Archbishop Chaput: Pope Francis cannot contradict John Paul II on Communion

[Lion_IRC]

This is crazy talk. The kind of alarmist garbage perpetuated by paranoid trads knee deep in conspiracy theories.

Any chance you could address the arguments rather than the people making the argument?

 

[Lion_IRC]

And I should believe you, why…?
You’re a username on a dying forum that consistently attacks the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church.

A “dying forum” that “attacks” the Pope?
WUT

This is too serious an issue to get bogged down in poisoned wells and ad homs.

 

[edwayne]

As has been clearly demonstrated by the conflict, confusion, contradictory interpretations, etc., there is no up side to NOT responding to the dubia. Whether certain cardinals or bishops claim that the pope is exercising patience and reserve seems somewhat untenable. There seems only to be two reasons to avoid responding to the dubia: either the pope realizes that he is mistaken and that there is no way to justify the confusion and ambiguous teaching that he has promulgated and needs to figure out a gracious way to walk it back, or he truly believes this ‘progressive’ teaching to be the truth but cannot figure out a way to demonstrate this without trampling on top of already established teaching as put forth by VS, FC, and elsewhere.

That may be it exactly… the pope finds himself stuck.

 

[edwest2]

So, if…

I should go elsewhere?
Someone has to defend the Church from trads.

“defend the Church from trads”? What does that mean? Where are these trads? What are they doing wrong? There is no one at the front door of the Church asking anyone what ‘category’ they fall under. God allows all to enter.

Ed

 

[FollowChrist34]

A “dying forum” that “attacks” the Pope?
WUT

This is too serious an issue to get bogged down in poisoned wells and ad homs.

Right. Though I fear that would pretty much be all that is in the well. The anti-trad hammer comes down and down and down. (is there an Internet ‘anti-trad’ movement? I don’t know where that is coming from) I know a little bit about the trads per se.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/archbishop-chaput-pope-francis-cannot-contradict-john-paul-ii-on-communion/

Just for clarity’s sake: when and where did AB Chaput say “Pope Francis cannot contradict John Paul II on Communion”?

While I see it is the heading for the above article, which is repeated ad nauseam in dozens of syndicated copy-cat Net “newspapers”, it is strangely not actually quoted in the body of the text as coming from either the interview or his book.

Just sayin.

 

[Havard]

Just for clarity’s sake: when and where did AB Chaput say “Pope Francis cannot contradict John Paul II on Communion”?

While I see it is the heading for the above article, which is repeated ad nauseam in dozens of syndicated copy-cat Net “newspapers”, it is strangely not actually quoted in the body of the text as coming from either the interview or his book.

Just sayin.

articleHerald cites and directly links to the interview by John Allen Jr. of Crux.

Here’s the part in the linked interview:

One of the leitmotifs that runs through the book is your concern for marriage and the institution of marriage. Today’s debate over Amoris Laetitia pivots on that subject. What do you think is at stake?

St. Francis of Assisi encouraged the brothers, the Franciscan brothers, to accept the Gospel without gloss. And glosses were convoluted efforts to make the Gospel say something that it didn’t say, or Jesus didn’t really mean what he said. So it seems to me we ought to take Jesus at his word, and his words about divorce and remarriage, about it being adultery, are very clear. I mean, there’s just no doubt about what Jesus said in the Gospels.

It seems to me that it’s impossible for us to contradict the words of Jesus, and it’s also impossible for a teaching to be true 20 years ago not to be true today when it’s the teachings of the pope. The teachings of Pope Francis can’t contradict the teachings of John Paul II when it is a matter of official teaching.

So, it seems to me we have to interpret Amoris Laetitia in the light of what’s gone before it, primarily the words of Jesus, but secondarily the teachings of the pope, the Magisterium of the Church. And so how can it be true that people can receive Communion when they’re living in an adulterous union today. How is that possible, when the Church says it’s not possible?

The bold is John Allen, Jr.'s question, the plain font is Archbishop Chaput’s response.

The Herald headline isn’t a direct quotation, but per the last paragraph, the Archbishop states that his specific concern is the reception of Communion, so it’s not a deceptive reduction, either.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Herald article cites and directly links to the interview by John Allen Jr. of Crux.

Here’s the part in the linked interview:

The bold is John Allen, Jr.'s question, the plain font is Archbishop Chaput’s response.

The Herald headline isn’t a direct quotation, but per the last paragraph, the Archbishop states that his specific concern is the reception of Communion, so it’s not a deceptive reduction, either.

Thanks, that explains why my search engine missed it.

 

[Ender]

Who said anything about ‘earning’ mercy? You are confusing ‘earning’ with being properly disposed. Note that while God’s love is unconditional, and even God’s mercy and readiness to forgive is unconditional, the actual application of his mercy and forgiveness are NOT unconditional, but rather conditioned upon us having a godly sorrow that leads to repentance.

This is an important point that is too often misunderstood. Mercy is not appropriate in every situation because it is not possible in every situation. Mercy involves the forgiveness of sin, but it does not involve behaving as if no sin occurred. If we repent we are forgiven, but if we do not repent we are not forgiven, and the same dynamic is true with mercy. In order to receive mercy we must first repent; without repentance mercy is not possible.To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. (CCC 1847)

*There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. *(CCC 1864)It should also be understood that mercy does not necessarily mean the elimination of punishment.*Any punishment which aims at correcting the one who does wrong is in fact a form of mercy. *(Augustine)
Where is the mercy in acting as if a person’s sins don’t matter, or as if his sins weren’t sins at all?
In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil… (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)
Ender

 

[Havard]

Thanks, that explains why my search engine missed it.

You’re most welcome.

By the way, if you have access to Sirius XM, John Allen Jr. and Ines San Martin host a very informative weekly show on Mondays at 1 pm Eastern on the Catholic Channel. I highly recommend the show to anyone who desires better insight into the stories originating from Rome/Vatican City.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is an important point that is too often misunderstood. Mercy is not appropriate in every situation because it is not possible in every situation. Mercy involves the forgiveness of sin, but it does not involve behaving as if no sin occurred. If we repent we are forgiven, but if we do not repent we are not forgiven, and the same dynamic is true with mercy. In order to receive mercy we must first repent; without repentance mercy is not possible.To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. (CCC 1847)

*There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. *(CCC 1864)It should also be understood that mercy does not necessarily mean the elimination of punishment.*Any punishment which aims at correcting the one who does wrong is in fact a form of mercy. *(Augustine)
Where is the mercy in acting as if a person’s sins don’t matter, or as if his sins weren’t sins at all?
In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil… (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)
Ender

Yes it is comforting to know that the only obstacle to God’s absolution is an explicit refusal to be absolved.

 

[Ender]

Yes it is comforting to know that the only obstacle to God’s absolution is an explicit refusal to be absolved.

True. Unfortunately it is not fully realized that a refusal to give up ones sins constitutes a refusal to be absolved. The complication with communion for the divorced and civilly remarried is the implication that such a situation (other than living as brother and sister) is not sin and does not require either repentance or change.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

True. Unfortunately it is not fully realized that a refusal to give up ones sins constitutes a refusal to be absolved. The complication with communion for the divorced and civilly remarried is the implication that such a situation (other than living as brother and sister) is not sin and does not require either repentance or change.

Ender

Evil is in the eye of the beholder not the thing beheld.
There is no necessary implication that all active irregulars are so gravely sinning that they may not be allowed to Communion.

Pope Francis clearly rejects such an opinion

 

[TMC]

Even if it were true that Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis’ teaching were in direct conflict (which I am not sure is the case), why would it automatically be the case that Pope John Paul would have to be correct, and Pope Francis would have to be wrong?

 

[irenaeus1]

Evil is in the eye of the beholder not the thing beheld.

That is incorrect. Evil is objective. Although, I’m sure that some involved in sex trafficking, spouse swapping or some other evil would like to believe such a statement as the above to be true.

There is no necessary implication that all active irregulars are so gravely sinning that they may not be allowed to Communion.

I suppose if you tame the language, it could sound that way. But if one were to state that all active adulterers are gravely sinning so as not to be allowed to Communion, then the implication becomes quite apparent.

 

[irenaeus1]

Even if it were true that Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis’ teaching were in direct conflict (which I am not sure is the case), why would it automatically be the case that Pope John Paul would have to be correct, and Pope Francis would have to be wrong?

I don’t know that the two popes are in conflict either. While Pope Francis is less clear than Popes John Paul and Benedict, Amoris Laetitia can be read in line with Catholic teaching. But if there is a conflict, it has not been pointed out HOW Pope John Paul II would be wrong. And if Pope John Paul was indeed wrong, then it would seem that the CDF was also in error, along with Pope Benedict, as well as the Council of Trent’s statements on marriage, etc.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Evil is in the eye of the beholder not the thing beheld.

Are you for real? God save us from binary lay moralists.
You just defined moral physicalism.

When we speak of evil we are talking “moral disorder” which is over and above “physical disorder.” Moral fault by definition involves “intention” which has a rather heavy subjective component.

That is why God doesn’t care about animals that gather harems or steal the females of weaker males or kill other animals even if not required for food. Likewise humans sometimes get themselves into messy situations that effectively means sometimes even graced persons also lack a similar freedom of choice…just as Pope Francis states.

…all active adulterers are gravely sinning so as not to be allowed to Communion, then the implication becomes quite apparent.

A typical untrained layman’s understanding of “sin” and “sinning”.

Again, as Pope Francis and 1000 years of boilerplate Moral Scholastic Theology says, deeds of grave matter (a form of “sinning gravely”) are not always mortal and indeed are regularly venial and so not incompatible with sanctifying grace. And some such objectively disordered deeds may not involve moral fault at all.

I and many other loyal Catholics see no intrinsic reason why some of these may never approach Communion, especially if they are in a state of grace and the Church judges their “scandal” is no longer what it once was.

Of course, older resentful brother types for some reason like to oppose a mercy that goes beyond justice (but which does not oppose justice).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t know that the two popes are in conflict either. While Pope Francis is less clear than Popes John Paul and Benedict, Amoris Laetitia can be read in line with Catholic teaching. But if there is a conflict, it has not been pointed out HOW Pope John Paul II would be wrong. And if Pope John Paul was indeed wrong, then it would seem that the CDF was also in error, along with Pope Benedict, as well as the Council of Trent’s statements on marriage, etc.

Or the assumption that irreformable doctrine or infallibility is in play equally in all cases needs to be reflected upon further.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

True. Unfortunately it is not fully realized that a refusal to give up ones sins constitutes a refusal to be absolved. The complication with communion for the divorced and civilly remarried is the implication that such a situation (other than living as brother and sister) is not sin and does not require either repentance or change.

Ender

If publically known active irregulars are regularly receiving Communion I would assume the PP has absolved them and therefore it cannot be that they refuse to give up their sins despite appearances to the contrary

Why would fellow Christians want to assume otherwise when in the end it is the PPs business not theirs.

 

[hwriggles4]

Good point, it needs to be clear especially to those Bishops who have made statements that have appeared to twist or actually have twisted AL(I hope that’s not the case) to go against doctrine.

I’m glad the good Archbishop Chaput has been asking for a clear interpretation. Raymond Cardinal Burke is doing the same. I also respect Chaput for putting his foot down on those on parish committees and parish ministries who are in irregular marriages.

From looking at Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetetia, Pope St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio is being contradicted, and I am upset that some individual bishops (including one in the southern United States) have put forth the interpretation that communion for the divorced and remarried (for those in certain situations without an annulment) is acceptable.

One of the best Pastoral Letters I read concerning Amoris Laetetia is the letter put together by Bishop Lopes from the Ordinariate for the Chair of St. Peter. Quite frankly, the secular press (and some Catholic press outlets) did not cover this very much. This short document can be found through the Ordinariate website.

Like Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Lopes upholds the traditional teaching on communion (Kudos Bishop Lopes and Archbishop Chaput). I am a supporter of the Anglican Ordinariate and the Ordinariate of course has many converts, some of whom had to go through the annulment process (no, it is not a Catholic Divorce) before being able to receive the Holy Eucharist. Keep in mind that many of these former Episcopalians entered the Catholic Church in part due to the Church upholding traditional marriage, and the Real Presence of the Eucharist. In their mind (and mine) Amoris Laetitia is going backwards.