Five hundred lay people echo priests’ plea to stand firm on Communion for the remarried

[Brendan]

You merely prove that you do not understand what the Pope said.

Jim

I was merely expressing an agreement in what I Pope Francis said and hope that his message will be heard at the synod. .

What you mean is that I took his words literally and did not attempt to put it in context of a particular agenda, correct?

I too expressed an agreement with Pope Francis actually SAID, as in his direct words, not an attempt to conform them to fit any particular view.

=OraLabora]It would seem obvious to me that he was speaking figuratively about “closed doors”, in that certain communities are very cold and unwelcoming to those who have made a mess of their lives. It isn’t a matter of not allowing, but not welcoming with them open hearts, or as St Benedict says “as if it were Christ himself walking through the door”. Even those who have made a mess of their lives carry the image of Christ on their hearts (St. Benedict is very clear on this), and that gives them an inherent dignity.

That is reading into his words a particular agenda, which has already been discussed and condemned.

Or, would it be OK to read the Pope’s words, gather what we believe to be the message, and act upon it.

For example, here is what SimpleSoul stated

Then let’s also stop putting words into his mouth saying he does not mean certain things when he has not stated that he does not mean certain things.

I’ve seen two conflicting views on that topic, which do either of you two advocate is the correct path?

 

[OraLabora]

That is reading into his words a particular agenda, which has already been discussed and condemned.

Or, would it be OK to read the Pope’s words, gather what we believe to be the message, and act upon it.

Where’s the agenda? It should seem glaringly obvious that the doors to the Church are not literally closed to those who have made a mess of their lives. He can mean no other that being unwelcoming, is the equivalent to slamming a door in one’s face, or driving away.

That is the “literal” interpretation of what he’s saying. That’s not “agenda”, that’s the reality of the nuances of the language of a native Latin-based language speaker and Latin culture. I live in a Latin culture (French), and that’s just the normal way we communicate.

If he said it was “raining cats and dogs” are we supposed to take those words at face value? Or do we take them for the value that this expression conveys?

Sheesh!

 

[Brendan]

Where’s the agenda? It should seem glaringly obvious that the doors to the Church are not literally closed to those who have made a mess of their lives. He can mean no other that being unwelcoming, is the equivalent to slamming a door in one’s face, or driving away.:

Then how do we know that this even applies to Catholic parishes. He said “Christian communities”, so if I interpreted his comments to refer to Westboro Baptist, but not in regards to any normative Catholic practices, would that indicative of an agenda?

( and yes, I am well familiar with Quebecois phrasing, my wife is from Drummondville )

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Then how do we know that this even applies to Catholic parishes. He said “Christian communities”, so if I interpreted his comments to refer to Westboro Baptist, but not in regards to any normative Catholic practices, would that indicative of an agenda?

( and yes, I am well familiar with Quebecois phrasing, my wife is from Drummondville )

He stated

The church “is the house of Jesus,” and Christians must welcome everyone, even bringing those who are unable to make their way on their own, said Pope Francis at morning Mass March 17.

I would think the Pope is talking about the Catholic Church, being it’s the Catholic Church which prohibits divorced and remarried Catholics from receiving Holy Communion.

Heck, that reason alone is why many Catholics end up in protestant churches.

He also said;

Pope Francis said they tell people, “You made a mistake here and you cannot (enter). If you would like to come, come to Sunday Mass, but stay there, don’t do more.”

Sunday Mass, is generally Catholic Mass.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Heck, that reason alone is why many Catholics end up in protestant churches.

Jim, I think a lot of that might be because the protestant churches, especially the megachurches, have programs set up for the single, divorced, and such. I myself looked into a lot of these programs, and they’re good. I doubt if communion is the only issue for many, if it’s one at all.

 

[Brendan]

I would think the Pope is talking about the Catholic Church, being it’s the Catholic Church which prohibits divorced and remarried Catholics from receiving Holy Communion.

But he said ‘some’, the practice that you refer to would apply to EVERY Catholic parish. It is a universal teaching of the Church, and has been so for the last 2000 years.

Are you saying that when the Pope says ‘some Christian communities’, he really means ‘the entire Catholic Church’. That is a bit of a stretch, and I would claim that you are reading FAR more into the Pope’s words that he stated.

Pope Francis said they tell people, “You made a mistake here and you cannot (enter). If you would like to come, come to Sunday Mass, but stay there, don’t do more.”

Sunday Mass, is generally Catholic Mass.

Are their parishes that do not allow people to attend weekday Mass, or to go to confession if they are repentant of their sins?

My point is, that you are INFERING that the Pope’s comments are in reference to an agenda item that you are interested in.

Another person could equally claim, and with about as much justification, that this is in reference to a parish not offering coffee and donuts after Mass, or excluding people form them.

That would actually have much more intellectual validity that claiming that the entire Catholic Church is unwelcoming, and has been since the time of the Apostles.

 

[Brendan_64]

I would think the Pope is talking about the Catholic Church, being it’s the Catholic Church which prohibits divorced and remarried Catholics from receiving Holy Communion.

The Pope has made no reference to Holy Communion at all on those words.

Here you are clearly reading Pope Francis’s view that we should welcome all as meaning that we should allow all to receive Communion. Nor has he made reference to the divorced and remarried in his statement. He has not said that at all.

Pope Francis does not mince his words, if he had meant what you imply he meant (despite not saying it) then he would have said it.

You are clearly using Pope Francis’s words on welcome to support a particular agenda. I suppose you also infer that the coming Year of Mercy announced by pope Francis has been called in relation to him supposedly wanting to allow Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried?

You really are looking at Pope Francis’s words and using them to support an agenda.

 

[McCall1981]

The Pope has made no reference to Holy Communion at all on those words.

Here you are clearly reading Pope Francis’s view that we should welcome all as meaning that we should allow all to receive Communion. Nor has he made reference to the divorced and remarried in his statement. He has not said that at all.

Pope Francis does not mince his words, if he had meant what you imply he meant (despite not saying it) then he would have said it.

You are clearly using Pope Francis’s words on welcome to support a particular agenda. I suppose you also infer that the coming Year of Mercy announced by pope Francis has been called in relation to him supposedly wanting to allow Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried?

You really are looking at Pope Francis’s words and using them to support an agenda.

Card Muller, who is certainly in a better position to “interpret” Francis than any of us are, said:

“Francis would like that people in difficult situations were not abandoned, but accompanied and accepted in the community, without however eliminating parts of the Church’s doctrine”, says Mueller, talking on the synodal theme of communion with remarried divorcees."

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/mueller-mueller-mueller-40052/

(Also, we also know for certain that Card Muller A) considers communion for the remarried to be a doctrinal issue, and B) is staunchly opposed to admitting remarried people to communion, so there is no confusion in what he is saying here)

 

[Brendan_64]

Card Muller, who is certainly in a better position to “interpret” Francis than any of us are, said:

“Francis would like that people in difficult situations were not abandoned, but accompanied and accepted in the community, without however eliminating parts of the Church’s doctrine”, says Mueller, talking on the synodal theme of communion with remarried divorcees."

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/mueller-mueller-mueller-40052/

(Also, we also know for certain that Card Muller A) considers communion for the remarried to be a doctrinal issue, and B) is staunchly opposed to admitting remarried people to communion, so there is no confusion in what he is saying here)

Pope Francis has not made reference to his wanting Communion for the divorced and remarried. As Cardinal Muller says “without eliminating parts of the Church’s doctrine”, and it is clear that this is an issue involving several core doctrines including the nature of the Eucharist, the need to receive in a state of grace, the nature and effect of mortal sin, the nature of adultery, and the need for a resolve to sin no more in order to receive absolution.

But then again we have the Cardinal Kaspar claiming to be the Pope’s theologian, therefore implying papal support for his position.

Perhaps people ought to let the pope speak for himself? He has a mouth, he can us it himself, without others putting into the Pope’s mouth, the words they would like to hear him say in order to support their cause.

 

[McCall1981]

Again, Pope Francis has not made reference to his wanting Communion for the divorced and remarried. As Cardinal Muller says “without eliminating parts of the Church’s doctrine”, and it is clear that this is an issue involving several core doctrines including the nature of the Eucharist, the need to receive in a state of grace, the nature and effect of mortal sin, the nature of adultery, and the need for a resolve to sin no more in order to receive absolution.

But then again we have the Cardinal Kaspar claiming to be the Pope’s theologian, therefore implying papal support for his position.

Perhaps people ought to let the pope speak for himself? He has a mouth, he can us it himself, without others putting into the Pope’s mouth, the words they would like to hear him say in order to support their cause.

I posted that to point out that Card Muller, who is in a much better position to know, strongly implies that Francis does not support giving communion to the remarried.

I think we’re arguing for the same side here…

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m not sure if you misunderstood me there…

I posted that to point out that Card Muller, who is in a much better position to know, pretty strongly implies that Francis does not support giving communion to the remarried.

I so see your point, and agree with it.

But while people are acting as ‘official’ interpreters (on one side or the other) of what they feel the pope is implying, but not actually stating, then we end up in a situation where people use the Pope’s words as almost ‘authoritative’ backing for their own point of view.

In the end though, it doesn’t really matter what the Pope thinks on this issue. the cardinals will discuss the issues and will make their decisions based on their own understanding of what Church doctrine is on the issues. I can’t see them sitting around and saying, “Pope Francis thinks this, so we better do what he wants and make a decision that will please him”.

Pope Francis has not come out stating support for one side or the other in this debate. Perhaps we should give him credit for not wanting to prejudice any discussions that will take place?

In the end, the Church will not change Her teaching on the Eucharist, mortal sin, adultery, the need to be in a state of grace to receive, and the need to resolve to sin no more in order to receive absolution.

To try to ‘get around’ this through a ‘pastoral approach’ that contradicts doctrine is to relegate doctrine to something that simply exists on paper, but does not need to be lived out in reality. What do the teachings of the Church represent, if not a blueprint of how we should live out our lives? Pastoral practice represent Church teachings lived out in reality. How can a ‘pastoral approach’ that contradicts Church teachings represent a living out of the teachings of Christ? Or are we actually saying that Church teachings do not represent the teachings of Christ?

 

[McCall1981]

I so see your point, and agree with it.

But while people are acting as ‘official’ interpreters (on one side or the other) of what they feel the pope is implying, but not actually stating, then we end up in a situation where people use the Pope’s words as almost ‘authoritative’ backing for their own point of view.

In the end though, it doesn’t really matter what the Pope thinks on this issue. the cardinals will discuss the issues and will make their decisions based on their own understanding of what Church doctrine is on the issues. I can’t see them sitting around and saying, “Pope Francis thinks this, so we better do what he wants and make a decision that will please him”.

Pope Francis has not come out stating support for one side or the other in this debate. Perhaps we should give him credit for not wanting to prejudice any discussions that will take place?

In the end, the Church will not change Her teaching on the Eucharist, mortal sin, adultery, the need to be in a state of grace to receive, and the need to resolve to sin no more in order to receive absolution.

To try to ‘get around’ this through a ‘pastoral approach’ that contradicts doctrine is to relegate doctrine to something that simply exists on paper, but does not need to be lived out in reality. What do the teachings of the Church represent, if not a blueprint on how we should live out our lives? How can a ‘pastoral approach’ that contradicts Church teachings represent a living out of the teachings of Christ? Or are we actually saying that Church teachings do not represent the teachings of Christ?

Totally agree.

 

[Brendan_64]

I believe that when it comes down to it the Cardinals will back Church teaching and not permit ‘pastoral approaches’ that contradict Church doctrines. I think we are indeed looking at another ‘Humanae Vitae moment’.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Brendan

The Pope has made no reference to Holy Communion at all on those words.

Well in the context of what he’s speaking, when he stated:

“You made a mistake here and you cannot (enter). If you would like to come, come to Sunday Mass, but stay there, don’t do more.”

“Don’t do more,” what do you suppose he means ? He’s not talking about passing the collection basket.

Also, he didn’t call for the Synod in order to talk about singing in the choir or passing the collection plate. He’s look at how to bring divorced and remarried Catholics to full union with the Church.

You are clearly using Pope Francis’s words on welcome to support a particular agenda.

What agenda is that ?

I suppose you also infer that the coming Year of Mercy announced by pope Francis has been called in relation to him supposedly wanting to allow Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried?

You suppose a lot about me.

Try sticking to the topic and not make the thread about me.

You really are looking at Pope Francis’s words and using them to support an agenda.

Again please tell me the agenda I have that you seem to know about.

Jim

 

[McCall1981]

I believe that when it comes down to it the Cardinals will back Church teaching and not permit ‘pastoral approaches’ that contradict Church doctrines. I think we are indeed looking at another ‘Humanae Vitae moment’.

I hope and pray you’re right.

Lately, it has seemed to me that things are starting to lean a little in this direction, but I am still far from confident about it.

 

[McCall1981]

Brendan

**Well in the context of what he’s speaking, when he stated:

“Don’t do more,” what do you suppose he means ? He’s not talking about passing the collection basket.

Also, he didn’t call for the Synod in order to talk about singing in the choir or passing the collection plate. He’s look at how to bring divorced and remarried Catholics to full union with the Church.**

What agenda is that ?

You suppose a lot about me.

Try sticking to the topic and not make the thread about me.

Again please tell me the agenda I have that you seem to know about.

Jim

Well, according to this recent interview Francis himself gave, what he is referring to is remarried people being godparents (and some of the other things they can’t do) and pretty specifically not communion.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351008?eng=y

Q: “What do you expect from the synod? Do you believe that too many expectations have been created among suffering couples, among the divorced and remarried, among homosexuals, going farther than you think you will go? Will the divorced and remarried to be able to receive communion? And how much acceptance will be extended to homosexuals?”

A:** “I believe that there are disproportionate expectations. …] The family is in crisis. How can the life of the Church integrate “replay” families? This means those of a second union that sometimes turn out to be phenomenal, while the first were unsuccessful. How can they be re-integrated? They should go to church. Then comes the simplification and they say: “Ah, they will give communion to the divorced.” This doesn’t resolve anything. What the Church wants is for you to be integrated in the life of the Church. But there are some who say: “No, I want to receive communion and that’s it.” A badge, a decoration. No. You must reintegrate yourself. There are seven things that, according to the current law, persons in second unions cannot do. I don’t remember all of them, but one of them is being a godparent at a baptism. Why? And what testimony can he give his godchild? That of saying: “Look, dear, in my life I have made a mistake. Now I am in this situation. I am Catholic. The principles are these. I am doing this and I accompany you.” A true witness. …] If they believe, even if they are living in a situation that is defined as irregular and they accept this and know what the Church thinks about this condition, it is not an impediment. When we talk about integrating we mean all of this. And afterward to accompany the interior processes.** …] Moreover, we have a very serious problem which is that of the ideological colonization of the family. This is why I talked about this in the Philippines, because it is a very serious problem. The Africans complain about this a great deal. And also in Latin America. And it happened to me once. I was the witness of a case of this kind with an education minister concerning the teaching of “gender” theory, which is something that is pulverizing the family. This is why I believe that the synod will produce things that are very clear, very rapid, that will help in this family crisis that is all-encompassing.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Also, he didn’t call for the Synod in order to talk about singing in the choir or passing the collection plate. He’s look at how to bring divorced and remarried Catholics to full union with the Church.

He did not call this synod to look at how divorced and remarried people can come into full union with the Church.

This is a synod on the family, not on one single issue. The issues of the family do not revolve around people who are divorced and remarried.

What agenda is that ?

You have stated this in the sentence above by claiming that the Synod has been called to look at the issue of bringing divorced and remarried people back into full communion with the Church. That is not the core issue affecting family life in our world today. That is not why the synod has been called.

This is the Synod on the Family, not the Synod on the Divorced and Remarried. It is interesting how little mention is made of children by those who focus on the issues such as Communion for the divorced and remarried. Is this synod mainly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, homosexuals, and cohabiting couples? Perhaps children are merely a side issue?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I have no doubt that the Cardinals will hold firm to Church Doctrine.

But I have hope that they will also find a way to bring divorced and remarried Catholics to full union in the Church, through a more pastoral and less bureaucratic means than exists now. I pray that the Cardinals will come to the understanding that although a marriage may have existed in the beginning, for some reason, it ceased to exist. This is a reality which can not be denied.

I also pray that Catholics will be more compassionate towards such people and be open to them coming to full union.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You have stated this in the sentence above by claiming that the Synod has been called to look at the issue of bringing divorced and remarried people back into full communion with the Church. That is not the core issue affecting family life in our world today. That is not why the synod has been called.

\

It’s not the only issue in the synod, but a very big part of it, or else we wouldn’t be hearing and debating the subject.

Heck, this thread wouldn’t even exist if that wasn’t a big issue in the synod.

But that’s not an agenda on my part, just the reality that is taking place.

Jim

 

[Brendan_64]

I pray that the Cardinals will come to the understanding that although a marriage may have existed in the beginning, for some reason, it ceased to exist. This is a reality which can not be denied.

That is not a reality. The words of Christ are very clear on that. It is the words of Christ that cannot be denied.

Either a marriage existed, or it did not, If it did actually exist, then the only thing that can break it is the death of one of the spouses. If the marriage never actually existed, then the marriage can be annulled.