumenism), discussing the spiritual unity that is had through Baptism (differing from institutional unity that I mentioned earlier in the thread) and pointing out that we are already united even though we are (institutionally) separated. That doesn't sound like what wos was trying to convey. At all. Sounds like the Pope is talking to "in house" Catholics and (if wos is right) "out of the house" Lutherans but he's speaking to them in the context of ecumenism, which they (Lutherans) are a part of.
Tuttle, have you read much on the Catholic views on non-Catholic Christian worship? You might want to dig around a little. I'll look later and see what I can find. It might provide a bit of an "aha!" Moment for you.

Short answer: you and wos are both correct. The hinge is how Christian is defined.
I have read a little. I guess not so much as to provide an aha moment.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16309
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:10 am

tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying.
Well, of course. We're not mind readers. Only the Pope knows what he's really saying. I don't speak for the Pope and he doesn't speak for me.

What matters is not whether Hugo and I have the exact same interpretation (a virtual impossibility) but, rather, that both of our interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy. If we assume that the Pope's own meaning falls within those same bounds (an assumption which we are obliged to extend to all those who claim Catholicity), then we have unity-in-diversity.
Aye, tis true.
(Kind of lumping you both in here)

The Pope doesn't speak for you...but does he speak for the faith, for Roman Catholicism?

I see that both of your interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy...again, I'm not sure if I ever even questioned that. But you do point out that you are obligated to assume the Pope's meaning falls within those same bounds. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but what happens when the Pope really does say something that is out of bounds? Is he free to state basically whatever if you are obliged to assume whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy?

Again, I see the Pope saying things to and about Protestants that don't align with what Catholicism teaches (or what I've been told Catholicism teaches whether historically or dogmatically). And I know Catholics hear it too, because they are always rushing to say that the Pope really means 'business as usual'. "Lutherans can take the Eucharist"...not really. "Ecumenism is taking place between Catholics and Lutherans"...not really. But if you are obliged to assume that whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy, I guess I kind of found my answer as to why I always thought this Pope was so confusing.

I realize I'm beginning to open up a can of worms here. These are simply questions/observations from my pov and not attempted provocations.
I don't find them provocative in the least. I find it frustrating. You see, you want an explanation, but it has to fit in with your theory that you already accept.

You came into this with the already held belief that Francis speaks outside the bounds of church teaching. Myself or Wos or some other catholic engages to tell you what we believe, you listen very politely for a bit before concluding that you were right the entire time.

In other words, you cling so hard to your belief that you only really accept the evidence that tends to agree with that belief. Its like watching you arguing on behalf of creationist belief: obviously, if you reject every single piece of evidence contrary to your theory that dinosaurs and people roamed the earth simultaneously, then creationism would appear correct. But you can't do that and have an honest conversation. Your mind is literally like a steel trap: once it has sprung, there's no hope of opening the jaws.

The long and the short of it is, in this world, there are very few black and white issues. It is entirely possible for a man addressing Lutherans and Catholics to address them separately, each according to their differing traditions, in a single document. That "we" which you think is so obvious changes meanings depending on the group being referenced. I count four plausible groups/people being addressed: the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Lutherans and the Catholics, and the Pope himself.

And if you take what he said about the Eucharist to mean the Lutherans can take the Eucharist, I'd point out to you that the Lutherans themselves did not interpret it that way. Instead, they sent a delegation.

In closing, I know how much difficulty you have with this and I can see how hard you're trying. But nobody is snowballing you. We really do think this way. If you'd like to understand catholic thought, you really have to let go a little bit more and digest it.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12922
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:30 pm

hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying.
Well, of course. We're not mind readers. Only the Pope knows what he's really saying. I don't speak for the Pope and he doesn't speak for me.

What matters is not whether Hugo and I have the exact same interpretation (a virtual impossibility) but, rather, that both of our interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy. If we assume that the Pope's own meaning falls within those same bounds (an assumption which we are obliged to extend to all those who claim Catholicity), then we have unity-in-diversity.
Aye, tis true.
(Kind of lumping you both in here)

The Pope doesn't speak for you...but does he speak for the faith, for Roman Catholicism?

I see that both of your interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy...again, I'm not sure if I ever even questioned that. But you do point out that you are obligated to assume the Pope's meaning falls within those same bounds. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but what happens when the Pope really does say something that is out of bounds? Is he free to state basically whatever if you are obliged to assume whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy?

Again, I see the Pope saying things to and about Protestants that don't align with what Catholicism teaches (or what I've been told Catholicism teaches whether historically or dogmatically). And I know Catholics hear it too, because they are always rushing to say that the Pope really means 'business as usual'. "Lutherans can take the Eucharist"...not really. "Ecumenism is taking place between Catholics and Lutherans"...not really. But if you are obliged to assume that whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy, I guess I kind of found my answer as to why I always thought this Pope was so confusing.

I realize I'm beginning to open up a can of worms here. These are simply questions/observations from my pov and not attempted provocations.
I don't find them provocative in the least. I find it frustrating. You see, you want an explanation, but it has to fit in with your theory that you already accept.

You came into this with the already held belief that Francis speaks outside the bounds of church teaching. Myself or Wos or some other catholic engages to tell you what we believe, you listen very politely for a bit before concluding that you were right the entire time.

In other words, you cling so hard to your belief that you only really accept the evidence that tends to agree with that belief. Its like watching you arguing on behalf of creationist belief: obviously, if you reject every single piece of evidence contrary to your theory that dinosaurs and people roamed the earth simultaneously, then creationism would appear correct. But you can't do that and have an honest conversation. Your mind is literally like a steel trap: once it has sprung, there's no hope of opening the jaws.

The long and the short of it is, in this world, there are very few black and white issues. It is entirely possible for a man addressing Lutherans and Catholics to address them separately, each according to their differing traditions, in a single document. That "we" which you think is so obvious changes meanings depending on the group being referenced. I count four plausible groups/people being addressed: the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Lutherans and the Catholics, and the Pope himself.

And if you take what he said about the Eucharist to mean the Lutherans can take the Eucharist, I'd point out to you that the Lutherans themselves did not interpret it that way. Instead, they sent a delegation.

In closing, I know how much difficulty you have with this and I can see how hard you're trying. But nobody is snowballing you. We really do think this way. If you'd like to understand catholic thought, you really have to let go a little bit more and digest it.
I have no beef with what you have to say, but I do want to clarify that I didn't come into this the same way I'm leaving. Before I legitimately thought Francis was a very unclear man. Because everyone (catholics and protestants and atheists) were all saying he said something they thought he was saying, but I was taking the Catholic interpretations (and still do, mind you) as being the most relevant explanations. My thought has always been that the man is a good man, but not a good communicator, nor a good spokesman.

What I'm walking away with is that the Pope is actually more clear than I thought he was. That was absolutely not on my mind coming in. I think my expression of hope about the Pope's words might have tainted this discussion (aside the fact that I'm also a Protestant).
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16309
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:46 pm

tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying.
Well, of course. We're not mind readers. Only the Pope knows what he's really saying. I don't speak for the Pope and he doesn't speak for me.

What matters is not whether Hugo and I have the exact same interpretation (a virtual impossibility) but, rather, that both of our interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy. If we assume that the Pope's own meaning falls within those same bounds (an assumption which we are obliged to extend to all those who claim Catholicity), then we have unity-in-diversity.
Aye, tis true.
(Kind of lumping you both in here)

The Pope doesn't speak for you...but does he speak for the faith, for Roman Catholicism?

I see that both of your interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy...again, I'm not sure if I ever even questioned that. But you do point out that you are obligated to assume the Pope's meaning falls within those same bounds. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but what happens when the Pope really does say something that is out of bounds? Is he free to state basically whatever if you are obliged to assume whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy?

Again, I see the Pope saying things to and about Protestants that don't align with what Catholicism teaches (or what I've been told Catholicism teaches whether historically or dogmatically). And I know Catholics hear it too, because they are always rushing to say that the Pope really means 'business as usual'. "Lutherans can take the Eucharist"...not really. "Ecumenism is taking place between Catholics and Lutherans"...not really. But if you are obliged to assume that whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy, I guess I kind of found my answer as to why I always thought this Pope was so confusing.

I realize I'm beginning to open up a can of worms here. These are simply questions/observations from my pov and not attempted provocations.
I don't find them provocative in the least. I find it frustrating. You see, you want an explanation, but it has to fit in with your theory that you already accept.

You came into this with the already held belief that Francis speaks outside the bounds of church teaching. Myself or Wos or some other catholic engages to tell you what we believe, you listen very politely for a bit before concluding that you were right the entire time.

In other words, you cling so hard to your belief that you only really accept the evidence that tends to agree with that belief. Its like watching you arguing on behalf of creationist belief: obviously, if you reject every single piece of evidence contrary to your theory that dinosaurs and people roamed the earth simultaneously, then creationism would appear correct. But you can't do that and have an honest conversation. Your mind is literally like a steel trap: once it has sprung, there's no hope of opening the jaws.

The long and the short of it is, in this world, there are very few black and white issues. It is entirely possible for a man addressing Lutherans and Catholics to address them separately, each according to their differing traditions, in a single document. That "we" which you think is so obvious changes meanings depending on the group being referenced. I count four plausible groups/people being addressed: the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Lutherans and the Catholics, and the Pope himself.

And if you take what he said about the Eucharist to mean the Lutherans can take the Eucharist, I'd point out to you that the Lutherans themselves did not interpret it that way. Instead, they sent a delegation.

In closing, I know how much difficulty you have with this and I can see how hard you're trying. But nobody is snowballing you. We really do think this way. If you'd like to understand catholic thought, you really have to let go a little bit more and digest it.
I have no beef with what you have to say, but I do want to clarify that I didn't come into this the same way I'm leaving. Before I legitimately thought Francis was a very unclear man. Because everyone (catholics and protestants and atheists) were all saying he said something they thought he was saying, but I was taking the Catholic interpretations (and still do, mind you) as being the most relevant explanations. My thought has always been that the man is a good man, but not a good communicator, nor a good spokesman.

What I'm walking away with is that the Pope is actually more clear than I thought he was. That was absolutely not on my mind coming in. I think my expression of hope about the Pope's words might have tainted this discussion (aside the fact that I'm also a Protestant).
Oh. Well, then. Carry on, sir.

I can't get over how civil it always is with you. You've opened my eyes to what the differences really are between us. I have no idea how to fix them, either. Theologically, it must seem odd that catholics approach theology from the Catholic way of thinking. And it's so different from the way you think theologically.

Often times, in my work, I have to try to think like a police officer or district attorney or victim or engineer/expert witness. It's not easy, but it bears fruit. I'm going to try thinking like you a little bit. It's not going to come easy and I'll goof up. I don't think we can really understand each other theologically until we label the differences. Help me out with this, would you?

As always, it's been fun. Surely we can find something else to argue about.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12922
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:45 pm

hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying.
Well, of course. We're not mind readers. Only the Pope knows what he's really saying. I don't speak for the Pope and he doesn't speak for me.

What matters is not whether Hugo and I have the exact same interpretation (a virtual impossibility) but, rather, that both of our interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy. If we assume that the Pope's own meaning falls within those same bounds (an assumption which we are obliged to extend to all those who claim Catholicity), then we have unity-in-diversity.
Aye, tis true.
(Kind of lumping you both in here)

The Pope doesn't speak for you...but does he speak for the faith, for Roman Catholicism?

I see that both of your interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy...again, I'm not sure if I ever even questioned that. But you do point out that you are obligated to assume the Pope's meaning falls within those same bounds. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but what happens when the Pope really does say something that is out of bounds? Is he free to state basically whatever if you are obliged to assume whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy?

Again, I see the Pope saying things to and about Protestants that don't align with what Catholicism teaches (or what I've been told Catholicism teaches whether historically or dogmatically). And I know Catholics hear it too, because they are always rushing to say that the Pope really means 'business as usual'. "Lutherans can take the Eucharist"...not really. "Ecumenism is taking place between Catholics and Lutherans"...not really. But if you are obliged to assume that whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy, I guess I kind of found my answer as to why I always thought this Pope was so confusing.

I realize I'm beginning to open up a can of worms here. These are simply questions/observations from my pov and not attempted provocations.
I don't find them provocative in the least. I find it frustrating. You see, you want an explanation, but it has to fit in with your theory that you already accept.

You came into this with the already held belief that Francis speaks outside the bounds of church teaching. Myself or Wos or some other catholic engages to tell you what we believe, you listen very politely for a bit before concluding that you were right the entire time.

In other words, you cling so hard to your belief that you only really accept the evidence that tends to agree with that belief. Its like watching you arguing on behalf of creationist belief: obviously, if you reject every single piece of evidence contrary to your theory that dinosaurs and people roamed the earth simultaneously, then creationism would appear correct. But you can't do that and have an honest conversation. Your mind is literally like a steel trap: once it has sprung, there's no hope of opening the jaws.

The long and the short of it is, in this world, there are very few black and white issues. It is entirely possible for a man addressing Lutherans and Catholics to address them separately, each according to their differing traditions, in a single document. That "we" which you think is so obvious changes meanings depending on the group being referenced. I count four plausible groups/people being addressed: the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Lutherans and the Catholics, and the Pope himself.

And if you take what he said about the Eucharist to mean the Lutherans can take the Eucharist, I'd point out to you that the Lutherans themselves did not interpret it that way. Instead, they sent a delegation.

In closing, I know how much difficulty you have with this and I can see how hard you're trying. But nobody is snowballing you. We really do think this way. If you'd like to understand catholic thought, you really have to let go a little bit more and digest it.
I have no beef with what you have to say, but I do want to clarify that I didn't come into this the same way I'm leaving. Before I legitimately thought Francis was a very unclear man. Because everyone (catholics and protestants and atheists) were all saying he said something they thought he was saying, but I was taking the Catholic interpretations (and still do, mind you) as being the most relevant explanations. My thought has always been that the man is a good man, but not a good communicator, nor a good spokesman.

What I'm walking away with is that the Pope is actually more clear than I thought he was. That was absolutely not on my mind coming in. I think my expression of hope about the Pope's words might have tainted this discussion (aside the fact that I'm also a Protestant).
Oh. Well, then. Carry on, sir.

I can't get over how civil it always is with you. You've opened my eyes to what the differences really are between us. I have no idea how to fix them, either. Theologically, it must seem odd that catholics approach theology from the Catholic way of thinking. And it's so different from the way you think theologically.

Often times, in my work, I have to try to think like a police officer or district attorney or victim or engineer/expert witness. It's not easy, but it bears fruit. I'm going to try thinking like you a little bit. It's not going to come easy and I'll goof up. I don't think we can really understand each other theologically until we label the differences. Help me out with this, would you?

As always, it's been fun. Surely we can find something else to argue about.
Agreed. I wish we could have a conversation over some pie

:dancingpie:
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16309
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:53 pm

tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Also, I really don't see Wos and I as disagreeing at all, let alone going in opposite directions.
I really don't see it, either.
Did I say you both disagreed? I don't think I did. What I was pointing out though, was that you both gave me different interpretations of what the Pope was saying.
Well, of course. We're not mind readers. Only the Pope knows what he's really saying. I don't speak for the Pope and he doesn't speak for me.

What matters is not whether Hugo and I have the exact same interpretation (a virtual impossibility) but, rather, that both of our interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy. If we assume that the Pope's own meaning falls within those same bounds (an assumption which we are obliged to extend to all those who claim Catholicity), then we have unity-in-diversity.
Aye, tis true.
(Kind of lumping you both in here)

The Pope doesn't speak for you...but does he speak for the faith, for Roman Catholicism?

I see that both of your interpretations fall within the bounds of orthodoxy...again, I'm not sure if I ever even questioned that. But you do point out that you are obligated to assume the Pope's meaning falls within those same bounds. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but what happens when the Pope really does say something that is out of bounds? Is he free to state basically whatever if you are obliged to assume whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy?

Again, I see the Pope saying things to and about Protestants that don't align with what Catholicism teaches (or what I've been told Catholicism teaches whether historically or dogmatically). And I know Catholics hear it too, because they are always rushing to say that the Pope really means 'business as usual'. "Lutherans can take the Eucharist"...not really. "Ecumenism is taking place between Catholics and Lutherans"...not really. But if you are obliged to assume that whatever he says falls within the bounds of orthodoxy, I guess I kind of found my answer as to why I always thought this Pope was so confusing.

I realize I'm beginning to open up a can of worms here. These are simply questions/observations from my pov and not attempted provocations.
I don't find them provocative in the least. I find it frustrating. You see, you want an explanation, but it has to fit in with your theory that you already accept.

You came into this with the already held belief that Francis speaks outside the bounds of church teaching. Myself or Wos or some other catholic engages to tell you what we believe, you listen very politely for a bit before concluding that you were right the entire time.

In other words, you cling so hard to your belief that you only really accept the evidence that tends to agree with that belief. Its like watching you arguing on behalf of creationist belief: obviously, if you reject every single piece of evidence contrary to your theory that dinosaurs and people roamed the earth simultaneously, then creationism would appear correct. But you can't do that and have an honest conversation. Your mind is literally like a steel trap: once it has sprung, there's no hope of opening the jaws.

The long and the short of it is, in this world, there are very few black and white issues. It is entirely possible for a man addressing Lutherans and Catholics to address them separately, each according to their differing traditions, in a single document. That "we" which you think is so obvious changes meanings depending on the group being referenced. I count four plausible groups/people being addressed: the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Lutherans and the Catholics, and the Pope himself.

And if you take what he said about the Eucharist to mean the Lutherans can take the Eucharist, I'd point out to you that the Lutherans themselves did not interpret it that way. Instead, they sent a delegation.

In closing, I know how much difficulty you have with this and I can see how hard you're trying. But nobody is snowballing you. We really do think this way. If you'd like to understand catholic thought, you really have to let go a little bit more and digest it.
I have no beef with what you have to say, but I do want to clarify that I didn't come into this the same way I'm leaving. Before I legitimately thought Francis was a very unclear man. Because everyone (catholics and protestants and atheists) were all saying he said something they thought he was saying, but I was taking the Catholic interpretations (and still do, mind you) as being the most relevant explanations. My thought has always been that the man is a good man, but not a good communicator, nor a good spokesman.

What I'm walking away with is that the Pope is actually more clear than I thought he was. That was absolutely not on my mind coming in. I think my expression of hope about the Pope's words might have tainted this discussion (aside the fact that I'm also a Protestant).
Oh. Well, then. Carry on, sir.

I can't get over how civil it always is with you. You've opened my eyes to what the differences really are between us. I have no idea how to fix them, either. Theologically, it must seem odd that catholics approach theology from the Catholic way of thinking. And it's so different from the way you think theologically.

Often times, in my work, I have to try to think like a police officer or district attorney or victim or engineer/expert witness. It's not easy, but it bears fruit. I'm going to try thinking like you a little bit. It's not going to come easy and I'll goof up. I don't think we can really understand each other theologically until we label the differences. Help me out with this, would you?

As always, it's been fun. Surely we can find something else to argue about.
Agreed. I wish we could have a conversation over some pie

:dancingpie:
I've often thought that many of the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic traditions could be settled by a good pie fight.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 34790
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:25 am

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 34790
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:51 pm

Pope vows Vatican reform is real despite resistance
In his annual speech to the Roman Curia on Thursday, Pope Francis presented a sweeping vision of reform for the Vatican’s central administration, outlining the values he wants that reform to embody and insisting that old bureaucratic patterns such as “promoting to remove” must come to an end.

Pulling no punches, Francis also conceded his efforts at reform have attracted opposition - both “open resistance,” offered in a spirit of constructive dialogue, and “hidden” and “malicious” resistance, which he said “sprouts in distorted minds and shows itself when the devil inspires bad intentions, often wrapped in sheep’s clothing.”
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 34790
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:24 am

Pope Francis proclaims ‘zero tolerance’ to child molesters
Pope Francis has called for “zero tolerance” towards sex crimes against children and condemned as “a sin that shames” both perpetrators of such offences among the clergy as well as those who cover up such atrocities.
The head of the Catholic Church addressed bishops across the globe in a letter on December 28, but it was released by the Vatican press service only on Monday. The letter focused on scourge of child sexual abuse within the Church.

“Christmas is … accompanied, whether we like it or not, by tears. The Evangelists did not disguise reality to make it more credible or attractive. They did not indulge in words that were comforting but unrelated to reality,” the Pope wrote.
About g-d time!
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16309
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:36 am

UncleBob wrote:Pope Francis proclaims ‘zero tolerance’ to child molesters
Pope Francis has called for “zero tolerance” towards sex crimes against children and condemned as “a sin that shames” both perpetrators of such offences among the clergy as well as those who cover up such atrocities.
The head of the Catholic Church addressed bishops across the globe in a letter on December 28, but it was released by the Vatican press service only on Monday. The letter focused on scourge of child sexual abuse within the Church.

“Christmas is … accompanied, whether we like it or not, by tears. The Evangelists did not disguise reality to make it more credible or attractive. They did not indulge in words that were comforting but unrelated to reality,” the Pope wrote.
About g-d time!
Looking for a source to the letter itself, but hasn't he said this before? Also, you reading russian news now? TV-Novosti?
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 34790
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:46 am

hugodrax wrote:
UncleBob wrote:Pope Francis proclaims ‘zero tolerance’ to child molesters
Pope Francis has called for “zero tolerance” towards sex crimes against children and condemned as “a sin that shames” both perpetrators of such offences among the clergy as well as those who cover up such atrocities.
The head of the Catholic Church addressed bishops across the globe in a letter on December 28, but it was released by the Vatican press service only on Monday. The letter focused on scourge of child sexual abuse within the Church.

“Christmas is … accompanied, whether we like it or not, by tears. The Evangelists did not disguise reality to make it more credible or attractive. They did not indulge in words that were comforting but unrelated to reality,” the Pope wrote.
About g-d time!
Looking for a source to the letter itself, but hasn't he said this before? Also, you reading russian news now? TV-Novosti?
Here is ABC, if that is better. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/ ... e-44512871
Here is the letter in English: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/ ... centi.html
We hear these children and their cries of pain; we also hear the cry of the Church our Mother, who weeps not only for the pain caused to her youngest sons and daughters, but also because she recognizes the sins of some of her members: the sufferings, the experiences and the pain of minors who were abused sexually by priests. It is a sin that shames us. Persons responsible for the protection of those children destroyed their dignity. We regret this deeply and we beg forgiveness. We join in the pain of the victims and weep for this sin. The sin of what happened, the sin of failing to help, the sin of covering up and denial, the sin of the abuse of power. The Church also weeps bitterly over this sin of her sons and she asks forgiveness. Today, as we commemorate the feast of the Holy Innocents, I would like us to renew our complete commitment to ensuring that these atrocities will no longer take place in our midst. Let us find the courage needed to take all necessary measures and to protect in every way the lives of our children, so that such crimes may never be repeated. In this area, let us adhere, clearly and faithfully, to “zero tolerance”.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

Post Reply