Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jesus Prayed That We Would All Be One
The 17th chapter of the Gospel of John presents a prayer by Jesus the Son, to God His Father as He contemplates his last days on earth. In the section at verse 20, his heartfelt prayer for the whole world is as follows:
“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
It is my belief that God the Father wishes us all to be one – Jews and Gentiles – the entire world. Certainly, this passage comes from the Christian New Testament, but I also believe that this message is for all faiths and beliefs. That God Himself wishes that one day we would all be one in Him.
Moving from that foundational belief, this conversation is primarily for Catholic Christians, of which I am one. At a minimum, one would think that Jesus’ prayer would most certainly apply to a specific faith and religion, such as Catholicism. Today’s second reading from every mass around the world comes from the First Book of St. Paul to the Corinthians, verses 10-13, 17:
I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
I have lamented and prayed about the current Papacy. It does seem that Pope Francis enjoys division. He certainly has not been shy about creating it. And he has clearly stated that he does not fear it. This seems completely wrong to me and diametrically opposed to what Jesus desires as illustrated above.
By 2020, this division seems to be growing rather than subsiding. The Pope’s agenda has become clearer and the voices opposing such radical change are rising up in a symmetrical strength. Monsignor Vigano, Cardinal Sarah, and perhaps even Pope Benedict XVI himself may be suggesting that the assault on tradition and the doctrinal teachings of the Church are sorely misplaced.
This concern over the division within the Catholic Church created as a part of a “worldly” (?) agenda of the current Pontiff has been in the public sphere for quite a while now. In 2017, this concern was articulated very well by Phil Lawler, writing at Catholic Culture.org:
The Roman Pontiff should be a focus of unity in the Church. Pope Francis, regrettably, has become a source of division. There are two reasons for this unhappy phenomenon: the Pope’s autocratic style of governance and the radical nature of the program that he is relentlessly advancing.
Unity or division? I pray for unity.
You will know them by their fruits.
Published in General
I pray for the Pope (and all the bishops) to be a sign of unity and to conform his teachings to what has been revealed to the Church down through the ages.
Jesus, I trust in you.
We are called to be united not by any form and any means but rather united in truth and love. Only in truth can our nature be at harmony with God’s nature, thereby fulfilling our design to be His.
There was division under Pope Benedict XVI as well because so many clergy have lost their ways. The worldly will hate their enemies. The heavenly will pray for them.
If Donald Trump could be converted into the most pro-life president in recent history, then prayer could surely help Pope Francis as well.
I’ve always thought Francis is a Globalist New World Order plant. I mean he has a “Climate Change Advisor,” or he did as of few years ago, and that guy is an atheist who thinks billions of people need to die to save the Earth. How does he reconcile that with the Church’s position on the sanctity of life? And as of last month, Francis wants to introduce “ecological sin” to the catechism. And by the way, there was something fishy about the way Benedict suddenly stepped down.
That 17th chapter of John is extremely important. To some degree it gets by-passed or forgotten since there’s no narrative. Jesus envisioned one church, not thousands. It’s a commandment we have all totally failed at. I pray for unity too.
There was division within the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict and JPII as well. We just didn’t see it because we supported what those Popes proclamated. But when i talked to those we might call Liberals, I found they were unhappy and felt alienated. There is always division. It’s a human weakness.
But this is the first Pope who seems pleased by it.
Agreed. My problem with “liberals” is they have 30k + Protestant denominations to choose from, including some with liturgies and priestesses, but they won’t be satisfied until the First Church of Christ conforms to their image. Francis is their kind of pope, promising to “modernize” the Church.
Of course, that view assumes agreement over who was right in the Great Schism of 1054. Both that event and your characterization of various congregations points back to the natural, fallen human tendency called out by the Apostle Paul in the passage quoted in the OP.
This is what they do. They purposely infiltrate institutions and places that were conservative and try to turn them. I recall some years back reading about some lesbians that moved to a small town in Mississippi and then acted all surprised when they were treated exactly as they knew they would be. And now leftists of all stripes are invading Texas to try to turn us blue.
I would never attribute malice to the Holy Father. Many times I recall him saying that division is of the devil. Pope Francis is definitely tone deaf, he’s on the more Liberal side theologically (though not as much as made out), a poor manager and very poor communicator, and he is definitely on the left when it comes to social and foreign policy, but I do not attribute bad motives. He’s a poor selection for the papacy. We have to live with it.
I prefer they stay within the Church. I prefer they receive the sacraments. They can’t change the Magisterium, no matter how much they whine. I rather we struggle within the Body of Christ than splinter it. In effect, that’s what John 17 is calling on us to do.
Oh we Catholics know who’s right about the schism of 1054. While the issues of the day may or may not have been on Rome’s side (and the Vatican has accepted their faults in the matter), a schism is never the solution. It is a medicine worst than the disease. The schismatic churches violated and continue to violate John 17. The Bishop of Rome has always and will always have primacy, per both scripture and Church Fathers.
I contend Pope Francis’s change to the Catechism on the death penalty (“inadmissible” – whatever that means) is a break with the past. It is his personal preference, not the longstanding teaching of the Church. You and I agree, technically, “they can’t change the Magisterium,” but this certainly gives the appearance of a misuse of the teaching authority of Christ’s church. Fortunately, there’s enough ambiguity in the change we can just ignore it. Unfortunately, the ambiguity is often weaponized by progressive Catholics to advance their (political) agenda.
I’m not going to break with Christ’s church. I consider people who warp and corrupt the teachings to have broken. They have free will. God gave us that, too.
Pope JPII was also very anti death penalty, though he didn’t change the catechism. I couldn’t recall where Pope BXVI stood on it but when I did a search I found he had the same as Pope JPII. From what I understand some previous popes have also said similar. If you go back to Thomas Aquinas, the full catholic position was that the death penalty could only be applied if incarceration could not prevent that person from killing again. Pope Francis’ argument is that in today’s world you can always incarcerate that person, so there’s no justification for the death penalty. Now we could disagree with him (and I have on Catholic commentary articles) but what he is proposing is not revolutionary. It’s a natural evolution in the tradition. And frankly it’s where all western societies, even (mostly) the United States now, are.
Of course Pope Francis has also called for the ending of life imprisonment, which shows you how jumbled up his mind is.
JPII did change the Catechism, IIRC, but he didn’t declare the death penalty morally impermissible (which is what I believe Francis intended by “inadmissible.”). It is a modern conceit that imprisonment replaces capital punishment. Of course murderers still kill in prison. They just kill other prisoners or prison workers.
But, that practical reality doesn’t get to the moral issue. Is capital punishment moral, or did technology somehow change morality (like contraception, abortion, etc according to progressive Catholics)? Francis opened the gate (which JPII unlocked) with this break.
Capital punishment is the only command God gives in all five books of the Torah (according to Dennis Prager). “By man’s hand. . .” God’s ways are mysterious, so maybe we can’t know why he commanded it, but it seems to me it is to preserve the sanctity of (innocent) human life. I don’t believe morality has changed. I believe God was serious enough about the morality of capital punishment to repeat the command five times.
There’s also an element of mistrust in God’s mercy by abolishing the death penalty. I absolutely believe a repentant murderer can make it to heaven by God’s mercy. The only thing scheduling the murderer’s death does is focus the mind, making the possibility of repentance more immediate.
I agree with you on the morality of it, but we’re not just fighting Popes Francis and JPII. We’re fighting Thomas Aquinas as well. Is there even a bishop today that has made the moral argument for it? I have only heard arguments of expediency to support it, and even there the bishops have been silent as far as I know.
The point is, previous popes and bishops haven’t prohibited it.
As the OP, I gave a “like” to this comment because I believe in the truth within it – we should not attribute malice to the Holy Father. I have been where you are @manny, defending the Pope and only taking my lamentation to prayer. I still do this some and I still pray for Pope Francis each day (including for conversion if necessary, hoping that there is not malice within that prayer). However, he has worn me out from this defense. It was long ago that I did start assigning intent to his actions. He does speak confusingly. He has said two completely different things on the same subject, which of course creates confusion. He is tone deaf and a poor communicator. His roots in Latin America lead him to condemn capitalism and lift up socialism without a similar condemnation of its bankruptcy and moral deficiency. He seems to enjoy speaking more about worldly issues than spiritual ones. And yes, we do have to live with it. God is in control. Thank you, God!
I disagree with the first part of your sentence. Christ created the Church and the Church teaches extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside the Church there is no salvation. The unity form is the Catholic Church and the means to that unity are the Sacraments and living the truths of the Church in love.
To just rely on truth and love leads to heresies such as the one in the Human Fraternity document that Pope Francis signed and promotes:
That statement is indifferentism and is directly opposed to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Indeed. He has spent his entire pontificate sowing division.
I don’t defend him very often. I’ve been where one defends him and I’ve been where one despises him. I’ve moved on from both. I criticize specifics and avoid considering his intentions. His mind is not intellectually coherent or deep.
Thomas Aquinas supported the death penalty.
I’m afraid I lost my ability to attribute good motives to Pope Francis. The way he treats orthodox Catholics with contempt, his “my way or the highway” approach, his deliberately evasive and ambiguous views, his desire to be go with the contemporary culture on morality – I think he’s a very bad Pope. I pray that God removes him before he does more damage.
Or, he undergoes a conversion.
I have a lot of sympathy with this comment, but we must remember that Pope Francis is the Pope the Holy Spirit has given us. God has his reasons that are often mysterious to us, but we must trust in Him. It’s not for us to dictate His Providence. I pray for the Holy Father, that he will lead the Church in light of God’s truth.
That doesn’t mean we should refrain from admonishing the Pope when he fails in his vocation. Archbishops Vigano and Schneider have been exemplary in this regard.
Yes, thanks – that would be good too!
Pope Francis is an occasion for sin for me: I used to be a happy Catholic, now I’m a crabby, cynical one, who won’t give to any charity or special collection that has any connection with the Vatican or the USCCB.
I disagree. I believe, along with Pope Benedict XVI, that the Holy Spirit does not choose the Pope. When asked on German TV if the Holy Spirit was responsible for the selection of a Pope, he said, “I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope… I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take over the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
Yeah, I’d say the Spirit lets the Cardinals pick bad popes (as shown by history), and the Cardinals obliged this time. God is still in charge and is up to something, but it doesn’t take away from Francis’s badness.
No, no, and no.
Thanks to @painterjean and @westernchauvinist for clarification.
I’m in the camp (or maybe an army of one) who thinks that perhaps we couldn’t have survived a 3rd “conservative pope” in the image of JP2 and B16.
Don’t get me wrong – I love both of those men. They were both influential in my coming into full communion with the Catholic Church.
But.
Francis has energized a part of the Church that JP2 and B16 spoke to, but never manifested.
Three of my children (24, 28, 31, 32) prefer the EF to the OF. (Thanks to B16 for Summorum Pontificum – the highlight of his pontificate) This will be a game-changer in the Church. This will be what the Boomers like Weigel call the “New Evangelization”.
I have pushed Fr. Z’s “Save the Liturgy, Save the World” meme, and still believe in this. The liturgy, in the form of the TLM, is the unifying force.
If you look carefully at what Aquinas said, only if there were no other means such as incarceration of preventing that person from killing again.
By the way, today is St. Thomas Aquinas’ feast day!