Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

Pope Francis defended himself against critics in a lengthy interview with the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire.


Oh brother. Here we go again…:rolleyes:

I don’t think the concern of the cardinals is that they cannot appreciate leeway in pastoral discernment, but that they see a conflict in papal teaching (some of which does draw clear lines) past and present, and feel they don’t have a clear way of reconciling them, and so are asking the Pope to clarify, at least, how they can fit together without contradiction.

I will continue to pray that the Holy Spirit guide our Pope, his Cardinals, and all Bishops.

I pray for the Holy Father daily. He is most sincere, and obviously wishes only the best for people.

But 'crediting Martin Luther"?

The Pope credited Martin Luther with rejecting “an image of the Church as an organization that can go ahead ignoring the grace of the Lord, or considering it as a possession to be taken for granted.”

Perhaps this is a bad translation of the interview (and I am more than willing to accept that), but that definitely is not going to come across well, and not just to those with a respect for the traditionalist point of view.

There are plenty, plenty, PLENTY of Catholic saints who could, and did, point out where not the Church in the abstract, but individuals within, were going a little ‘off’, from St. Paul through St. Catherine through St. Teresa to St. Thomas Aquinas for example. Why not use them? If the Pope is addressing mainly Catholics here, then they all should be familiar with them. If the Pope is addressing non-Catholics as well, the use not just of a saintly person who happens to be non-Catholic, or even a Catholic who is not a saint, such as Billy Graham in the first case, or Bishop Fulton Sheen in the second, would have been well known as well.

To use the name of Martin Luther, who is regarded as the key to the whole destruction of a semi-unified Christendom (because we still need to reconcile with the Orthodox, and come to think of it, using an Orthodox saint could have worked better, as well), especially coming so soon after the event of October which still sits uneasily even on the most ‘ecumenical’ of stomachs, as an example of how to acknowledge something ‘off’ in the Church. . .well, the Holy Father must know what he is saying but it is very unclear and upsetting to me. I will continue to pray for enlightenment.

History and scholars have determined that Martin Luther wanted reform, and NEVER intended to start a whole new church or destroy the one he was a part of.

Painting the man as evil sure discourages many fine people from returning to the faith.
But, I realize this is a popular opinion. :blush:

Martin Luther started things off in 1517 and died when? 1546? Nearly 30 years later? What he intended ‘at the start’ didn’t stay ‘static’.

I am not ‘painting the man as evil’. But ‘historians and scholars’ have also determined that he is indeed (along with Calvin) the 'key to the ‘reformation’. That is what I said. The reformation DID destroy the unity of the semi-unified (you’ll note that I referenced the Orthodox) Christian world.

If you can show how I specifically painted Martin Luther as evil, I’d like to see it.

I’m not aware of anyone who paints Luther as “pure” evil. And I think he can be defended on a number of grounds while still acknowledging him as a heretic. I do want to point out that only Some historians and scholars think he didn’t want to start a new religion. Others think he did.

In my own, personal opinion, I think he did want to start a new religion, though not initially. In 1517 I think he wanted to stick within the Church, but by 1521 I think he had had enough and really wanted to teach new doctrines and create new churches with new leaders and a different understanding of how the hierarchy works and other essential parts of the faith, and I think he made that clear in his Letter to the German Princes. At this link, I’ve documented some quotes from that letter that I think demonstrate that he really wanted to start a new religion. Let me know what you think, if you decide to click through and read it.

About proselytism as opposed to evangelizing. I’ve been confused about the two.



It should also be noted that Martin Luther suffered from severe anxiety and scruples (today would almost certainly be diagnosed with OCD.) Martin Luther was most likely not seeking change and reform due to maliciousness or evil, but, rather out of fear and anxiety of “not making it to heaven” (and it was even harder “to make it” in that time period. :wink: )

  1. We, as Catholics, are commemorating jointly with the Lutherans the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Joint services of common prayer and other commemorations will be occurring in dioceses throughout the world over the course of the next years.

  2. As a result of the dialogue, now spanning five decades, and with the benefit of contemporary scholarship in a variety of fields, the Church’s assessment of Martin Luther and, just importantly, the guilt of those on the Catholic side is not only better understood, there is new assessment which guides the action of the Holy See in the determinations it authoritatively makes.

  3. We rejoice for the events at both San Gregorio at the beginning of October and Lund and Marmo at the end of October…just as we rejoice at the proclamations made concerning Martin Luther by Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict.

When there is a question of the intent of a sinner; the CCC states we, including priests, are not supposed to assume that malice is present in the sin (here, we’re talking about adultery).

The present treatment of un-nullified civil remarriages hinges on a tribunal’s action, or lack there-of if a case was never even brought before a tribunal (some divorced say, “Why bother, it won’t work”). Cardinal Burke should see that the human condition in the midst of the current culture can(as in, it’s possible) transcend a tribunal.

Thanks Father! I was hoping you’d stop by. :slight_smile:

A note to the moderators: Didn’t we just lock a thread with this exact same topic? :hmmm:

This is a must read for anyone who’d like to know more about Martin Luther amazon.com/Facts-About-Luther-Patrick-OHare/dp/0895553228

Afternoon, Father!

“We rejoice”? Are you quoting the above three talking points from a source?

All that aside, and with all the rapprochement etc., do you not feel that there are Catholic or even non-Catholic figures who could embody the Pope’s message as well as a rather "loaded’ figure? That is all I was saying.

Further, whether we sling guilt here, there, or everywhere (sorry Fab Four), the fact remains that Martin Luther did indeed play a major role in the fracturing of Christendom, and not entirely without his full cooperation. I am not calling him evil, but he is a very complicated figure. Since perception is very ‘big’ nowadays and we take such great pains not to ‘look’ as though we are big bad meanies even if we’re being gentle as doves, I just note my own ‘perception’. People may agree or disagree, but I’ll stand by solid plain and hopefully unloaded statements. Martin Luther was a key player in an event that fractured the Christian World. Perhaps he was more sinned against than sinning, but that doesn’t change his stature --and his perceived stature ESPECIALLY among non-Catholic Christians.

Nope, completely different topic. That was about how those who seek the Tridentine Mass are “rigid”. This is about those who are “rigid” in the following the law and tradition.

Different subject, but does likely add context into what he means by rigidity. That assumes it is the same word he used as I cannot find a direct quote using the phrase.

Even if he didn’t, the quotes seem to imply a belief by the Holy Father that anyone who hold to tradition and law as more than a guiding principal does not love if they let law rule over mercy. Not sure if I’m misreading him, but it seems to be what he is saying with reference to those who question the pastoral provisions of the latest encyclical.

Okay, yeah that’s different.

Sorry I got confused.

Here’s my take on the issue. If he changes an actual dogma then we can chat. :wink: Otherwise I presume the Holy Spirit is guiding him in the right direction to lead us in our very complex and difficult times.

It’s like a Catholic marriage: We are to presume it’s validity unless it be proven otherwise. :thumbsup:

Yes, at your urging, the thread was closed. Don’t start that here. If some posts upset you, follow the rules and address it by a PM.

I did nothing wrong. The thread itself was going against forum rules by disrespecting the clergy and our Holy Father, the moderator agreed and the thread was locked. I will continue to flag disrespectful posts/threads in the future.

It turns out this thread is discussing a separate article (which I didn’t realize at first as the thread titles were almost identical.) So long as it doesn’t disrespect clergy or our Pope it shouldn’t get locked. :thumbsup:

On Martin Luther day, our church stated Rome, recognized that some of his complaints were valid.
We are trying to unite w our Luther brethren. Recall,
Luther was a Catholic monk who tried to work w Rome on his complaints.
in Christ’s love

Off topic, but here in Canada, 99% (rounding) of annulment requests are approved. Given this fact, why would I presume that my or anyone else’s Catholic marriage is valid?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.