Communion alone is ‘not the solution’ for divorced and re-married Catholics, says Pope Francis

[McCall1981]

The following section of the interview is also of interest:

• What do you think about the solution put forward by the German cardinal Walter Kasper?
• Kasper´s address to the cardinals last February included five chapters, four of them are a jewel, about the purpose of marriage, open, in depth. The fifth is the question of what do we do with divorcees who have remarried; they are part of our congregation after all. Kasper´s hypothesis is not his own. Let´s look into that. What happened? Some theologians feared such assumptions and that is keeping our heads down. Kasper urged us to seek hypothesis, i.e., he made the first move. And some panicked. And went as far as to say: Communion, never. Only spiritual Communion. And tell me, don´t we need the grace of God to receive spiritual communion? That´s why spiritual communion obtained the fewest votes in the relatio synodi, because nobody was in agreement. Those for it, because there´s not much to it, voted against it; and those who are not for it and would rather go for the other one, because it´s not worth it.

To sum up: the opponents of Sacramental Communion are panicking, and in their panic are not paying attention to their own reasoning, shooting themselves in the foot by proposing spiritual Communion, since spiritual Communion, like Sacramental Communion, requires a state of grace. If one can receive the former, why not the latter?

I think he’s just saying the paragraph on spiritual communion didn’t get many votes because neither side had a reason to vote for it due to how it was written.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I think he’s just saying the paragraph on spiritual communion didn’t get many votes because neither side had a reason to vote for it due to how it was written.

Think so?

 

[ProVobis]

Think so?

My thinking is that spiritual communion has just lost a lot of popularity since frequent sacramental communion has been stressed so much. But it’s still a legitimate practice in obtaining spiritual advantage. The Council of Trent very much encouraged it.

 

[McCall1981]

Think so?

Yes I do think so.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

My thinking is that spiritual communion has just lost a lot of popularity since frequent sacramental communion has been stressed so much. But it’s still a legitimate practice in obtaining spiritual advantage. The Council of Trent very much encouraged it.

My own thinking is that the Pope has come out in open support of the Kasper proposal in this interview, citing arguments in favour of it and replying to arguments against it. Any incertitude about his position on the subject is henceforth dispelled.

It is time to wake up. We need to consider seriously just how far this can go. I’ve read posts urging us to trust the Holy Father and the bishops, other posts reassuring us that if we can’t be entirely sure of the bishops, we can be sure of the Holy Father, and one or two affirming that if the Holy Father seems a little liberal on the subject no worry - he won’t go against the bishops.

I predict the following will happen: the next synod will, by a simple or absolute majority, propose Sacramental Communion for remarried divorcees who manifest sufficient regret for what they have done but who find themselves unable either to separate or live as brother and sister. The Pope will produce a document permitting Communion under certain conditions for these couples. These conditions of course will be ignored in practice: any remarried divorcee who wants Communion will be able to receive it.

Bear in mind that none of this will in any way undermine the indefectibility of the Church. No dogmatic or moral doctrine will be abrogated. It’s a practical matter, not a doctrinal one. In effect though it will be disastrous, and when it happens, every Catholic will have to make his position clear. One cannot accept it, and - with all the loving respect due to the hierarchy set up by Christ himself - one will have to make one’s non-acceptance known. It is not going to be pleasant.

 

[bisco1]

what options do we have?

 

[Seraphim73]

My own thinking is that the Pope has come out in open support of the Kasper proposal in this interview, citing arguments in favour of it and replying to arguments against it. Any incertitude about his position on the subject is henceforth dispelled.

It is time to wake up. We need to consider seriously just how far this can go. I’ve read posts urging us to trust the Holy Father and the bishops, other posts reassuring us that if we can’t be entirely sure of the bishops, we can be sure of the Holy Father, and one or two affirming that if the Holy Father seems a little liberal on the subject no worry - he won’t go against the bishops.

I predict the following will happen: the next synod will, by a simple or absolute majority, propose Sacramental Communion for remarried divorcees who manifest sufficient regret for what they have done but who find themselves unable either to separate or live as brother and sister. The Pope will produce a document permitting Communion under certain conditions for these couples. These conditions of course will be ignored in practice: any remarried divorcee who wants Communion will be able to receive it.

Bear in mind that none of this will in any way undermine the indefectibility of the Church. No dogmatic or moral doctrine will be abrogated. It’s a practical matter, not a doctrinal one. In effect though it will be disastrous, and when it happens, every Catholic will have to make his position clear. One cannot accept it, and - with all the loving respect due to the hierarchy set up by Christ himself - one will have to make one’s non-acceptance known. It is not going to be pleasant.

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean divorcees approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

 

[SWolf]

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean divorcees approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean Buddhists approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean unrepentant adulturers approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean unrepentant polygamists approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean unrepentant baby-killers approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Yes I do think so.

I reread the relevant passages in the interview, trying to make them mean something innocuous. It can’t be done, not unless one scrambles language.

 

[McCall1981]

I reread the relevant passages in the interview, trying to make them mean something innocuous. It can’t be done, not unless one scrambles language.

I’m not concerned with how you read it. I’m concerned with how I, and people in the Church and media (that I trust), read it.

For instance, Sandro Magister, arguably the most prominent Vatican journalist in the world says this:

“Nonetheless the fact remains that what the pope said in this interview with regard to communion for the divorced and remarried still lends itself to interpretative doubts. One can read in it, in fact, both a rejection of the “solution” of giving them communion and an assent to this same solution, as part of a more comprehensive “integration” of these individuals.”

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350935?eng=y

If you don’t agree, fine.

 

[mgoforth]

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean divorcees approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

What’s your solution then? Should we stop encouraging our brothers and sisters to do the right thing because it may result in hurt feelings…or to avoid (as you’ve just demonstrated) the misperception that people who believe in the absolute sanctity of marriage think of themselves as superior?

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12: 51-53

Certainly not a very fassionable passage these days, when all choices are considered to be equal, there is no sin, etc. What kinds of issues do you think would have caused the division in this hypothetical family? Probably issues like the one we’re discussing right now.

And just to be clear - the divorced and remarried ARE stained by mortal sin, just the same as you and I when we commit any serious, knowing, deliberate offense against God. None of us deserve Communion with Him. We’re all dirty, some just choose to use the “bathtub” called Confession occasionally.

 

[_Abyssinia]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

My own thinking is that the Pope has come out in open support of the Kasper proposal in this interview, citing arguments in favour of it and replying to arguments against it. Any incertitude about his position on the subject is henceforth dispelled.

It is time to wake up. We need to consider seriously just how far this can go. I’ve read posts urging us to trust the Holy Father and the bishops, other posts reassuring us that if we can’t be entirely sure of the bishops, we can be sure of the Holy Father, and one or two affirming that if the Holy Father seems a little liberal on the subject no worry - he won’t go against the bishops.

I predict the following will happen: the next synod will, by a simple or absolute majority, propose Sacramental Communion for remarried divorcees who manifest sufficient regret for what they have done but who find themselves unable either to separate or live as brother and sister. The Pope will produce a document permitting Communion under certain conditions for these couples. These conditions of course will be ignored in practice: any remarried divorcee who wants Communion will be able to receive it.

Bear in mind that none of this will in any way undermine the indefectibility of the Church. No dogmatic or moral doctrine will be abrogated. It’s a practical matter, not a doctrinal one. In effect though it will be disastrous, and when it happens, every Catholic will have to make his position clear. One cannot accept it, and - with all the loving respect due to the hierarchy set up by Christ himself - one will have to make one’s non-acceptance known. It is not going to be pleasant.

Where do you get the idea that a proposal for Communion for the divorced and remarried would get a majority vote? What do you base that on? Looking at the past Synod, what makes you think that would happen at the next Synod?

This isn’t absolute evidence that there isn’t majority support for Communion support among the Cardinals for Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, but there have probably been more Cardinals speak out in opposition to the divorced and remarried receiving Conmunion, than support it.

Multiple Cardinals/Bishops have commented on the indissoubility in marriage issue and Communion for the divorced and remarried, and they haven’t exactly spoken of them coexisting in harmony.

 

[KSU]

Pope Francis:
Somebody did say to me once, ‘Of course, of course. Insight is so good for us but we need clearer things’. And I answered, ‘Look, I wrote an encyclical, true enough, it was a big job, and an Apostolic Exhortation, I’m permanently making statements, giving homilies; that’s teaching. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think. Check it out, it’s very clear. Evangelii Gaudium is very clear’”.​

Good people, on this thread, if God granted me just 15 minutes alone with this compassionate, erudite, great man of God, who teaches me something new every few days, the first thing I would say to him is this:

Holy Father, you obviously are close to both the common man and to the mind of God. You probably will end up being the greatest teaching pope in our lifetime. But, please, please stop assuming that what you tell us is “very clear.” We English-speaking people, because of translation problems, can’t “check it out”; we never know for sure exactly what you said. The English version of Evangelii Gaudium, for example, has been so poorly–actually incompetently–translated by the Vatican, that we still don’t know what you meant. Can you believe that? As just one example, in section 54, the words we were given in English makes you appear to be what you are not; a Marxist railing specifically against the economic system of the United States. Who hears you say later that you are not a Marxist?

The damage has been done, Holy Father. Secular enemies of both the Church in America and the anti-Socialist government in the U.S. were able to lead many astray; the Devil knows that those two entities have a symbiotic relationship. The marginal destruction of one would lead to the marginal destruction of the other.

Similarly, reports we were given in English after the recent Synod, and your later related comments to the media, were somewhat better translated (especially the translation done by LA NACION), but not to the point you yourself would find suitable, and context suffered. Again, many common people were led astray about who you are.

That is a disaster. Holy Father, in this age of instant communication, please resist the temptation to say that “The Church thinks in terms of centuries”. Do you not wonder why you are getting so many strange reactions after your “clear” statements? They are no longer clear by the time [with a big smile] your poor English-speaking lambs read them. Please add the desperately needed reform of the Vatican Press Office–as a priority–to the reform of the Curia. The latter does less immediate damage to the Faith than the English translations.

Thank you, Holy Father.

 

[bisco1]

even if they do allow divorce and remarriage someday, i’m staying married to the wife of my youth.

 

[LongingSoul]

Holy Father, you obviously are close to both the common man and to the mind of God. You probably will end up being the greatest teaching pope in our lifetime. But, please, please stop assuming that what you tell us is “very clear.” We English-speaking people, because of translation problems, can’t “check it out”; we never know for sure exactly what you said. The English version of Evangelii Gaudium, for example, has been so poorly–actually incompetently–translated by the Vatican, that we still don’t know what you meant. Can you believe that? As just one example, in section 54, the words we were given in English makes you appear to be what you are not; a Marxist railing specifically against the economic system of the United States. Who hears you say later that you are not a Marxist?

Lol. Advocating for the poor in a prosperous society isn’t Marxist. That’s just silly.

 

[KSU]

Lol. Advocating for the poor in a prosperous society isn’t Marxist. That’s just silly.

Hello, my friend. I see you are up to your usual tricks; putting words in my mouth.

 

[SWolf]

Pope Francis:

Holy Father, you obviously are close to both the common man and to the mind of God. You probably will end up being the greatest teaching pope in our lifetime. But, please, please stop assuming that what you tell us is “very clear.” We English-speaking people, because of translation problems, can’t “check it out”; we never know for sure exactly what you said. The English version of Evangelii Gaudium, for example, has been so poorly–actually incompetently–translated by the Vatican, that we still don’t know what you meant. Can you believe that? As just one example, in section 54, the words we were given in English makes you appear to be what you are not; a Marxist railing specifically against the economic system of the United States. Who hears you say later that you are not a Marxist?
.

In all my dealings in Free Market circles, I have never once heard someone espouse “trickle down economics”. What upset me most about that paragraph was the strawman attack.

 

[LongingSoul]

Hello, my friend. I see you are up to your usual tricks; putting words in my mouth.

You’ll have to explain your definition of a Marxist to me then. I thought it meant advocating for an ultimately classless society? In para. 54 of EG Pope Francis advocates for the poor within a prosperous society.

 

[Seraphim73]

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean Buddhists approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean unrepentant adulturers approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean unrepentant polygamists approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

Yes we need to make sure we don’t approve of those dirty, unclean unrepentant baby-killers approaching the chalice with the rest of us pure folk and we need to make sure they all know it.

You just keep speaking truth to power.

 

[Seraphim73]

What’s your solution then? Should we stop encouraging our brothers and sisters to do the right thing because it may result in hurt feelings…or to avoid (as you’ve just demonstrated) the misperception that people who believe in the absolute sanctity of marriage think of themselves as superior?

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12: 51-53

Certainly not a very fassionable passage these days, when all choices are considered to be equal, there is no sin, etc. What kinds of issues do you think would have caused the division in this hypothetical family? Probably issues like the one we’re discussing right now.

And just to be clear - the divorced and remarried ARE stained by mortal sin, just the same as you and I when we commit any serious, knowing, deliberate offense against God. None of us deserve Communion with Him. We’re all dirty, some just choose to use the “bathtub” called Confession occasionally.

You should just explain to them that they are not worthy to receive unlike the rest of us.