Skip to comments.Pope's first six months reveal a 'rich, complex' personality
Posted on 09/15/2013 5:27:06 AM PDT by NYer
.- Six months into his pontificate, Pope Francis' distinct style is beginning to take a more defined shape and is viewed by some as having a strong emphasis on the Church's maternal, merciful nature.
“I think he has a very conscious desire to show the motherly, merciful aspect of the Church which in one hand is tremendously real...and in the other hand, sometimes has been forgotten,” Latin American analyst Alejandro Bermudez reflected.
“I think that could be one of the defining characteristics of his pontificate.”
Bermudez serves as executive director for Catholic News Agency and runs several television programs for EWTN's Spanish audience. He has been a guest commentator on religious issues for the New York Times and is the Latin American correspondent for the National Catholic Register.
He is also the author of the new book “Pope Francis: Our Brother, Our Friend,” which is a collection of interviews and reflections from peers, professors and friends who were close to the pontiff before his election.
As someone who knew Pope Francis personally while he was still the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bermudez told CNA in a Sept. 12 interview that these first six months of his pontificate “have revealed how rich and complex is the personality of Pope Francis.”
“He has been able to define himself without the need of comparing him with some of his predecessors,” he said, “Francis has defined himself as Francis.”
Although much of the Pope's personality remains “in significant continuity with the man we knew as Cardinal Bergolio,” such as making personal phone calls to people he doesn't know to console, greet or encourage them, Bermudez said there have also been changes since his election to the Seat of Peter.
One of the most significant changes, according to Bermudez, has been his “energy and enthusiasm in engaging people.”
“He wasn't a man that was comfortable with crowds.”
However, after World Youth Day in Rio de Janiero earlier this summer, the pontiff is “a completely different person for good, in the sense that he is incredibly comfortable with the crowds as he was not in the past.”
Not only has Pope Francis become more accustomed to being in the spotlight that comes with being the Vicar of Christ, but he has also set an example that many from within as well as outside of the Church are edified by.
“He is a Jesuit through and through,” said Bermudez, the kind that is “one hundred percent Ignatian, meaning being faithful to the spiritual tradition of St. Ignatius of Loyola.”
The Jesuits were founded by St. Ignatius in 1534, and are the order most responsible for spreading devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was revealed to St. Margaret-Mary Alacoque in the early 1600s.
The Jesuits, said Bermudez, “see the heart as the center of the human person that has to be transformed and that has to be completely renewed.”
“The transformation of the heart makes the Christian become the heart of the Catholic Church, and when the heart of the Catholic Church is transformed, the Church becomes the heart of the world, and is capable of transforming the world.”
Bermudez explained that this transformation is not something that develops in “a rigid chronological line,” meaning that once all Catholics are transformed, then the Church will transform, and only after that will the world be transformed.
Rather, the Jesuits view this process of transformation as a simultaneous process, in which “every change in the human heart reflects in the change of the Church, which will reflect in the change of the world.”
This approach was clearly seen in both the “thought and the pastoral practice” of Cardinal Bergoglio, and is something that “we see more and more clear in Pope Francis.”
“He's someone that is totally convinced that any reform in the Church begins with the transformation of the heart.”
Bermudez stated that although six months is “an interesting landmark to make an assessment,” it is still too early to define a pontificate, and that the Church will most likely see more of Pope Francis' defining characteristics after many of the significant events that will happen in October.
Among several items on his agenda for next month, the Pope is slated to meet with the eight cardinals he appointed to advise him on governing the Church and reforming the Curia. The group will hold its first meeting Oct. 1-3.
As I recall, WYD had a similar effect on Pope Benedict.
That is an excellent photo of Pope Francis. I have not yet seen one for sale that I really like.
“the Chair of St. Peter”
This has been a much-used name for the pope's authority.
However, I am glad to have given your a chuckle for the day. NEVER hurts to laugh.
Cathedra Petri, Altar of the Chair of St. Peter [Catholic Caucus]
Aid Group Invites Prayer for Pope on Sunday (feast of the Chair of St. Peter)
Chairman of the Barque - Feast of the Chair of St. Peter
Today's the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter
Harry Potter and the Chair of Peter (Lead us not into temptation has meaning to Benedict XVI)
St. Peter's Chair at Rome
FEBRUARY 22, CHAIR OF PETER, APOSTLE
Yep, he was called “Bald” because he was very hairy. Ironic nicknames were very common in Classical times and the Middle Ages.
REALLY?! That’s hilarious! Who knew there were comedians running around as the Plague threatened Europe! I guess they all had to laugh to keep from crying then, too.
“REALLY?! Thats hilarious! Who knew there were comedians running around as the Plague threatened Europe!”
The plague wouldn’t hit Europe for another 550 years.
“I guess they all had to laugh to keep from crying then, too.”
Maybe you should read a book. If you have a government school education, it would benefit you to study rather than post about things which are apparently unfamiliar to you. Why not read the classic The Murder of Charles the Good. Charles really was, generally speaking, good so his nickname was not ironic. The translator’s name is James Bruce Ross - and James was actually a woman despite her masculine name. On March 2, 1127, while Charles was praying on his knees in church, some knights sent by a rival family murdered him. The murder shocked all of Europe.
Thank you for your advice, but I’m more into God’s Word. Everything else pales in comparison.
“Thank you for your advice, but Im more into Gods Word. Everything else pales in comparison.”
It does, that’s true. I wonder what the odds are of a person in the modern world choosing to be ignorant about something as fundamental as history but believing he will have an insight into scripture actually achieving it?
Sort of like how the Muslims think the world needs only one book.
Like "Barack the Competent."
The Bible doesn't condemn gambling so the question can be asked.
Since history books aren’t written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I would say the odds are GREAT that a person who is saved can actually read God’s Word to him/her and understand it. But I have a feeling, vlad, that you don’t understand this.
“But I have a feeling, vlad, that you dont understand this.”
Oh, I do. I also know how presumptive Protestants are about their supposed understanding scripture.
Then perhaps you can find a history book for me that explains it all. There is nothing more dependable than a man telling another man what is truth.
“There is nothing more dependable than a man telling another man what is truth.”
If someone is an anti-Catholic Protestant, then many men are more reliable about the truth than he is.
Uh-huh.. right. And I’ll get back to you..
No, I don’t believe you will. Protestant anti-Catholics can’t risk actually learning something.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” John Henry Cardinal Newman.
Sure I’ll get back to you. As soon as you can give me something that is more interesting, enlightening, and profitable than God’s Word.
“As soon as you can give me something that is more interesting, enlightening, and profitable than Gods Word.”
I never claimed there was anything like that. Why don’t you give me a logical reason for why anyone - including you - should trust your interpretation of scripture? Oh, that’s right: You can’t.
Give me a good reason why I should trust YOURS? Or better yet, your CHURCH’s?
Its the words of scripture that we trust, not human logic. The problem with human logic is that it reverts to the carnal.
>>should trust your interpretation of scripture?<<
I havent seen her interpretation of scripture. I have simply seen Catholic belief refuted by scripture.
“Or better yet, your CHURCHs?”
The Church was sent by God - as was scripture. The Church wrote scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I have no reason to believe you were sent by God, or inspired by Him.
“Its the words of scripture that we trust, not human logic.”
That clearly is not true. Protestant interpretation is a product of human logic dating back to the 16th century.
“The problem with human logic is that it reverts to the carnal.”
And that is exactly what Protestantism does.
“I havent seen her interpretation of scripture. I have simply seen Catholic belief refuted by scripture.”
No, you’ve just seen Protestant interpretations which agree with your pre-conceived Protestant beliefs.
I know...and you have every right to believe what you don’t believe. Believe me, I’ve seen enough believing to believe that you cannot believe what others want you to believe. It’s all perfectly clear, believe me..
“I know...and you have every right to believe what you dont believe.”
If that’s considered logical where you come from, then I feel very sorry for you. Maybe it’s a Protestant thing?
No, it’s something I found on the back of a Catholic flyer. I thought Vatican II had settled the issue..
That’s the funniest line I have heard all day. The illogic is still all yours, however.
So glad I could make you laugh. You need to. The wailing and gnashing are coming soon enough.
I see so little scripture proof from you for what you say I simply discount what you say.
“So glad I could make you laugh.”
So glad I could school you.
“You need to.”
And you needed to be schooled.
“The wailing and gnashing are coming soon enough.”
Yep. So many Protestant enemies of Christ need to be reconciled with Him and His Church yet - and quite a few Catholic ones too.
“I see so little scripture proof from you for what you say I simply discount what you say.”
I post the proof. You just dismiss it. That’s your way.
No, I said scripture proof. Im not interested in some pagan infested hearsay or mans made up doctrines.
“No, I said scripture proof.”
And I have done that in threads with you.
“Im not interested in some pagan infested hearsay or mans made up doctrines.”
Then why are you a Protestant? That’s all Protestantism is - man’s made up doctrines from the 16th century.
Amazing. How misinformation just keeps going. I like reading your words. Thanks.
Not exactly...for "Europe" can include portions of the Eastern Mediterranean.
Though a PDF (thus clumsy to access) this map; http://www.justiniansflea.com/files/Jfleamap4.pdf shows plague to have reached Rome and beyond in the mid to latter portions of the 6th century.
Now there does appear (for lack of much historical note) to have been a pause after about 750 AD or so, before the much more extensively recorded outbreaks of 1348 and onwards, so that may leave you to be about half-right, in that there was apparently something of a pause between the first wave (Justinian's) and second wave of the worst outbreaks, thus there not being outbreak of plague during the time period of Bald's gift of a chair to a Latin Church bishop.
Half right...is still about half wrong, in regards to how the statement "The plague wouldnt hit Europe for another 550 years. was used in context.
Q & A + Errata, William Rosen, author of Justinian's Flea
“Not exactly...for “Europe” can include portions of the Eastern Mediterranean.”
“can” in this case does not mean it did. Charles the Bald was in France. The Eastern Med is at the very end of Europe in the opposite direction.
My point still stands.
I had to leave it like it was...for the phrase needing correcting was "The plague wouldnt hit Europe for another 550 years."
It was predictable that you would reach for a re-drawing of the map to include only those parts of "Europe" which suited you. Which is why I included a link to a map in the first place.
Justinian's plague hit Southern Europe also, along with making it as far as the British Isles shortly later. The map I provided link to a pdf file for, shows reported incidences in France, along with Italy.
That is why I previously included that link. As far as I know, it is the only visual representation of the geographical extent which plague reached, related to or beginning near to the time of Justinian. If that map had been exportable, and able to be brought here and displayed, I would have done so for greater clarity's sake. As it is, I'm under the impression the map itself, as to the parameters or extent of reach of that time's successive waves of "plague", was derived from what reports of known plague outbreaks in Europe are included in the man's book (Justinian's Flea) which includes plague stretching into and significantly effecting Italy, France, and the British Isles.
Yet you say your point "still stands" forcing me to further spell things out as to how both technically and otherwise factually it does not.
So no, your "point" only semi-stands at best (dependent upon some sort of "plague" inter-tidal period) as it did when you first made it. In fact...it rather fails, standing lonely, only between the Justinian outbreaks (which went on for about 200 years) and the later, more well documented re-occurrences in the 14th century, which violates the operative but unstated "until" of the explicitly stated "550 years later".
It's like standing on the beach, and for reason one is momentarily dry, saying "the wave has not hit yet" when in fact previous waves have indeed washed over that very standing place which you seem to be suggested had remained dry until only some later time (14th century)...while claiming your "point" still stands (and is dry). Woopsie, but don't look now (in other words please do) or you may see that your "point" just got wet. HahaHA... how's that medicine taste? is it "good"?
More from Justinian's Flea, where in relation to that which was written about (and better documented) concerning outbreaks in the Eastern Med., and what is now Turkey, with the plague better documented for those areas, than the more primitive, less civilized areas of what is now France;
More from the (in my previous reply linked to) Q & A which ventures into possible reasons for the Justinian plague outbreaks not being well documented in comparison to those beginning in the 14th century;
The whole era is actually pretty vague to contemporary people, even educated ones. In addition to the general level of obscurity that the period enjoys, it was also a time that marked a sort of historical firebreak; so much of what we know about the Black Death has survived to the present day, I think, because it was, perversely, less disruptive than the Plague of Justinian or, more accurately, it had a lot more continuity with the period that succeeded it.
These plagues both of them didnt just happen once; each recurred for more than two hundred years and two hundred years after the Black Death, the nations of Europe were hip deep into the Renaissance, while two hundred years after the Justinianic Plague, the nations of Europe were barely being born.
Can you see now? Plague, from the same pest, entered Europe, even that portion which you wished to focus narrowly upon, long before you said that it [first, in a sense] did, rendering the statement which I corrected for, more than a bit wobbly.
Can does not mean did? On technical aspect alone, being as "Europe" did include consideration for what is now Turkey, and once commonly did in description, up until WW I or so (or there would have not been the famously repeated misquote; "Turkey is the sick man of Europe") the "can include" was as to the word Europe, itself. That was the word used. So on that point alone, technicality as it is, your point fails. That the plague DID reach France, too, the very portion which you just mentioned as the location which mattered, makes it doubly certain that the statement which you are still trying to defend --- is beset with problems of "standing" as factual. So no, your point does not stand, but teeters at best.
Which results in your statement being half-wrong at best, for reason of having not been as well substantiated by actual history as you have now [again] attempted to portray to be so, by trying to project a limited a mental "map" of Europe", which still provides no remedy or "standing", save for some 'dry' centuries between waves...
I find a great much which yourself and others so certain about, upon closer examination to be not quite as Romanist are wont to portray facts and history to be, with the one- sided, lopsided lecturing beset with special pleadings and conditional consideration extended favorably to Romanist arguments alone -- but never the same scales used for "weighing" claims of Rome and the Romanist fanboys themselves, be afforded to all else, particularly when there is the slightest of challenge.
So here -- you have been proven to be more than a bit wrong (when wider history is more honestly assessed) but only correct is some narrow sense (in between "tides") as it were, with my own self willing to point out that partially right portion too -- even as I do see NOTHING of the sort EVER coming from YOU, even when it is spelled out in painstaking detail.
I would ask for some sort of retraction on your part, but I'm not a dentist, nor am in near enough range to put a knee to the chest to get leverage to pull that partial "rotten tooth" --- which leaves you possibly needing to pull it out on your own.
I can say that I have caught wiff of it's existence and foul odor as it were, for some years now, for I smell it each time the mouth opens. I do wish you could have it in some way remedied...
I doubt the string tied to a doorknob trick actually works very well, on all but the loosest of teeth, but the idea has it's charms. Or-- you could turn to the pliers technique. Either way, I'm afraid I cannot send any additional anesthesia to ease possible discomfort.
If it were actually just a "tooth" being spoken of -- one could suggest a course of anti-biotic to reduce swelling, before attempting extraction. The "medicine" presently being served right back to the source from which it usually flows, isn't exactly anti-inflammatory. But if what is sought is just more painful swelling of the gums, then keep it up. Keep right on doing and being as you have been on this forum for years now...
You post quite a long post - none of which changes the point. The plague wouldn’t hit Europe until 550 years later.
By the way, Gregory of Tours died in 594. That was 230 years before Charles the Bald was born and almost 800 years before the plague hit. Thanks for helping to prove my point.
You’re not good at making your own case, but you’re great at making mine.
What I said still stands.
That last reply would not have been at all necessary if you had taken a look at the links provided in my initial comment. Plague DID hit Europe previous to the time period denoted by the "550 years later". Could you not see that?
As far as Gregory of Tours dying long before the "Bald" guy, that does not in the least prove your point, but instead refutes it (in a narrow, almost technical sense) -- in that Gregory was a witness for plague reaching Europe (and France in particular) previous to the 14th century.
So stand on the beach at low tide near water's edge all you wish. But to pretend the waters (of plague) are at that level and had always been so...(until the 14th century) is to be willfully fooling yourself. Is it so that you will not need be ever corrected yourself in the slightest, as you go about from thread to thread castigating by any means possible persons you may see as critics of Romanism?
I gave you an inter-tidal, temporarily "dry" place to stand. Why not take it? There was no significant plague outbreak during that period --- which happens to be the period which was mentioned in passing conversation. Yet there WAS plague before that time, which was the point I was making.
Justinian's plague hit France too. Is that plain enough?
“Justinian’s plague hit France too. Is that plain enough?”
No. Justinian’s plague (in the 540’s) was 300 hundred years BEFORE Charles the Bald. Thus, no one could be worried about it - which was the original point made by the other poster. Go back and look at the thread.
You are really not helping yourself here. You keep supporting my point by pointing out there was no plague in Europe for three hundred years before Charles and more than 500 years after him. One of things you have to be able to do when discussing history is be able to count. Three hundred years before and 550 years after clearly means no plague anytime soon from the time of Charles the Bald. It’s just that simple.
Which sort of habitual methodology of debate and discourse is the actual underlying "point" I was attempting to draw attention to, to challenge even pride itself, doing so using reasoning & methodology similar to that which I see yourself very much using.
Yet I was more generous, acknowledging the time period between the larger 200+ year spans of recurring plague outbreak as a dry spell --- which would leave your initial statement part-right, but still part wrong, for plague had indeed entered Europe long before the "550 years later" which you initially pointed towards.
“Yet I was more generous, acknowledging the time period between the larger 200+ year spans of recurring plague outbreak as a dry spell -— which would leave your initial statement part-right, but still part wrong, for plague had indeed entered Europe long before the “550 years later” which you initially pointed towards.”
And still that doesn’t effect my point in the least. The fact that it happened 200 years before Charles the Bald meant they were not worried about it. My point still stands. There was no plague in Europe. There wouldn’t be for 550 years yet.
Actually, it still does.(I can do this all day long, same as you)
Here, let me correct your last statements. Correction will be in bold.
There was no significant outbreak of plague in Europe during that time. There wouldnt be again for 550 years yet.
Otherwise, if we were to blandly look at that pair of statements in original unmodified form;
would leave it suggestive that there was no plague in Europe previously, with that suggestion reinforced by the "for 550 years YET".
How can there be a [not] yet, when there was obviously a "before"?
Go ahead, go to the beach, enjoy yourself (if you can). But one hint --- do not throw bread crumbs or pieces, "upwind" to the seagulls.
“How can there be a [not] yet, when there was obviously a “before”?”
Simple - the before was in a different era and under a different culture and had no bearing whatsoever on the century in question. The after was in a different era and culture from the before and had no relation either to the before or the century in question.
So, going back to the very original point made: “Who knew there were comedians running around as the Plague threatened Europe!” There was no threat of plague. No one there had seen the plague in well over 200 years. No one there would see it again for 550 years yet. My point still stands.