Pope’s Foot-Wash a Final Straw for Traditionalist Catholics

[RandySF]

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis has won over many hearts and minds with his simple style and focus on serving the world’s poorest, but he has devastated traditionalist Catholics who adored his predecessor, Benedict XVI, for restoring much of the traditional pomp to the papacy.

Francis’ decision to disregard church law and wash the feet of two girls — a Serbian Muslim and an Italian Catholic — during a Holy Thursday ritual has become something of the final straw, evidence that Francis has little or no interest in one of the key priorities of Benedict’s papacy: reviving the pre-Vatican II traditions of the Catholic Church.....

The head of the society for South America, the Rev. Christian Bouchacourt, was less than generous in his assessment of Francis.

“He cultivates a militant humility, but can prove humiliating for the church,” Bouchacourt said in a recent article, criticizing the “dilapidated” state of the clergy in Buenos Aires and the “disaster” of its seminary. “With him, we risk to see once again the Masses of Paul VI’s pontificate, a far cry from Benedict XVI’s efforts to restore to their honor the worthy liturgical ceremonies.”


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/popes-foot-wash-a-final-straw-for-traditionalist-catholics.php

[Pab Sungenis]

1. The old guard is really running scared.

I knew he reminded me of John Paul I, but I pray they don't kill Francis like they did Papa Luciani.

[niyad]

2. you had the same thought I did

[caseymoz]

60. Me, too. In fact I posted it. nt

[Berlum]

41. The Old Guard is like the Republican wing of the Vatican

Same withered soul-sick 'values' - perpetuate mysogyny, maintain the cover up of church pedophilia, focus on building massive church wealth (mammon), keep secrets of truth occultly locked in the Vatican bowels, and excommunicate or shun or condemn or persecute anyone who does not swallow the Party Line whole hog.

[UTUSN]

3. The article shows both Reactionaries and Libs wary about which way he will jump

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022590948

Francis has both Reactionaries & Liberals on clenched toes to see which way he will actually go

I must be old since whenever I mention John XXIII, NOBODY knows who he was and automatically think I’m mistakenly referring to the JP2 dude. So this article made me have a WHIFF of hope for reform from this Francis, but the proof is in the pudding. There is a warning sentence in this article: (paraphrase: ) What Liberals forget by crowing over his tradition-busting is that he is MAKING HIMSELF POPULAR with these GESTURES and that this POPULARITY will make it hard to overcome WHEN (if?!1) HE SLAMS the reforms DOWN and REASSERTS THE WINGNUT POLICIES. In American politics it's called "capital" (to spend).

So I DUSTED off the John XXIII medals, but did not take them out to POLISH them. Yet.

Meanwhile, doesn't it sound like this dude's clenched/curled toes are screaming, "Just, EWWwwww!1"?




***********QUOTE********

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-female-foot-wash-upsets-traditionalists-article-1.1303260#ixzz2P2Y3ya1u

[font size=5]Pope Francis' female foot-wash outrages traditionalists[/font]

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has won over many hearts and minds with his simple style and focus on serving the world's poorest, but [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]he has devastated traditionalist[/FONT] Catholics who adored his predecessor, Benedict XVI, for restoring much of the traditional pomp to the papacy.

Francis' decision to [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]disregard church law[/FONT] and wash the feet of two girls — a Serbian Muslim and an Italian Catholic — during a Holy Thursday ritual has become something of [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]the final straw[/FONT], evidence that Francis has little or [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]no interest in[/FONT] one of the key priorities of [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Benedict's[/FONT] papacy: [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]reviving the pre[/FONT]-Vatican II traditions of the Catholic Church. ....


A like-minded commentator in Francis' native Argentina, Marcelo Gonzalez at International Catholic Panorama, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]reacted to Francis' election with[/FONT] this phrase: [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]"The Horror.[/FONT]" Gonzalez's beef? While serving as the archbishop of Buenos Aires, the then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio's efforts to revive the old Latin Mass so dear to Benedict and traditionalists were "non-existent." ....



“Before liberals and traditionalists both have a spittle-flecked nutty, each for their own reasons, try to figure out what he is trying to do," Zuhlsdorf wrote in a conciliatory piece.

But, in characteristic form, he added: [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]"What liberals forget[/FONT] in their present crowing is that even [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]as Francis makes himself[/FONT] — and the church — [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]more popular[/FONT] by projecting (a) compassionate image, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]he will[/FONT] simultaneously [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]make it harder for them to criticize him when he reaffirms the doctrinal points they want him to overturn[/FONT]." ....

**************UNQUOTE********

[RandySF]

4. I'm not expecting radical reform.

I don't expect acceptance of women priests or and end to the "celibate" clergy, but I do hope he ushers in an era of accountability both at the vatican and at the paris level.

[UTUSN]

6. I'd be happy if he reaffirmed Vatican II

There was an article in the first week labeling JP II and Benedict as being "in schism," violating the dicta of Vatican II, that "a council overrules a pope; a pope cannot overrule a council," and that those two were dead set on overturning it.

Tweety of all people had a smart thing, said that those two came from countries/cultures (Poland, Germany) that had history of being oppressed and had it in their mental DNA to think in terms of repression, not of freedom.


As for the fear that he might be marked for JP the First's early death, well he's riding around in the open air and jumping into crowds...

[pnwmom]

13. No, the clenched toes are saying,

"this TICKLES!"

[JoeBlowToo]

103. I hope he doesn't get Athlete's Mouth...

reminds me of an old, old joke.

[dballance]

5. Isn't the Pope Infallible? So Critics are Heretics.

Last I heard the Pope was the infallible font of God. So if cardinals and bishops don't like what he's doing then they are, by definition, heretics.

[Bucky]

8. The term of art is "inerrent in questions of faith"

I don't know what the difference is between inerrent and infallible, but I thought I'd slip some gratuitous precision into the thread.

[dballance]

11. Thank You for an Alternate View

I will have to do some research and try to understand your view.

I'd like to think I'm more scientist than dogmatic. So I won't be searching for only views that agree with my current opinion. I'll do my best to bust my opinion. That actually has the effect of understanding the arguments of people who are opposed to my view and makes me a better debater for my cause.

[pnwmom]

15. But only when he declares a doctrine "ex cathedra" which has only happened twice in history. n/t

[Posteritatis]

31. Infallibility's only been invoked a handful of times in the last few centuries anyway.

The "everything the Pope says is infallible" thing was never true. Even Benedict said he had no plans of busting out that particular authority even on doctrinal issues.

[OldDem2012]

10. Burn them! nt.

[RudynJack]

12. No...

disagreeing with the Pope doesn't make one a heretic. Papal Infallibility is a very precise term, that only applies in very specific situations.

[pnwmom]

14. Only when he makes a statement "ex cathedra" -- that is, under certain specific conditions

that have only been invoked twice in Church history.

[Drahthaardogs]

16. Ridiculous comment

At least learn what ex cathedra means. Your ignorance is now exposed and you look silly.

[dballance]

17. Well, First of All...

I never made any comments about the Pope and "ex cathedra." I am not catholic and I don't speak Latin so I haven't the foggiest clue what that means.

My assertion was rather simple. As I understand it the Pope, to the billions of his followers, is infallible. So clerics and lay people who disagree with him are, by definition, heretics and at odds with God because the Pope, God's representative on earth, disagrees with them.

If I have misinterpreted this relationship between the Christian God, the Pope and his followers then I'm more than happy for you to correct my understanding.

[Drahthaardogs]

25. Okay, sit back and I will explain

Of course you made a comment about 'ex cathedra", you just do not know what it means. That is sad, and most people do not speak latin, but we know what ex-cathedra means.

Your assertion, while simple, was completely wrong. A Pope only claims "infallibility" when he speaks "ex-cathedra" which is latin for "from the chair". There are have TWO instances of a Pope speaking ex-cathedra in the 2000 year history of the Church, and both involved Catholic Dogma on the Blessed Virgin.

All the rest of the time, the Pope simply speaks as the leader of the Catholic Church, and as of Head of State of the country Vatican City (yes, Vatican City is a country not a city).

Secondly, your use of the word heretic, at least as it relates to Catholicism, is also completely wrong. While we are having a teaching moment, heresy in the modern Church (i.e. after the last inquisition) is limited to sects or groups. A disagreement is a disagreement, heresy is quite another thing, and you cannot really be throwing that term around lightly, because it is not.

If I am curt, it is because I am tired of people Catholic bashing who really have no idea what the hell they are talking about, and they are too intellectually lazy to go find out for themselves, but they spout gibberish like "Papal Infallibility" and like it is every time the Pope speaks. In other words, if you want to bash Catholics at least take half an hour to do some Wikipedia searches so you are at least a little bit informed. Please.

[dballance]

27. Thanks for the Education - Really.

I do appreciate your informing me about "ex cathedra" and my mistaken understanding about the pope's infallibility.

I did, however, already know the Vatican is a country. I've been there but didn't have to use a passport to get in. I guess just being in Italy is okay for getting in the Vatican.

Cheers!

[SunSeeker]

59. You seem to follow Jesus' teachings a lot better than that sarcastic "explainer." nt

[dballance]

68. I do try to be a student of life

I actually try to realize I am not all that smart. As much as my ego wages a war to the opposite.

[SunSeeker]

75. Keep up the good work.

[dballance]

112. Thank You

I can never appreciate a comment as wonderful as your comment.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Yes, Bob Forbid anyone should confuse gibberish with religious dogma.

cough.

[SunSeeker]

58. LOL. nt

[Drahthaardogs]

64. Yeah, cause the Catholic Church is so bad, we can blame for it shit it does not even believe.

Silliness abounds at DU.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. No, I think the stuff it actually claims is bad enough.

Not to mention the Institution's atrocious track record on everything from Giordano Bruno to Child Abuse.

[Drahthaardogs]

71. Then call it out on one like that,

or the inquisition, or the sale of indulgences, or protecting pedophile priests; but do not call it out on ex-cathedra when you have no fucking clue what it means. It diminishes the real issues when you argue bullshit ones.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. What am I arguing? I made a joke about the indistinguishability of religious dogma from gibberish.

That was the one- and only- point *I* made in the thread. So if you want to "argue" with ME, argue with THAT.

[LanternWaste]

69. Or nationalism. Or economics. Or politics. Or even philosophies..

Forbid anyone should confuse gibberish with religious dogma."

Or nationalism. Or economics. Or politics. Or even philosophies... along with a host of other make-believe imaginaries we righteously defend while yet allowing them to control our lives.

Not that you would ever invest time, money or effort into something so imaginary, something that exists nowhere but out collection of imaginaries we keep in our pocket into something so puerile as Politics.

And if indeed you did, I imagine you would rationalize a difference without a distinction very clever.

Cough, indeed.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. No, economics deals with things that are real. Money is real. Labor is real. Buying, selling,

loaning and stealing stuff are all real phenomena.

Nationalism deals with nations, which exist insofar as they are defined by lines on maps and governments and institutions made of real people doing real things.

Philosophy can, in some cases, provide some people with useful insights approaches to life.

And you know what? So can religion.

However, if religion wants or needs to compete on the playing field of evidence-based logic, on everything from predictions to explanations pertaining to actual reality it is a complete and abject failure.

[FSogol]

70. We want Barabas!

[Common Sense Party]

78. Please take some humility lessons from your wonderful Pope.

Or at least brush up on your Dale Carnegie.

That was not a very Christlike tone in that reply. A bit of patience, forbearance, kindness, even civility would do wonders. Not everyone is your enemy.

[caseymoz]

62. He's "narrowly" infallible.

The church has exact rules on when he's infallible:

Thus, when the Pope
1. intends to teach,
2. as head of the Church,
3. on matters pertaining to faith or morals
4. and the teaching is addressed to the whole Church

When he makes a pronouncement, and the Church lawyers look at the rules, and determine that he wasn't doing one or more of the above, he's human.

It's only at those magical times when the lawyers decide that all those conditions are met, that he's infallible and always speaks the truth.

In practice, nobody ever knows in real time if the Pope is being infallible or not. So, if Catholics don't want go to Hell, they just better presume he's infallible all the time. That way, he gets all the adoration of being infallible, and none of the responsibility.

[Drahthaardogs]

72. Where the hell did you come up with this bullshit?

"Catholics have to assume he is always speaking ex-cathedra". That is complete conjecture on your part and not even remotely correct.

Considering there have been TWO instances of a Pope speaking ex-cathedra in the history of the Church, I think it is a pretty fair bet most Catholics assume the Pope is NEVER speaking ex-cathedra. Do you even know any Catholics? Seriously?

[caseymoz]

81. Not conjecture, that was sarcasm.

You know, ?

But I try to be factual before I launch into it. Here's where I got the rest of that shit, or at least checked it:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=109552

I swear though, within my extremely Catholic family of origin, and after going to a Catholic School, a Catholic High School, and a Catholic University, that is exactly how I've seen Catholics act about the Pope. For instance, how many Catholics you think would know how many times Popes have spoken ex cathedra? I bet percent who know are somewhere in the single digits.

And I bet the percent that know and agree with you, are something in the fractional digits.

It's a matter of the ideals not quite meeting the reality, and the fact that they never can. Not because people are sinful or bad per se, but because-- for one thing-- they'd need a God for it to happen. Sorry, there's no God in this universe.

[patrice]

85. You can't prove your last sentence. It is, therefore, a statement of faith.

An honest rationalist says something like: Given specific definition of "God" = ____________________________ , we have no evidence supporting the existence of God, or, if more is desired, maybe something like, "I/we do not believe in 'God'", with the footnote, of course, that evidence based knowing and believing are not the same thing.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

89. I have been trying to say that in other threads

But the atheists do not want to accept the simple and obvious fact that saying "there is no God" is exactly as much a statement of belief as saying that there is a God.

[patrice]

95. The nature of what we refer to as "proof", upon which all rational empiricism, that is, what

our culture refers to as "Knowledge", is based, does not allow 100% absolute statements of "facts" like "there is no God." One would have to test every definition of "God" in every situation in every variation of relationships with all other situations in the entire multi-verse (and that doesn't even include what we DON'T know about the physical universe) before you'd be able to rationally say "there is no God."

What I'm trying to say is that the fundamental logic and philosophy of science itself, including one of it's main tools, descriptive statistics, do not allow those kinds of flat, non-qualified, statements. All statements of knowledge are relative to the specific rational processes that produce them and anything more than that is more inferential in nature and, hence, LESS probable, especially the further it is extrapolated out into more and more remote circumstances and into the un-known.

All good scientists know this.

Have you ever read some of the things that Albert Einstein said about the relationship between science and spiritual understandings?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

96. Which is my point

You cannot prove that God does not exist. You take it on faith. Thus, to say, "there is no God" is just as much a statement of religious faith as the Nicene Creed is a statement of religious faith. The atheist BELIEVES it, he or she does not know it.

As for your statements about scientific fact, I direct you to Stephen Jay Gould's essay, "Evolution as Fact and Theory", which says in part

Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

[caseymoz]

107. Except . . .

. . . the question the argument turns on is relevance. That is, if you have enough indication of a God in this universe to even qualify it as a hypothesis, and therefore have any relevant reason to even prove or disprove his existence.

And the answer is, no. There's not even that.

I know this comparison has been made but it might actually help here. This is the same reason why there no scientifically credible hypothesis that there's an Easter Bunny, and why scientists aren't tasked with disproving the "evidence" again and again.

In the universe we've discovered around us, God is not even relevant. The need to bring it up as a hypothesis is diversionary, not rational.

[Drahthaardogs]

111. Abiogenesis cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

In fact, other than clumping some amino acids, scientists can go no further. No metabolism, no reproduction, nothing indicative of life. Yet, life is all around you.

[caseymoz]

113. And how many other possible explanations are there

. . . besides a creator? Especially since God's presence is not seen in any other miraculous processes such as gestation or healing. (I'm defining God here as a single, conscious creator and supreme being who can bend and rewrite physical laws.) There's got to be some quality that indicates God besides a lack of anything else, which is not a quality, it's a lack of one in something else.

First other possibility on the list is an obvious one; we just don't know enough about the origins of life yet. Our "forensic evidence" of conditions that generated life are just too incomplete. Another explanation is likely coincident with the first: perhaps the process takes too long, so long we can't see it develop in a human lifetime? Or ten lifetimes? Or a thousand?

Have there been other things humans couldn't reproduce in the lab or observe at one time but could later on? You know there are, because that list is long. Now, did any of those turn out to be God?

At one time, humans thought electricity was a sure sign of God. There was no other explanation for except that. Actually, it turns out there were many possible explanations besides God, and it was one of those. The God question distracted people and stunted their imagination.

I'll point out that the way Christians define God should make the being as plain and undeniable as the sun in the sky. But He's not. We wouldn't need faith; we'd know He was there. There wouldn't be believers trying to gain converts just as we don't have believers in the sun.

The Old Testament depicts God exactly that way. He smites people tens of thousands at a time, he parts the Red Sea, He stops the sun "in the sky." No faith needed, people are depicted as know he's there. If there are any disputes, it's not over the existence of a God, it's which God it is, and/or which God is the strongest.

In other words, the Christian God isn't subtle. Definitely you shouldn't be looking for hope of his existence in a lack of an explanation for something tangently related.

The reason why you're trying to find God's presence within our lack of knowledge is you want to think believing in God doesn't insult rationality. You want to believe in God and feel that you're rational about it. You'll take whatever excuse you can. Unfortunately, there's none that can completely satisfy it.

[trotsky]

108. Just like you can't prove Zeus doesn't exist.

You take it on faith he doesn't. I shudder at the punishment that awaits you for rejecting Zeus.

[caseymoz]

110. You don't have to do that.

Here's a repeat of what I said in #107:

The argument turns relevance. That is, if you have enough indication of a God in this universe to even qualify it as a (scientific) hypothesis, and therefore have any relevant reason to even prove or disprove his existence.

And the answer is, no. There's not even that.

I know this comparison has been made but it might actually help here. This is the same reason why there no scientifically credible hypothesis that there's an Easter Bunny, and why scientists aren't tasked with disproving the "evidence" again and again.

In the universe we've discovered around us, God is not even relevant. The need to bring it up as a hypothesis is diversionary, not rational.

Also, you don't have to take a multiverse and disprove every definition of God. You hypothesis to hypothesis. You have to control your parameters to run any study or experiment. You narrow the definitions of God two: the Judeo-Christian God, or a less specific conscious creator and supreme being. That is, he started the universe, and he has a limitless ability to effect it now.

Multiverse is also hypothetical. Restrict your inquiry to the universe you know about.

Once you do that, what you can say is, (shortening this argument) the Judeo-Christian God is most likely just a fictional character, like Zeus. That being does not exist in this universe, because his story can't be taking place here.

The more general God may be a little likelier. But without reference to Biblical and other stories, written by people who couldn't possibly know anything, but who had a lot of motivation to lie, there's no reason to even come up with the hypothesis.

But basically, there's not enough indication of such a being by those definitions to even make it a credible hypothesis. In other words, there's no reason to disprove and no means to prove it, because the question is irrelevant.

[caseymoz]

97. I'll reiterate why it's not.

It will read digression at first, so try to stay with me.

First, there's a difference between "belief" and "belief in." Both are mental processes. The first is of judgment; the second is primarily of will.

You believe something because you've made a judgment or guess based on varying degrees of information. If you say you believe Wentzville is 105 miles south on Highway 3, that means you'd take that direction yourself to get there. It's your best judgment.

That's different from believing in, which is a corruption of that mental process. You "believe in" something when you otherwise would judge it doesn't exist or that it's false. You do it for emotional reasons. Hope. Fear.

The Judeo-Christian religions have corrupted and exploited this, and have declared that your eternal destiny-- and perhaps the destiny of your family, friends, neighbors and whole nation-- is dependent on your believing in God. That's a lot of emotional pressure to put on you.

What I reject more than God is the importance of belief, or believing in, or any of my mental processes. I'm not going to get punished or rewarded eternally for what I believe. I can be wrong about there being no creator of any sort, but I absolutely reject a concept of a creator that judges based on belief about its own existence. I can't think of why any possible supreme being would find that important, but I can think of how some people benefit from it, and that bears out in reality.

Here's what atheists have a hard time conveying to you: once you don't feel the external and internalized pressure to believe in the correct thing, you realize the dilemma of believing in God or believing in "no God," is a fallacy. If not for the religious/cultural pressure you've internalized, you would never take the concept of God seriously, if you even ever thought of it. There are plenty other possibilities for the origin of the universe than creation by a conscious entity. In fact, currently, mindless processes appear to supersede minded ones in this universe, in terms of creativity.

You also wouldn't think the question of God urgent, because you're not going Heaven or Hell depending on your correct mental process or your conclusion. You can wait for an answer. And you can live without it. You don't look back into barbaric times and copy ignorant people's beliefs because you must have the answer now.

So, you're mistaken. It's not a symmetric opposite of beliefs. Coming to the conclusion that there is no God in this universe doesn't require belief in "no God" in the way Christianity requires belief in God.

Without "believing in" anything-- my completely honest answer is, as far as we can see-- there's nothing like a Christian God in this universe. If there happens to be a creator of some sort who makes itself known later, well, it's no skin off my nose, because belief doesn't effect my eternal destiny. I can change my mind if I ever see a God. I don't think believers can allow themselves that flexibility. "Believing in" God is too important to them. In fact, that's also been borne out.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

100. Not exactly

You say "believing in .. is a corruption of that mental process. You 'believe in' something when you otherwise would judge it doesn't exist or that it's false. You do it for emotional reasons. Hope. Fear.

Obviously, you DON'T HAVE A CLUE why people believe in God. But I will accept it just for the sake of argument. Your saying "I believe in there being no God" is done just as much for emotional reasons as you claim I say I believe in God. You have no evidence saying "God does not exist", you take it solely as an act of faith. You pretend that it is not an act of faith -- you are wrong. It is every bit as much an act of faith as saying that there is a God.

"What I reject more than God is the importance of belief, or believing in, or any of my mental processes." But you believe in the non-existence of God. You do not know, you take it on faith. The definition of Hebrews 11:1, "faith is ... the conviction of things not seen" applies just as much to you as it does to me. We just believe different things.

WHY you choose to believe that God does not exist is wholly irrelevant. You do believe it, as an act of faith.

[caseymoz]

104. The way you force your straw man is rude.

I won't answer your insistence that I have faith, because I've given you as complete a description of my thinking as I can, and you've rejected it. Your reiterating the point-- that I have faith, yes I really do-- is ineffective. It didn't work before. And it's not going to work now that I've made my reasoning explicit to you.

What I've said doesn't fit the Catholic narrative of what unbelievers believe and why they're going to Hell, so you've twisted my words into something you know how to rebut. It's the same rebuttal you started with when you chimed in. It's still just a declaration, not an argument, you've added no support to it. Fact is, you don't know how to answer what I've written, so you disregard it and tell me what I really believe. It's creepy. Sort of like records of inquisitions I've read, where the defendant answers the inquisitor's question, while the inquisitor tells him what he's really saying.

I really have nothing else I to say about that. You either can reread what I've written, or continue to reject it, but I won't be drawn into your argument that I have faith in no God.

I haven't a clue about why people believe in God? I've seen it enough. I've talked to people about it enough. I've had faith myself. I've listened to homilies. I have family members who have faith. I've been to Catholic religion class. I've been to Catholic retreats, and so on.

My conclusion from all of it: propagating a fear of Hell-- even subtly-- into young minds, is very effective to creating belief in God, especially when you add some social pressure about it, hidden or overt.

Of course, you're not supposed to believe in God from fear of Hell (except at last resort, if it works). However, God is watching everything, including your mind, and love is supposed to be your motive for faith. With that pressure, you're going to convince yourself to do things for the right reasons, and you're not even going to let yourself think you're doing it to save your eternal soul. You get used to this before you're in mid-childhood, knowing nothing else. Once the habit of believing is instilled, and you don't remember why you originally thought there was a God, then you're free to choose the higher motives for your faith.

And there are many levels of denial that allow this. It would be correct to say most do it for the higher reasons, because they truthfully believe that's why they're doing it. Therefore, yes, there are other reasons besides avoiding Hell for people to believe in God. (Believe in, rather than say, just believe a creator of some kind exists.)

But everybody has a unconscious mind, and it's likely not forthcoming to the conscious one. It's true of me, too. Give less credence to what people say about themselves and watch how they behave.

[caseymoz]

93. You understand the difference between knowing and believing.

Have you ever considered the difference between "believing" and "believing in"? The first is a use of judgment, the second is a use of will. You believe fifth street is three blocks from 8th street. That means that's where you would look for it, but you've got some reason to. That's different from "believing in," having faith.

You don't believe in something if it exists. You believe in it when you have no evidence. You do it out of need. If you have to believe in something to make it exist in your mind, that means it doesn't exist outside your mind.

The people who created the God character knew that, because they made believing in God as the first requirement of morality. They made your eternal destiny (Heaven or Hell) dependent on faith. Your destiny isn't determined by a mental process.

To give the question of God due consideration, (God being defined as a single conscious entity that created the universe, such as the Christian God), all I'm intellectually obligated to do is ask where is He? If you can't point to him, and I can't perceive Him, he doesn't exist.

[Drahthaardogs]

109. You do realize that your "source" asked when the Pope issues an encyclical, right?

Why did you take that out of context? or rather, why did you omit that portion thereof, and instead purport it to be "when the Pope speaks".

I still strongly disagree with you about "most people thinking he speaks ex-cathedra". The vast majority of Catholics I know would be "cafeteria Catholics" who take the part of the religion they like and throw the rest away. In fact, one could argue that at least among VOTING CATHOLICS, this is true, since the Catholic vote went for Obama by 51%.

If 51% of the Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible, I could not imagine them voting against The Word of God and supporting pro-choice candidates -- but THEY DID!

I am sorry, the reality just does not support your statements.

[caseymoz]

114. Does it occur to you they don't weigh it at all?

That they're nominally Catholic? And do you know what that actually means for the Church. It seems to me, if they're voting against the Pope, what actually means is that they don't know anything about infallibility and don't care. Another possibility is that they're so poorly educated about their faith that they think that there's some room to defy this.

And I have heard Conservative Catholics complain about these damn liberal Catholics who should leave the faith. So, it's fairly well known, that many don't give a damn what the Pope says, dogma or not. Now your poll finds that possibly 51% of Catholics are of the sort that Conservatives wished would leave the Church.

About context, I don't understand why your objection is relevant if the source was correct about papal infallibility anyway. You prompted me to list the source, that is, you asked where did I get these ideas . . . So I answered truthfully about the source I remembered.

If the quote was incorrect, I could see where you'd have a problem, but you didn't offer a correction, so I presume that isn't the case. Perhaps I'm wrong. Do you dispute the qualifications for Papal infallibility that I listed? Do you see what I did as deceptive somehow?

I supposed, perhaps wrongly, that the requirements for the Pope declaring dogma ex cathedra would be the same whether it's spoken aloud or written in an Encyclical. Am I wrong about that?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

88. Wrong!

In practice, nobody ever knows in real time if the Pope is being infallible or not. So, if Catholics don't want go to Hell, they just better presume he's infallible all the time.

That is complete and utter bullshit. Catholics -- at least, those who know what the rules for infallibility are -- know exactly when the Pope is being infallible and when he is not. For one thing, he states specifically that he is speaking ex cathedra. BTW, the technical term for an ex cathedra pronouncement is "the extraordinary papal magisterium" ("magisterium' is a technical term for the Church's teaching authority, from the Latin magister, a teacher). Catholics are to accept such a pronouncement as infallible.

The extraordinary papal magisterium has been exercised exactly twice. The first time was in 1864, when Pius IX proclaimed the Assumption of Mary (that Mary was taken up, body and soul, into heaven). The second was in 1950, when Pius XII proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that Mary was conceived without Original Sin). These are the two and only ex cathedra pronouncements.

At other times, the Pope exercises the "ordinary papal magisterium". At those times, Catholics are to listen with respect, pray for understanding, and consider it carefully. However, the ordinary papal magisterium is NOT infallible.

[caseymoz]

92. Thank you for the correction,

on what Catholics are required to believe. I'll paraphrase from my previous post: how many Catholics actually know that? How many of the flock make adoration decisions about the Pope without knowing that? What does it matter when they're taught first to believe at all cost anyway? There's an inordinate amount of reverence the Pope receives from qualified infallibility and other claims.

You can't narrow down when anybody is infallible based on power that's totally material and social, but declared divine. Saying the Pope is infallible at any time is like saying there are limited situations where he could break the light-barrier. That applies to all the other processes of creating error-free dogma which are concocted or retroactively cited by the Church.

That's the way it looks to me, an unbeliever, an ex-Catholic, who faithfully tried to follow the church teachings for twenty-two years, and who was disillusioned when he reread the catechism saw how regressive, repressive and deceptive the faith was.

Remember, the details in the process of declaring dogma and doctrine matter only to Catholics, that is, only if you're feel required to believe in them. It doesn't matter to me, because it's the difference between bullshit and oxshit.

Therefore, I try to describe how I believe these dogmas and doctrines are actually understood, how they work in practice, and what the social consequences of them really are. I think those are far more important than the particular processes used in declaring dogma. Because again, the processes don't matter unless you believe in them.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

94. The problem is that if you say things that are demonstrably untrue

such as "Catholics do not know whether the Pope is being infallible or not", then those of us who know it is untrue will jump on that and go no further. It's as if you were to start by saying "I really don't know that I'm talking about", which is self-defeating.

Are there Catholics who don't know enough about their own religion? Certainly. I am active in the adult education and RCIA (i.e., convert instruction) programs in my parish. I have heard some of the most appalling misstatements of fact from some of them. I own a book intended to explain the Catholic faith to non-Catholics, Expressions of the Catholic Faith, by Kevin Orlin Johnson, PhD (he has the "PhD" on the cover and the title page), which at times displays quite remarkable ignorance of the Catholic faith.

But don't assume that Catholics in general are ignorant.

[caseymoz]

99. Unless you can cite a representative survey of Catholics

you don't know anything of the sort. I'm presuming you don't have such a source, or you would have cited it.

Therefore, I stick with my claim, because among other things, the Catholic Church is very poor at auditing itself.

[backscatter712]

102. THIS!

There's the official ex-cathedra pronouncements, which have only been done twice...

But also, the church can retroactively declare that because something the Pope said was especially moral and righteous (or politically convenient), it is ex-cathedra, thus infallible.

So Catholics are instructed "Obey the Pope! He might be speaking ex-cathedra, and we just don't know it yet!"

[Bucky]

7. TPM: Pope's Easter Homily on the role of women is "upsetting apple carts"

I'm sure I'll always disagree with him on some basic theological questions (well, with him and everyone else on Earth), but based on everything I read about him... I like this pope! He's like a Mentos version of Thomas Aquinas.

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/03/pope_again_surprises_with_easter_homily.php

Pope Again Surprises With Easter Homily

The full text of Pope Francis’ Easter Homily has been translated into English. And it seems he’s continuing to upset apple carts. The theme is the role of women and change…

But at this point, something completely new and unexpected happens, something which upsets their hearts and their plans, something which will upset their whole life: they {[font color="#0000b0"]The women who discovered Jesus's body missing from his tomb after the Crucifixion[/font]} see the stone removed from before the tomb, they draw near and they do not find the Lord’s body. It is an event which leaves them perplexed, hesitant, full of questions: “What happened?”, “What is the meaning of all this?” (cf. Lk 24:4). Doesn’t the same thing also happen to us when something completely new occurs in our everyday life? We stop short, we don’t understand, we don’t know what to do. Newness often makes us fearful, including the newness which God brings us, the newness which God asks of us. We are like the Apostles in the Gospel: often we would prefer to hold on to our own security, to stand in front of a tomb, to think about someone who has died, someone who ultimately lives on only as a memory, like the great historical figures from the past. We are afraid of God’s surprises; we are afraid of God’s surprises! He always surprises us!

Dear brothers and sisters, let us not be closed to the newness that God wants to bring into our lives! Are we often weary, disheartened and sad? Do we feel weighed down by our sins? Do we think that we won’t be able to cope? Let us not close our hearts, let us not lose confidence, let us never give up: there are no situations which God cannot change, there is no sin which he cannot forgive if only we open ourselves to him.

[Raine]

24. So far I like him too. I'm not Catholic so I'm not up on

how he's supposed to be but I like how he promotes caring for the environment etc.

[AngryOldDem]

39. This is how he is supposed to be.

Being Christ's vicar on earth, and not stepping in all the (man-made) dogma. That's what has some people all bent out of shape.

My skepticism about this man is going away day by day. I like him, and I hope he's around for a long, long time.

[Beartracks]

37. +1 for "Mentos version of Thomas Aquinas" n/t

==================

[OldDem2012]

9. Darn right!......

...The new Pope needs to get the RCC back to hiding all of those child-abuse cases like Bennie-boy was doing! That'll restore all of that "traditional pomp", won't it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. That may be unlikely.

But the more things change the more they stay the same.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. Benedict is no longer pope.

Humility is not a sin.

[snooper2]

20. deep

[Warpy]

21. Poor babies, and there is so little royalty left these days to idolize

and, while they have plenty of pomp in their private lives, the world's billionaires are far too secretive to satisfy their wishes for marble columns and gilt cabbage roses encrusting everything.

I suggest they stick to grand opera and movies about ancient Rome to satisfy their need for pomp and ritual.

In the meantime, Francis will be prevented from raiding the Vatican treasury and store of antiquities to give to the poor and there will likely be a series of arch conservatives after him.

[BainsBane]

22. "a militant humility"

that is supposedly humiliating to the Church. Of all the things the Church has done to humiliate itself, this isn't one of them.

[AnnieBW]

33. That's those Jesuits for you

Militant humility and impeccable scholarship.

[Apophis]

23. Anything that pisses off extreme Catholics is good in my book.

[BeyondGeography]

26. These people act as if there's nothing wrong with the Church that returning to tradition can't fix

Reminds me of our own blinder-bound conservatives.

[Crowman1979]

28. Hopefully traditionalist Catholics and Teabaggers will be thrown in the dustbin of history.

[broadcaster75201]

30. Of course they will

The only question is how many of us will they take with them as they go down.

[broadcaster75201]

29. Sell all that you have and give it to the poor. Waiting on something real, not a photo-op NT

nt

[AnnieBW]

32. The Holy Spirit is Alive and Making Mischief

Rachel interviewed the leader of the "Nuns on the Bus" about the time that Francis was elected. The Sister was cautiously optimistic, and had that quoteable quote at the end of her interview. I'm a former Catholic, but my husband still claims to be in the Church - although he's a liberal, pro-Choice, pro-woman Catholic. Comes from living with a Wiccan, I suppose. We're both cautiously optimistic about Francis. I think that Frankie is ruffling the right feathers, and I hope that he keeps it up.

[DeSwiss]

34. K&R

''Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.'' - 1st Timothy 5:17

[Beartracks]

35. I want to somehow use "spittle-flecked nutty" in daily conversation. LOL n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

36. Footwashing is a very old tradition and

one might think that "traditionalists" who really believed in their Christ-based religion would find such actions praiseworthy. After all, Christ himself performed such rites. But since those whose feet he washed were male and among his selected few - at least according to the tales we know about - that was right and fitting. http://www.podiatryinfocanada.ca/Public/Origins-of-Foot-Washing-and-Foot-Kissing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_washing

Emperor Franz Joseph and Empress Elizabeth used to hold annual symbolic foot washing ceremonies at the Zeremoniensaal in Vienna where they themselves would wash the feet of the poor. This may have been a tradition held over from "Holy Roman Emperor" days, e.g., those days when certain powerful leaders supported the cause of the Roman Catholic Church on the battlefield. http://www.hofburgorchester.at/?id=&lang=en&folder=49

But since this Pope had the effrontery to wash the feet of two females - one of whom does not even practice a Christ-based religion - that is unimaginably awful to the Old Guard of Pomp, Circumstance and Protecting Pedophiles.

As one who was once a practicing Catholic, I applaud the symbolism of this Pope's action, but remain to be convinced as to whether he really intends to change in the Church in ways that will matter to the contemporary world. I am long past caring, but there are many who still do and I respect that.

[AngryOldDem]

38. Yeah! How DARE he act like a Christian!

Just goes to prove that a lot of people are into Catholicism only for its show. It's only when you actually have to PUT the teachings of Jesus into practice that things get too hard. There's more to being a Catholic than kneeling, crossing yourself, swinging around the censer, and acting like a sanctimonious asshole.

Hypocrites.

"Militant humility..." gee, I think that description could also apply to Christ Himself.

So far this looks like the "opening of the window" that John XXIII promised. Only took damn near 60 years for it to come to pass.

[raouldukelives]

45. Ain't that the truth.

They crowd the churches on Sunday and toss it all out the window the moment they clock in Monday morning. 40 hours a week of the seven deadly sins and then its back for absolution. Rinse, lather, repeat.

[bulloney]

40. Some powers-that-be of the RCC are going to be dragged out of the 3rd century screaming and kicking.

Apparently, these people think there are different classes of society who get treated accordingly. That seems to fly in the face of the teachings of Jesus that I've heard in mass over the years.

[Andy Stanton]

42. Are we seeing a Pope who cares

for people, instead of just institutions? Dare I say it, a humanist?

[Sheldon Cooper]

43. Those numbskulls can all go straight to hell.

The head of their church deigns to wash the feet of a couple of lowly women? How DARE he?? I am NO fan of the RCC, but if this pope can begin to make even tiny incremental changes, everyone will benefit. Keep chipping away, Francis.

[JustAnotherGen]

44. Not a roman catholic

But I attended a catholic High School and University. Since I had to 'learn' the theology to pass the tests - my husband jokes (he is an italian immigrant who joined my UU church a few years ago) that "Adria! You know more about being a Catholic than 95% of most Catholics do!:"


I know there have been some contentious threads lately about this Christian Sect in particular - but I'm going there.

I like this guy. I like him lot. He should have ZERO relevance and influence on the US Political System - but in terms of a moral compass for the followers/believers in Catholocism? He's bang on. In the late 1980's and early 1990's we had to take Social Justice at the high school and collegiate level.

It's like he was the person the book was written about . . .

[starroute]

46. This is all about class and not about religion

Don't be misled by language about "traditionalists." This is all about the 1% being afraid that Francis might be a pope for the 99% and preferring a church that's all about pomp and gold crosses and silk-embroidered vestments because it reaffirms their own lifestyle.

It's telling that the late Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Society, left the Catholic Church over Vatican II and belonged to some sect that considered itself more Catholic than the Pope. The old pomp-and-circumstance, keep the mass in Latin so the hoi polloi have no clue, salvation for those who can buy their way into heaven type of religion suits the 1% just fine. And any suggestion that the Church might try to follow the actual path of Jesus seriously freaks them out.

It's also telling that the suppression of Liberation Theology was a top priority of the Reagan administration, and that they worked closely with the Vatican on the issue. This is a political matter and a class matter, and Francis knows exactly what he's doing. The only question is whether it's too little, too late.

[olegramps]

47. Even the most faithful Catholics realize that there something dreadfully wrong.

Both my wife and myself come from staunch Catholic families, however, among our children, and numerous nieces and nephews only a handful attend church. The rest are only seen on major occasions such as baptisms, marriages and funerals. I like them have adopted the same relationship with the church. The era of optimism that Pope John XXIII and his calling of the ecumenical council, Vatican II awaken, was totally crushed by the ultra-conservatives that regained control of the church. Although Pope Francis sparks some hope, I will remain skeptical that he will be able to make any significant changes given that the church is dominated by a hierarchy of medieval conservatives who were selected for their strict adherence to opposition to any liberalization of church doctrine.

[Wolf Frankula]

48. I think the RCC may have a Father Pedro for pope

What do I mean? Besides the child molesters, right wing nuts and crooks in the Catholic clergy, there have always been a number of people you would be proud to know. I speak of two I knew personally. The first was Father Pedro. He came from Cuba, and was the kindest, most humble, and nicest person you would want to meet. When he got pneumonia, a Baptist preacher and friend of his, asked his congregation to pray for Father Pedro's recovery. Some funds were missing from the church, it turned out that Father Pedro and one of his deacons were using them, to buy groceries of a woman raising her granddaughter's kids. He said, "Little children should not go hungry."

The second was Father Jon. He was a priest in the American sheep country. He was Basque, like a lot of his congregation, and was as good a herder and rider as they were. He was respected for his honesty. If Father Jon said he was going to do something, you could count on it. He was strict in his own celibacy, but said of the fleshly sins of his congregation, "Sheepherders are often very lonely. God knows this and understands."

Wolf

[wryter2000]

49. I hope Ratzinger's grinding his teeth

"Traditionalists" can stuff it.

[ZRT2209]

51. don't they understand the importance of good foot hygiene?

[Rex]

52. I am starting to like this Pope!

If he can crush the Establishment with his own humility, there must be something very good inside this Pope!

Saint Francis is the protector of animals. Could Pope Francis turn out to be the protector of the poor?

[awoke_in_2003]

53. "militant humility"...

[Bradical79]

105. Best made up term ive heard in awhile

from a frightened conservative lol

[Shadowflash]

54. Really? The last straw?

Kiddie diddling = Meh. Whatever.

Washing the feet of (Oh my god!) women = The last straw.




Someone needs their priorities rearranged.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

55. We might have a term that identifies a liberal Catholic,

a Vatican II Catholic.
Many in the church embrace those teachings.

[madrchsod]

56. the traditionalists knew he would do this

fortunately the church had more progressives who voted for him. he was very "progressive" in south america and it seems he`s not changing.

i really hope he succeeds in turning the church into a force for good for all those in need.

[JPZenger]

57. The Church leadership desperately needs some humility and openness

There is a major trust gap. While the new Pope is not a full scale reformer, at least he is making some efforts to show some humility, openness and concern about the poor.

[Javaman]

61. So this guy is pope for less than 2 weeks and they pack it in that quickly?

I'm an atheist but damn, that's awfully quick.

[caseymoz]

63. People are upset over helping the poor?

And washing a woman's feet?

It really goes to show what these Traditionalists are really about, and it's not charity.

[smirkymonkey]

65. +1000

Yeah, I thought that was a bit curious as well.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

90. Let me rephrase that

It really goes to show what these Traditionalists are really about, and it's not Christianity.

[Demeter]

67. This is where the Traditionalists get to practice what they preach

"Sit down and shut up; the Pope said so."

[MADem]

76. Damn that "militant humility~!"

I think that whole gripe is code for "Shit, is the party over?"

[patrice]

77. Yeah, who the hell needs a Mass you can understand and SHARE by participating in it?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

82. God speaks English now instead of Latin?

I liked singing Latin masses in concert halls when I was in choirs.

A good barnburning Requiem mass is fun, with the souls sizzling in hell during the Dies Irae (Day of Wrath).

[patrice]

83. I did that kind of stuff 6 days a week for 12 years of my life: Gregorian Chant, sacristan, Legion

of Mary, Catechism 5 days a week, holy days, most of the sacraments, CYO, the whole nine yards, plus 3 years of Latin in high school. It's all very fine & I do value it, but, as you well know, it isn't about what "God speaks" it's about what IN-forms the human heart and mind and words one can understand and actively commit to are more effective for that than magic words that are supposed to change the will of some all powerful perfect being, whose will wouldn't need changing in the first place if he were in fact, all powerful and perfect.

[DonCoquixote]

79. here is the TRAGEDY

Francis was justiably critcized for his anti-gay stance, and ther fact he helped conservatives in their pursuit of leftwing priests. But of course, the right wing does not get mad at that, they get mad when he actually does a hint of leftward kindness. It'slike barack Obama, but on a global scale.

How much you want to bet that when Francis dies, Johnny the Rat helped pick the John Paul II clone they want. May that bastard burn in Hell with the moneychangers.

[patrice]

84. There are different perspectives on all of that. You have picked the one that you like, probably on

less information than that which might temporize a more fully informed perspective.

Or perhaps you ARE prepared to tell me why/how, point by point, your perspective outweighs any of those who say otherwise.

[DonCoquixote]

86. Trying to philosophize?

The reason i sated my perspective was a "tragedy" is because:

you have one group of people who take the Pope to task for being too conservative; being liberal, I would tend to have a bias towards these folks, admittedly, as I want to see women priests, birth control, and less Gay bashing. This pope has firmly said he will not budge on either of those positions. This is point one, and I think even you coudl grant that.

You have one group, described in this article, that takes the pope to task for being too liberal: The piece quoted in the OP does a wonderful job explaning that..

So, we have a dilemma, does Francis run to the left, or the the right? He runs left, gains the support of the left..loses the right. He goes right, and loses the support of the left. There are many people that can argue left vs right, and in the process, bring up the old philosophical stuff like ad hominems, straw men, and other philospphy tricks used to naigate dilemmas.

But the tragedy is, Francis is not admitting that there is a dilemma in the first place. He is going on as if he can somehow wrap up things the left likes, like the ecumenical feeeling good of washing women feets, and, at the same time, hold on the churches stance against birth control, women priests, and homosexuals. The point is not that whether your argument is bad, it is that Francis does nto believe there is an argument to be made, and therefore, when the bull charges ahead, he will be clueless and flatlined.

As far as what happens afterword, keep in mind that this is the first time in 800 years that we have the chance for a pope "emeritus" to actively pick a successor. If Francis dies, and Ratzinger outlives him, he can offer input. The danger is that people know they face a dilemma, and they will want to know that they have some strategy, any plan, because no realplan to address the dilemma gets means being run flat over.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

80. Where's the pedicure spa??? Huh?? Jesus with toenail clippers??

[Sky Masterson]

87. I think the whole foot washing thing is creepy

.

[AnneD]

91. Haters are going to hate....

but although I am not Catholic.....I still have to say that I am liking this guy. It is not about pomp, it is about being a servant. I hope he can bring some Franciscan fresh air to the Vatican bank books.

I would also remind the Pope to watch his back. Godfather III may not have been as successful as the other two, but remember that Pope was much loved and was offed anyway. Yeh, I always wondered about John Paul I.

[backscatter712]

98. The hypocrisy is astounding!

Didn't the traditionalists scream in our faces about how the Pope is the direct successor in a line of Popes going back to St. Peter from the Bible? Isn't he supposed to have God's own cell-phone number? Isn't everything he says divine and infallible? Or might be, so better be safe?! Aren't his edicts to be obeyed without question?

Now they don't like what he's doing!

[Politicalboi]

101. LOL!

Molesting young boys doesn't seem to stop their support, but washing a WOMAN'S feet, well it's disgusting.
Man, catholics have their priorities in the wrong order.
May their days be numbered and hopefully lawsuits will take the whole shit down.

[unblock]

106. Are catholic feet traditionally dirty?