Catholics should stay calm, Pope Francis is not pressing for general Protestant admission to Communion [CH-UK]

[graciew]

Yes, there is a continuing dialogue about ecumenism, and from the link you provided it looks like it is very complex and not something Pope Francis would ever try to answer in that setting. So, it seems to me he directed his answer instead to the individual conscience of the person who asked the question and who seemed to want to know what to do now.

I don’t think his comment about the presence of Cardinal Kasper was insignificant. Though Pope Francis is the pope, I believe he was recognizing the importance of theologians. This ‘open door’ is very significant since it has on some level been silenced. He clearly wants dialogue and discussion, and I believe he intentionally avoids speaking in any definitive way–until he does. There is certain to be disagrement and even contention in the meantime, and I think he fears it not. The thing is to try to understand the disagrement. It is real, I’m sure, and really ought to be discussed.

Thank you.
Yes,the link I found was dense and difficult for me.
I had the same impression he was speaking to the lady concretely.
It does seem he was recognizing the importance of theologians,I cannot account for if they have been silenced or not,I really do not know. In any case,it does look like there is still disagreement to talk about .
Thank you,Thomas.

 

[zz912]

The mysteries are my comfort zone. Mercy and grace make no sense at all. Unconditional love and forgiveness. Plenary indulgences… insane!! Giving better than receiving… are you kidding!! Faustina says that God allows us to walk through the door of mercy and if we reject that we will have to walk through the door of justice. Hang on… shouldn’t we all have to pay our debts first!!! Shouldn’t I be as ticked off as the Elder brother about that since I’ve followed the rules my whole life!!!

The mysteries of the Lord are definitely what gives me faith, hope and charity for others.

Not the same thing at all. You are describing questions about HOW and WHY of certain teachings. People are asking for clarity on WHAT the Church teaches. Fundamental difference.

We are asking that the bishops and priests clearly reaffirm Church teaching that the Eucharist IS the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. And that people not in a state of grace or non-Catholics be forbidden from receiving, as this supports and upholds the teaching.

You are talking about HOW the bread and wine are changed, or WHY. That is far different from vague statements that leave open room for doubt about WHAT the Church teaches.

 

[irishpatrick]

Just a few thoughts about this topic and other related issues.

It seems to me that Pope Francis is attempting several things. He is stretching a huge olive branch toward all people of good will, while also propagating the truth of God’s mercy. I believe the Pope looks at the mess the world is in and wants to see people in the same family come together. Lutherans, by their baptism, and by their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior, are part of the global Christian family, and right now, I think the Pope is laser-like focused on trying to lessen the divides among family members who have for so long been harshly divided. He is not saying Protestants can receive communion, he is inviting people to study the matter–and I think he does these “down the middle of the road” actions because he wants all Christians to come back together in some meaningful way. The Pope himself has stated that he feels World War III has begun–and we must come together as a united Christian people if we wish to face this struggle with success.

A house divided against itself will always fall.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Not the same thing at all. You are describing questions about HOW and WHY of certain teachings. People are asking for clarity on WHAT the Church teaches. Fundamental difference.

We are asking that the bishops and priests clearly reaffirm Church teaching that the Eucharist IS the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. And that people not in a state of grace or non-Catholics be forbidden from receiving, as this supports and upholds the teaching.

You are talking about HOW the bread and wine are changed, or WHY. That is far different from vague statements that leave open room for doubt about WHAT the Church teaches.

yes!

 

[fin]

Yes! Please, clarity from our prelates! Cardinal Sarah is. Thank God for His Eminence.

Clarity and directness. How I long for it. Shepherds are supposed to guide the sheep, not let sheep make up their own mind where to go.

 

[jmcrae]

From the time we made our First Communion at the age of six, we were taught to listen to our conscience and we would know whether we ought receive Communion or to first visit the Confessional. And we were trusted at the age of six by members of a religious order to receive Communion on this basis. One would think an adult could do as well.

This adult is not a Catholic and has never been instructed as Catholic six year olds are instructed. I would trust the conscience of a Catholic six year old before I would trust my own mother (who happens to be a Protestant) to know the difference between right and wrong, well meaning as my mother may be.

This Lutheran woman may sincerely feel any number of things but she has no guide to tell her whether or not she is correct in her feelings.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

You know, rereading Pope Francis’ reply something struck me:

I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more.

If the Pope dare not allow a Lutheran to receive Communion what are the chances he will allow a remarried divorcee to receive it? Even less would such a thing be his competence.

Off the subject and as a friendly challenge: I dare the contributors on this thread to continue the discussion without using the word ‘you’ or ‘your’. See if -]you/-] one can do it .

 

[LongingSoul]

Not the same thing at all. You are describing questions about HOW and WHY of certain teachings. People are asking for clarity on WHAT the Church teaches. Fundamental difference.

We are asking that the bishops and priests clearly reaffirm Church teaching that the Eucharist IS the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. And that people not in a state of grace or non-Catholics be forbidden from receiving, as this supports and upholds the teaching.

You are talking about HOW the bread and wine are changed, or WHY. That is far different from vague statements that leave open room for doubt about WHAT the Church teaches.

That sounds like a vote for legalism. When only the rules matter and there is no place for charity and mercy.

 

[LongingSoul]

3 weeks ago after the synod closed our local Archbishop, Mark Coleridge reflected his impression of the whole back this way. It really explains the whole attitude of Francis towards his role …

Pope Francis is a fascinating combination of a man in a hurry and a man who takes his time,” Archbishop Mark Coleridge told me in this interview for America.

At the synod he said he was deeply impressed not only by the pope’s inner peace and tranquility but also by his determination to make synodality become “a permanent feature of the life of the whole church and not just an occasional feature of episcopal life.” He considers this and the way Francis sees “episcopal collegiality within the synodality of the whole church” as of utmost importance, and believes this can have major implications for the church in the coming years.

He rejects a doctrinal approach that’s not connected with the real lives of people, but is convinced there’s much room for “pastoral creativity” in this field.

He insists that the church “has got to use language that people understand,” but today she often uses “words and images” that has led to a point “where at best we’re regarded as irrelevant in Western cultures, at worst, and in some segments, we would be regarded as almost demonic.”

americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/blogging-archbishop-mark-coleridge-pope-wants-make-synodality-permanent-feature

 

[zz912]

That sounds like a vote for legalism. When only the rules matter and there is no place for charity and mercy.

That’s the new tactic. Anyone asking for clarity on doctrine is being “legalistic”.

There’s no mercy in telling someone who has cancer that they just have a cold.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s the new tactic. Anyone asking for clarity on doctrine is being “legalistic”.

There’s no mercy in telling someone who has cancer that they just have a cold.

The mercy is in trying to help and cure them even though they neglected their health and smoked 2 packets of cigarettes a day and don’t deserve our help.

 

[clem456]

3 weeks ago after the synod closed our local Archbishop, Mark Coleridge reflected his impression of the whole back this way. It really explains the whole attitude of Francis towards his role …

He rejects a doctrinal approach that’s not connected with the real lives of people, but is convinced there’s much room for “pastoral creativity” in this field.

He insists that the church “has got to use language that people understand,” but today she often uses “words and images” that has led to a point “where at best we’re regarded as irrelevant in Western cultures, at worst, and in some segments, we would be regarded as almost demonic.”

This part especially is soooo right.
Much of the legalization of mercy utterly fails to take the real life of a person into account, instead seeing God’s mercy as a mere “lofty idea” rather than the real life offer of a relationship with God. Mercy becomes a cheap magic trick that invites no responsibility for conversion on the part of the believer.

And yes, we need to use the words the Church herself uses, and not devolve into “spirit speak”, using vague words that mean nothing and complicating the Gospel for those who are seeking it.
The Gospel is not meant to be twisted to our point of view. Good thing the Church has a mouth to speak with, yes. The Pope does a great job speaking to each of us.

Question is, are we listening, or are his words always directed at “those people”? I think that’s what he means when he talks about closed hearts. Those who believe the Church is always speaking to someone else. Someone else is judgmental, someone else is a Pharisee, someone else is a hypocrite. We all fall into that trap I think.

 

[Thomas_White]

This adult is not a Catholic and has never been instructed as Catholic six year olds are instructed. I would trust the conscience of a Catholic six year old before I would trust my own mother (who happens to be a Protestant) to know the difference between right and wrong, well meaning as my mother may be.

This Lutheran woman may sincerely feel any number of things but she has no guide to tell her whether or not she is correct in her feelings.

The Lutheran woman has no conscience, you think? I though the Catholic teaching provided in CCC 1776 was true for all persons.

“Deep with his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…” (CCC 1776).

 

[clem456]

The Lutheran woman has no conscience, you think? I though the Catholic teaching provided in CCC 1776 was true for all persons.

“Deep with his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…” (CCC 1776).

Well formed conscience does not land in the lap of a believer like pennies from heaven.
It takes work. Prayer. Practice (aka virtue). Study. An open and listening heart.

I know little about astrophysics, so I don’t say boo about it, cause I am ignorant of it.

By comparison, I’m wondering how something so profound as the formation of a Christian conscience can be reduced to “God put it there, just feel it and act on it…” without any responsibility for formation.

but in any case, I’m glad you posted from the CCC.

 

[Thomas_White]

The CCC does not reduce the certain judgment of conscience by the circular logic that it must invariably conform to Church teaching. That would of course be ‘legalism’.

 

[clem456]

The CCC does not reduce the certain judgment of conscience by the circular logic that it must invariably conform to Church teaching. That would of course be ‘legalism’.

Who reduced what? Did you think I am making a red sauce or something?
Maybe you can provide references for whatever theological point your are trying to make (or refute, or dispute)
or
If you are a theologian we can take it at face value.