In his annual Christmas address, Pope Francis advised the Vatican civil service not to allow “rigidity” to get in the way of “epochal change.”
In his Dec. 21 address to the Curia, the Argentinian pontiff discussed the inevitability and necessity of change in the Church, and warned against “rigidity.”
In the context of “the temptation to fall back on the past,” Pope Francis said:
“All of this has particular importance for our time, because what we are experiencing is not simply an epoch of changes, but an epochal change. We find ourselves living at a time when change is no longer linear, but epochal. It entails decisions that rapidly transform our ways of living, of relating to one another, of communicating and thinking, of how different generations relate to one another and how we understand and experience faith and science. Often we approach change as if it were a matter of simply putting on new clothes, but remaining exactly as we were before. (…)
Brothers and sisters, Christendom no longer exists! Today we are no longer the only ones who create culture, nor are we in the forefront or those most listened to. We need a change in our pastoral mindset, which does not mean moving towards a relativistic pastoral care. (…)
Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some kind of imbalance. Rigidity and imbalance feed one another in a vicious circle. And today this temptation to rigidity has become very real.”
The pontiff mentioned “change” in his address over 30 times.
The context of the pontiff’s latest reference to change was the ongoing reforms he wishes to make to the Curia.
Citing Paul VI in the footnotes to his speech, the pontiff wrote, “Saint Paul VI, some 50 years ago, when presenting the new Roman Missal to the faithful, recalled the correspondence between the law of prayer (lex orandi) and the law of faith (lex credendi), and described the Missal as “a demonstration of fidelity and vitality.”
Francis continued, “(Paul VI) concluded by saying: ‘So let us not speak of a ‘new Mass,’ but rather of ‘a new age in the life of the Church’ (General Audience, 19 November 1969).”
“Analogously, we might also say in this case: not a new Roman Curia, but rather a new age.”
Full story at LifeSiteNews.
Francis could be a little less rigid himself and answer the Dubia cardinals, Vigano, and Zen. Now that would be epochal change.
Oh how sly you are Hymie! Could not have expressed the irony better. Is the Pope’s grief over the obvious fact that other voices have ushered in the “new age” and that to these heralds, the Church is on the” wrong side of history”? (to quote Peter Buttigieg who, marrying a man, is apparently on the correct side of history) I seem to recall St. Paul telling young Timothy that all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution, that is, if they are not ashamed of the gospel and live to tell others about Jesus Christ, II Tim. 1:8 and 3:12. Next time Francis talks about “epochal change,” we must ask him specifically what he means by it and how he wants the Church to respond to it.
You might well but ask but be prepared for another helping of “I shall not say one more word”. This pontificate is a source of suffering for many of us as this pope seems to enjoy persecuting Catholics.
Kristin and the rest are again wrong, typically. The only persecution going on here is the one being put on Pope Francis and the bishops of the Church from the people who refuse to be led by the spiritual shepherds of the Church, the same ones who believe they know more than those appointed by God Himself to lead His Church.
@ jon The “spiritual shepherds of the church – those appointed by God” have betrayed us, shamed us, and now scorned us. The blame lies solely at the feet of the bishops and priests whose wrongdoings have left us reeling. Sadly, the spiritual shepherds have lost the moral authority and respect they once had, and all of it self-inflicted. All of it.
Thank you Silent Observer, for explaining it to jon, who is most in need of clarity.
Sorry to say folks, but, “Silent Observer’s”, Dan’s, and Kristin’s comments are not shared by the VAST majority of Catholics in the US and abroad. I suspect that their opinion is typical of those whose daily diet for Catholic news is from the Church Militant, The Wanderer, extreme left-wing or even right-wing anti-Catholic clergy and even anti-Francis blogs out there. I mean, just notice the words: “reeling,” “scorned us,” “shamed us,” “betrayed us,” “lost their moral authority.” The majority of Catholics might even ask folks like Kristin and “Silent Observer”: what planet do you live on? If I may, it’s like someone who has become a strident anti-Trumpist because his daily diet for news is from CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc.
I just watched a Christmas musical at the Vatican that had dancers dancing to the Ave Maria (as if it should be all about them), and a prayer to mother earth being said (pure paganism) with most all in the audience crossing their arms to the prayer.
The poor world, suffering in sin, badly needs Christ! It takes good discipline and obedience, to follow Christ! Just like it takes good discipline and obedience, to be a good sports team member!
I prefer simple declarative sentences. Easier to follow than the convoluted spaghetti of some prose. I believe the Pope is correct that evolutionary change in some things has been with the Church since the start.
This is the same Argentinian Pope that asked the Italian soccer team trainer that players should not cross themselves when entering the playing field.
I’m leary when words like “rigid” are used without definition or examples. Similarly, when one speaks of change in general terms only, without specific examples, what is meant? I am for changes like a restoration of family life, an end to violence, more Catholics going to Mass and Confession as well as many other changes. And, am I “rigid” for being unwilling to change regarding the Real Presence in the Eucharist, marriage being one man and one woman and (only) three Divine Persons in the Trinity? What are the changes about which we’re being told are coming?
Christendom is what United Europe, far more than the EU ever will. And yet this Pope, who I do not believe understands Church history like his predecessor, seems almost giddy to say it no longer exists. He should be extolling why it was such a powerful force for good.
uh oh
@ jon – I might point out that this is “California Catholic Daily”, an unlikely contender for either far-right or far-left print propaganda. Further, Catholics long to hear the Good News, not a drumbeat of joyless misery that has been blasted over the Vatican loudspeaker for years now. This baleful rhetoric has infected our bishops and priests, and now faithful Catholics take the blame for just being too-too-too much. We have put up with the years of clergy abuse and the hideous cover-ups and now have to get scolded for our rigidity as we sit in the pews while dropping our envelopes in the basket. Also, “jon”, only a member of the clergy would be so defensive about genuine criticism leveled against church leadership, which brings to mind an old quote from Shakespeare, “the man doth protesteth too much, methinks”.
Interesting. “Jon,” are you a member of the clergy? And, if you are, do you not understand the deep disappointment and frustration, even anger, of many, if not most, of the lay faithful? The deception by some clergy was devastating. And, tragically, it continues on the part of many in leadership (no Vatican budget published since 2015, keeping the McCarrick report secret, not answering questions asked by Cardinals, not addressing issues raised by a prominent archbishop, etc.). As Archbishop Vigneron, new USCCB vice-president, recently said, “I think the polarization in the Church reflects a polarization in society today. … as a pastor, my job is to call people out of holding on to those things that create the polarization and say: ‘Come to Christ. Come to His Church. Come to His doctrine.’ And that’s about conversion. So I think reconciliation that we need can only come through conversion.”
I just read the latest news headlines from the Vatican! “Jon named “Doctor of the Church!” He just obeyed the Pope’s latest orders, and went straight to the Pope’s new “Pachamama Chapel,” to bow to the new naked, pregnant Fertility Goddess, Pachamama, and prepare the altar for her new Catholic Papal liturgical rites! Wow! After the new liturgical rites, he will give a distinguished lecture on “Papal Obedience” in St. Peter’s Square, broadcasted worldwide, to his millions of admiring students! You better listen up– don’t miss one word! Wow!
I say, “anonymous clergyman’s” and even “Silent Observer’s” comments are typical of how an average member of the clergy might react to the bad press the Church gets from the extreme left-wing and right-wing blogs and mainstream news-sources: contrition, apologetic, remorseful. And folks, that is only appropriate for their position, one reckons. But for folks like me, who deeply love the Church and can see right through the tripe and anti-Catholicism, and even the anti-God mood that the media and the extremist blogs are foisting upon people who consume their attitude, we can see how it has negatively affected people and how it expresses itself in this unjust persecution of the Holy Father, of the clergy, and of bishops which has become sadly routine in blogs like this. The truth is that the VAST majority of Catholics all over the world LOVE their local priests, are indeed being fed by the Gospel (contrary to Silent Observer’s observations), and revere their local bishops, and yes, including the Pope. Babies are being baptized, sinners absolved, the Sacrifice of Christ offered, young people confirmed, and the sick anointed DAILY! And worldwide! There are Christians being persecuted and dying for the faith in places like Africa, thereby giving witness to the Gospel. And yet in this one pathetic corner we have people like the anonymous commenters here wallowing and lamenting over the latest “outrage” from Francis, from the “corrupt bishops”, and from the Vatican–or the latest “re-hashing” and re-hyping of old news like the #MeToo movement (Catholic edition) from last year that the media and the extremist blogs are just oh-so-eager to peddle to its consumers. Carry on folks; carry on.
jon’s favorite quote throughout his posts is obviously the “VAST Majority of Catholics” that he represents. Well, the vast majority of faithful Catholics are represented here, in this small venue, and are neither ill-informed nor under-educated. We also do not like to be patronized or condescended to. We are here to express our opinions on articles that strike a nerve with us, and this article certainly does that. Disagreeing with you does not make us wrong.
Sorry, but to say as Silent Observer just did, that the vast majority of Catholics are represented here, in this here blog, is laughable. LAUGHABLE!
Silent Observer said “faithful Catholics,” Jon. An important qualifier.
“Jon,” I agree with much of what you said. Only a relatively small percentage of clergy have betrayed their sacred calling. That said, there really are corrupt bishops and other clergy as well. I wish it were otherwise, but, I’d be in denial if I claimed we don’t have a problem with corrupt clergy. That’s why I’m sympathetic to the outrage of many of the lay faithful. And, of course, you’re right, God is doing many great and wonderful things daily through His Church. Christ is always faithful.
Also, I don’t think California Catholic Daily is “one pathetic corner.” Maybe it’s a place whether Catholics can express differing opinions. (I don’t see that happening too often at coffee and donuts after Mass.) And, you and I have both chosen anonymity, so we shouldn’t be too critical of that.
Merry Christmas all!
There is everything that is pathetic over hiding behind one’s anonymity in order to lambast against the Holy Father and the bishops of the Church which has sadly been the routine here. “What is said in secret will one day be announced in the rooftops”, people (Luke 12:3). But you don’t have to go all the way back to Luke, folks. Leo XIII condemned the manner in which many folks here have poured contempt over the ministers of the Church: “These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty” (Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae”).
“Jon,” I have not lambasted the Pope. Please reread what I wrote. (I cannot speak for others, nor can you.)
I even think we share some common ground, but, it seems, you reject even that.
Don’t you see the irony, if not hypocrisy, of you lambasting those who choose anonymity when you do so yourself?
I’m willing to share with California Catholic Daily readers why I’m choosing anonymity. Are you?
“Jon,” Also, I agree that the vast majority of Catholics are not proportionally represented on California Catholic Daily. A majority of Catholics do not attend Mass or go to Confession regularly and dissent from Church teaching. See the results of the Pew and other recent surveys. Of Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly, I think California Catholic Daily may be somewhat representative. Our Lord cares more about truth and love than poll numbers and being with “the vast majority” of any social group.
Sorry, but the “irony” you speak of is not present. The difference between my relative anonymity and anonymity of those who lambast the Church (Francis, bishops, the clergy) here routinely is that I have nothing to be ashamed of, whereas those who violate Canon Law and are irreverent and unjust in their words about the clergy have much to answer for. Much to answer for. And you speak of truth and love. Well, if you are truly sincere, you would have addressed that admonition to those here who have lost love for the Holy Father, for the Church, for the Mass in the Ordinary Form, and for our bishops.
Wow, “jon,” you really don’t see the irony (I’m being charitable and not presuming it’s hypocrisy) of your anonymity while you criticize that of others?
And, you question my sincerity. That seems rather judgmental, since we’ve never met. To be clear about where I’m coming from: I am loyal to the Pope and my bishop, I’ve never violated Canon Law, and I love the Church and any Catholic Mass done according to liturgical norms, including the Ordinary Form. And, I can’t honestly think of reading things here from people who don’t love the Church. (Of course, some non-Catholic or anti-Catholic person can post here.) Almost everything I’ve read here is from people who love the Church. That doesn’t mean they have all the same preferences or even agree on everything. So I can’t be misunderstood: to all who read this, love Christ and the Church He founded, the Catholic Church.
You’re simply not convincing; and I do question your sincerity. It is disingenuous to say that people “love” something when they routinely tear it down and deride it; and didn’t you begin your commentary on this thread with a litany of your perceived “outrages” including one by the Holy Father himself? You don’t think that injures people’s trust in and reverence for the Pontiff’s office? Check Canon 1373. Very disingenuous. Carry on folks, carry on.
And please, I am not criticizing people’s anonymity here. I am criticizing the lambasting of the Church by supposed Catholics who cowardly hide behind their anonymity. Carry on.
Peoples: it simply isn’t good form for subordinates to be critiquing their superiors, even if one of them is the Pope, and in such a public way while hiding behind the luxury of anonymity; no matter how mild such critique seem to be. Such behavior is not conducive to the building up of the Body of Christ, to use St. Paul’s words.
Anonymous “jon,” I did NOT begin my comments here critical of the Pope as you stated (or was I critical of him personally anywhere in what I posted). You or anyone else are free to scroll up and reread them. I know Canon Law, you might check the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Also, let’s take St. Paul in context. He corrected St. Peter, the first Pope, when St. Peter was wrong. (Gal. 2:14). Was St. Catherine of Siena, a doctor of the Church, wrong when she corrected an erring Pope? I am NOT attempting to correct the Pope, rather, merely making a point. Are you going to defend the predator and former Cardinal McCarrick when he was critiqued by subordinate clergy (one of whom I know personally as a fine priest with integrity)? Covering up for corrupt clergy does NOT build up the Body of Christ, which, I hope, is our mutual goal.
Sorry to say, but words don’t lie: “anonymous clergyman” did begin his comments critical of Pope Francis’ non-response to the dubia, as well as critical of an alleged lack of a published budget for the Vatican. Without giving the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt for his non-response and a possible context for it, “anonymous clergyman” leaves the reader with a negative attitude towards the Pope. Canon 1373 condemns inciting “animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See.” Although I am inclined to give this anonymous clergyman the benefit of the doubt by saying that he didn’t mean to violate the Canon because he is sadly merely repeating the awful bad press coming from the extremist blogosphere and the mainstream media, I do find it comical however that he’d immediately put himself on par with some of the Church’s great saints–in the same league as St. Catherine of Siena, or even shoulder-to-shoulder with St. Paul! And for what? Repeating what the pathetic media and blogs latest regurgitations. So funny.
He is very cunning.
jon – I find nothing “laughable” about the serious discussion here. Many Catholics do not voice their opinions on-line, as we do. Most express their frustrations about the pain they feel regarding church leadership (clergy abuse, cover ups, diocesan bankruptcies, the inexplicable obsession with ecologism, etc.) to their families and friends and co-parishioners. If you refuse to believe that all this chaos has affected rank-and-file Catholics, then you, sir, are in the dark.
Probably best to let jon wallow in his opinions. No amount of reasoning will dissuade such a personality type, especially one that so enjoys it’s misguided fervor.
@ Anonymous Clergyman – thank you from all the good and faith-filled people on here who also love our Church. We are not here to tear it apart; on the contrary, we love our Church deeply. As lay people, to acknowledge and then reprove leadership misconduct does not make us disobedient, nor is it an attack on the fundamental tenets of the Church, as some would charge. I do have a concern of late that perhaps you could help me with: Pope Francis said that Catholics should not be so “rigid”. This statement has caused me serious insomnia. It is a strong rebuke to all of us who have been loyal to the Holy Father and our bishops and priests, and I’d like an explanation. What does it mean to be a rigid Catholic, and why does this seem like an absolute, unwarranted insult? Thank you, and to California Catholic Daily for your very fine articles.
Silent Observer, as Deacon Anderson noted above, that term, “rigid” seems to be thrown around without definition or even examples. And, as he noted, are we “rigid” for holding to the Real Presence or the sanctity of marriage? I know of priests and deacons, who, no matter how pastoral they are, have been accused of being “rigid” for opposing abortion or preaching that marriage is one man and one woman. And, of course, their critics, lay or clerical, don’t elaborate on their criticism, they merely call names. I will stand before the judgment seat of Christ, so, if holding to His teachings causes some to call me “rigid,” I guess, so be it. I wish I could be more helpful. Let us continue to pray for Holy Mother Church, including all of our clergy and lay faithful, and the world we are called to serve. And, please, say a prayer for me. Thank you.
@ anonymous clergyman: Thank you very much for your insightful response. I am in solidarity with you. Please be assured of my greatest respect for all the priests who have the courage of their convictions, and for their steadfast faithfulness to the Magisterium. It is no small feat. I will be most happy to say many prayers for you.
I must say that Silent Observer’s and anonymous clergy’s interpretation of “rigid” and their baffling adversity towards it–to the point of losing sleep over it—speaks to my very point: this knee-jerk and unjust anti-Francis persecution we read here. Have they both even read the Holy Father’s address?? Firstly, the Pope wasn’t even addressing the entire Church. This was his annual address to the members of the Roman Curia! That’s the Vatican bureaucracy, people! These are the unseen men and women (well, mostly men I suppose as they’re mostly clergy there) who work in the various dicasteries and congregations of the Holy See. Pope Francis may be planning major changes (“epochal” in fact) in the way they operate in the Curia, and so he is addressing the attitude of “rigidity” of those in the Curia who may be resisting bureaucratic/administrative changes. You people who constantly call for changes in Rome should be supporting Francis in this, not second-guessing him. Carry on folks; carry on.
@ jon – I will give you a case in point about the unintended consequences of denouncement: One of our bishops in California used the words “Corrosive and Repugnant” to describe some Catholics’ opinions about homosexual behavior. That a Catholic bishop would use such language to describe his laity is repugnant in itself. Repugnant! This type of rhetoric is being used to chastise faithful Catholics, Curia or not, who have done absolutely nothing wrong, except to try to live lives of charity and love.
It is not entirely true that you have “done absolutely nothing wrong, except to try to live lives of charity and love.” You also have lambasted the Holy Father, the Church, and her bishops here.
@ jon – I will take the advice of other good posters here and give you a pass.
Jon, I find your connection between questioning what Pope Francis means by what he says or doesn’t say, and persecuting him, as intellectually incomprehensible. Let’s look at some obvious facts. 1. Pope Francis erred in rehabilitating McCarrick 2. Pope Francis has thrown the Chinese Catholics under the bus, according to Cardinal Zen, who is in the best position to know; 3. Pope Francis’ refused to answer the Dubia; 4. Has frustrated the American hierarchy in dealing with the clergy abuse problem through Cardinal Cupich; 5. has denied the existence of hell and in Amoris Laetitia (section 297) approached an almost tangential universalism. Am I persecuting him? Not so– I pray for him with earnest affection. But the fruits of his leadership trouble me greatly. I speak as a victim of clergy abuse.
Dear Dan: The list of your “interpretations” of what the Holy Father has done, casting the Pope’s actions bad light, is a good example of the “persecution” of the Pope among those who call themselves “traditionalists” or at least those in the “right” of things. You do not convince me Dan.
Dear jon, do you know that Pope Francis restored McCarrick to ministry and used him as a Vatican ambassador to the Communist Chinese government and in working out the subsequent agreement (regardless of what you think of that agreement)?
You called that Dan’s “interpretation.” Rather, it’s simply a statement of fact.
Might you answer my question above with a yes or no?
And, if you acknowledge that, do you think the agreement and the results for the Church, including the underground Church, are good?
I’m trying to understand your position(s).
Thank you.
So “anonymous clergyman” says he wishes to understand my position. My position has been clear all along: the restoration among the habitué of this here blog for reverence and respect for the office of the Pope, for the bishops of the Church, and for their pastoral decisions–which is the classic and genuinely traditional Catholic demeanor and behavior towards his spiritual fathers. This demonization, derision, ridicule of the anointed shepherds of the Church for pastoral decisions they have made–interpreted in the least charitable way possible–break the unity of the Church, the unity between the sheep and their shepherds. Case in point: the way you interpreted “rigidity” in the Holy Father’s address to the Curia is totally false. Yet where is it coming from? I can only guess that it perhaps comes from, at best, persecution of Francis, and at worst, hatred of him and of the Catholic Church.