www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Article on Pope Francis from Christianity Today

According to Father Robert Taft, the new official Vatican directory, which lists every person by title and position, Francis is now officially listed as "Bishop of Rome", which, according to Taft, shows that the man knows his theology: He is Pope because he is Bishop of Rome; he is not Bishop of Rome because he is Pope. The primacy attaches to the see, not to the man.

I see, so it's an innovation from the (very) late middle ages and a symbol of temporal power, having nothing to do with the essence of the episcopacy, which now, distant from its root, has spread and taken on new symbolic meaning?

What a delicious glass house some of us are living in. Thank you kindly for your post.

I agree with both the perspectives being presented here to some degree. I am not a fan of "ostentious" displays of humility. It seems showy. Like the "humble" equivalent of pentecostal tongue speak. True humility is truly empowering and beautiful.

Speaking of beauty, why not present the Church in all her glory at all times? I was enthralled with Pope Benedict's restoration of the sacred and beautiful. What's wrong with red shoes, and who cares if it evolved from Caesar? The Christian Church evolved from and through the foundations of the Roman empire and her suburbs. You wouldn't mind the queen in her crown, a sultan in his turban, nor a UK judge in his powdered wig - no matter how silly and ridiculous it looks, or how about a US President speaking at an official function in his basketball gear - is that humble and simple?

You got it. Like a lot of other people, you're espousing not Tradition, but "traditionalism". And, like a lot of other people, you seem to hold what Father Taft calls a "Disneyland" vision of Church history. Unless you know history, you'll never liberate yourself from "theology by cliche".

A little ecumenical scholarship would help:

Ecumenical scholarship

All scholarship worthy of the name is historico-critical, objective, fair, and representatively comprehensive. But ecumenical scholarship is not content with these purely natural virtues of honesty and fairness that one should be able to expect from any true scholar. Ecumenical scholarship takes things along step further. I consider ecumenical scholarship a new and specifically Christian way of studying Christian tradition in order to reconcile and unite, rather than to confute and dominate. Its deliberate intention is to emphasize the common tradition underlying differences which, though real, may be the accidental product of history, culture, language, rather than essential differences in the doctrine of the apostolic faith. Of course to remain scholarly, this effort must be carried out realistically, without in any way glossing over real differences. But even in recognizing differences, ecumenical scholarship seeks to describe the beliefs, traditions, and usages of other confessions in ways their own objective spokespersons would recognize as reliable and fair.

So ecumenical scholarship seeks not confrontation but agreement and understanding. It strives to enter into the other’s point of view, to understand it insofar as possible with sympathy and agreement. It is a contest in reverse, a contest of love, one in which the parties seek to understand and justify not their own point of view, but that of their interlocutor. Such an effort and method, far from being baseless romanticism, is rooted in generally accepted evangelical and Catholic theological principles:

1. The theological foundation for this method is our faith that the Holy Spirit is with God’s Church, protecting the integrity of its witness, above all in the centuries of its undivided unity. Since some of the issues that divide us go right back to those centuries, one must ineluctably conclude that these differences do not affect the substance of the apostolic faith. For if they did, then contrary to Jesus’ promise (Mt 16:18), the “gates of hell” would indeed have prevailed against the Church.

2. Secondly, the Catholic Church recognizes the Eastern Churches to be the historic apostolic Christianity of the East, and Sister Churches of the Catholic Church. Consequently, no view of Christian tradition can be considered anything but partial that does not take full account of the age-old, traditional teaching of these Sister Churches. Any theology must be measured not only against the common tradition of the undivided Church, but also against the ongoing witness of the Spirit-guided apostolic christendom of the East. That does not mean that East or West has never been wrong. It does mean that neither can be ignored.

3. An authentic magisterium cannot contradict itself. Therefore, without denying the legitimate development of doctrine, in the case of apparently conflicting traditions of East and West, preferential consideration must be given to the witness of the undivided Church. This is especially true with respect to later polemics resulting from unilateral departures from or developments out of the common tradition during the period of divided christendom.

4. Those who have unilaterally modified a commonly accepted tradition of the undivided Church bear the principal responsibility for any divisions caused thereby. So it is incumbent first of all on them to seek an acceptable solution to that problem. This is especially true when those developments, albeit legitimate, maybe perceived by others as a narrowing of the tradition, or have been forged in the crucible of polemics, never a reliable pedagogue.

5. Within a single Church, any legitimate view of its own particular tradition must encompass the complete spectrum of its witnesses throughout the whole continuum of its history, and not just its most recent or currently popular expression.

6. Finally, doctrinal formulations produced in the heat of polemics must be construed narrowly, within the strict compass of the errors they were meant to confute.

In a secret ballot, you would probably get a fair share of Orthodox bishops supporting at least reducing use of the Crown. Laity would probably be outraged out of fear of change though.

I will read the full of your post later. I am reading on my phone now.

I am not sure you know me well enough to make the determination above, or if you are just assigning to me the traits of a common internet character.

I'm well familiar with that character, and his perspective is neither the one I espouse nor what I am arguing here.

A modern sort of priest once told me, with scorn, that "the Catholic Church (read rc) is like an old woman who never throws anything out.

I never saw what was wrong with that.

We joke that when Grandma finally dies, her house is so full that we'll have to set a match to it rather than engage the task of sorting through all the stuff she's accumulated. But then, when she does die, we sort through it and discover that we're all rather attached to her old junk, and find among it a storehouse of our history and identity.

I have inherited an old photograph of a man I can't identify, in a place I haven't been. It might have been thrown out on the reasonable grounds that it wasn't "essential to Granny's mission or office" and besides, who could have known that my own son would turn out looking so much like his forgotten relative in the photo?

Should grandmothers never clean up? Of course not, but I rejoice that when they do, that they err on the side of caution.

I only ask the Church to do the same.

I shudder at the thought of opening your refrigerator.

Possibly you are yourself so extreme that you cannot conceive of moderation in others. Nonetheless you are always welcome to my spend time at my fridge provided you will also spend time at my table. I trust you are not some extremist tea-totaller, dear Brother in Christ, if not a lot else.

Looks like there's a debate about clerical garb in Greece as well:

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2013/06/the-debate-on-clerical-attire-in-greece.html

Translation by Google, I suppose?

It is a fundamental rule of moral theology that a lesser good must always be subordinated to the greater good (in fact, since absolutely *nothing* God created--even Satan himself--can be considered intrinsically evil, it follows that *all* evil involves choosing a lesser good over a greater one).

Now, there was a time when it was more-or-less axiomatic for a Catholic to have the attitude, "if those Protestants are offended by something like red shoes--let them be offended!" Things have changed a lot since then, and since Vatican II we have been repeatedly exhorted--by the popes themselves--to seek unity in Christ with all who call upon His name.

So here we have a prominent Protestant commentator (who presumably knows the hearts and minds of Protestant believers better than you or I), saying "... the humble Francis of Assisi is a saint for everyone ... We see already an intimation of Saint Francis in Pope Francis." What does this mean?

Pope Francis is reaching out to them by his actions, and they are responding--can you really say this is a bad thing?

The question is not whether I would mind these things. The question is if I were a monarch (or a sultan, or a judge) and I decided to set aside these trappings because I wanted to reach out in charity to a group of people who felt alienated by them (for whatever reason) and it worked, whether you are justified in criticizing me for it.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Did you notice the part in the article where it says:This doesn't sound like disparaging to me.

Far be it from me to speak negatively of the Pope, Father Deacon. I did not criticize, but I don't see the point. Protestants often assume that any "loosening" of the visible is a step toward their vision of church - each slightly varies according to their tastes, of course. An evangelical pro-Pope Francis pastor now thinks the Pope is this--much closer to tearing down all that "Mary stuff" and "idolatry", after all, look at him - he doesn't wear all the gold and red slippers. We know this isn't the case, so why make him think it?

First of all, it's important to realize that not all Protestants are "of one mind" with people like Jack Chick. Sure, there are some, but if we were to use them as an excuse not to reach out, we would be--well, wrong.

Possibly then you accept the premise that Benedict was not, himself "the pastor, a shepherd who knows and loves his sheep and wants to lead them in love and humility"?