Posted on 08/07/2013 2:13:17 PM PDT by haffast
(RNS) For more than three decades, the Vatican of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI operated on a version of the conservative maxim, “No enemies to the right.”
While left-wing theologians were silenced and liberal-to-moderate bishops were shunted aside in favor of hard-liners, liturgical traditionalists and cultural conservatives were diligently courted and given direct access to the apostolic palace.
But in a few short months, Pope Francis has upended that dynamic, alienating many on the Catholic right by refusing to play favorites and ignoring their preferred agenda items even as he stressed the kind of social justice issues that are near and dear to progressives.
“I’ve personally found many aspects of this papacy to be annoying, and struggled against that feeling from the beginning. I’m hardly alone in this,” Jeffrey Tucker, editor of the New Liturgical Movement blog, wrote as Francis basked in the glow of media coverage of his recent trip to Brazil.
“Every day and in every way we are being told how glorious it is that the bad old days are gone and the new good days are here,” he lamented.
Tucker and other traditionalists who are dedicated to high church rituals have been especially miffed at Francis’ simple — they might say simplistic — style since the moment the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was introduced to the world as the new pope back in March.
“How can I love a Pope who doesn’t even want to be Pope?” Katrina Fernandez, a popular conservative blogger, wrote in a column about her disillusionment.
Since Francis’ election, the anxiety on the right has only mounted as he has continued to model a radically different pontificate — preaching about the evils of the globalized economy while repeatedly reminding his followers to care for the poor and marginalized.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at religionnews.com ...
I think some of the things the Pope has said that appear to be promoting “social justice” has raised the hackles on the backs of some necks. That term is often used to promote communist/socialist ideas, so it makes many people very uncomfortable.
When was a Catholic ever to the right?
When posing on FR or out of step with the Bishop of Rome and the USCCB.
I've been hasty once or twice. ;)
Apostasy and tribulation will grow as in birth pangs until Jesus returns. This world is in a state of decay and is dying.
Was Mary crucified for you?
It certainly is easier to point fingers at the traditionalists. If the focus remains on how they brought this on themselves, then no one will have to pay attention to the train wreck that has been and continues to be Vatican II.
One of the basic premises of relationship dynamics is that the person who is upset about something “owns” the problem. If “the Catholic right,” as the headline puts it, are “unsettled and divided,” then they own the problem.
Those who are not upset, unsettled, or divided - which presumably includes Pope Francis - simply do not have this problem at all.
Actually, the headline states that the Pope is unsettling and dividing the Catholic Right. Hence, he is the cause (according to the headline you are referring to) and the unsettled Catholic Right is the effect.
Now if you want to argue whether they have a right to take issue with him, that’s another story. But again, most here, for the most part, think the Catholic Right (aka the trads) are the ones with the problem...so I know how that discussion will end up.
Personally, I’m tired of the focus on this Pope. I think this division has been going on since Vatican II and THAT is the real problem.
Yes, but that's just a way of saying things. It's like saying, "My husband made me angry." No, he didn't. He said or did something, and I became angry. He is not responsible for my anger, and the Pope is not responsible for anyone's unsettledness or division.
I think this division has been going on since Vatican II and THAT is the real problem.
I blame the Civil War. We should have been allowed to secede peaceably.
Really? If my husband cheats and I become angry, he is not responsible for my anger? He is completely blameless? C.mon now.
Well was not the NO simply the Church going back to its roots to the early Church before 1,500 years ago?
Uh..............NO.
That's right. He's responsible for his adultery and any additional harms, but he's not responsible for your emotions.
He is completely blameless?
Nope, he's committed a serious sin. However, that doesn't give him responsibility for your emotions. Other people cannot "make you" experience an emotion. The emotional state exists, and the person experiencing it has to own it and address it, or that person is stuck.
This is not, of course, everyone's view of life, but to me, it has obvious survival benefits.
Not hardly.
All the tenets, rubrics and liturgy were to be retained and exercised in perpetuity until the Second Coming.
The new religion hodge-podged together and gradually eased out of the Vatican II heresy was to be closely allied to Protestantism with the goal of something more than coexistence with ALL regions of the world.
But no one is saying the Pope is directly responsible for the “emotions”. They are talking about the other things he has done/not done that caused the emotions. I’m finding it hard to believe that posters don’t get this. They would much rather blame the trads for it all.
Silly trads, getting all unsettled and stuff.
I don't blame anyone for anything, because I don't have a problem.
Uh..............NO.
Prophetia Sancti Malachiae Archiepiscopi, de Summis Pontificibus Saint Malachy, a 12th‑century Archbishop
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
of Armagh, Ireland seems to think so.
I do think that the NO is simply what the mass was like during the first few centuries of the Church, when the Church worshiped in the home churches and catacombs. Going back to the roots of the faith.
What you described came latter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.