How to forgive Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s a valid question. Afterall there are liberals and ‘spirit’ of Vatican II types who have not forgiven Pope Benedict XVI for Summorum Pontificum.
Ironically enough, this sort of divisiveness was also addressed in the same letter to the church at Corinth. Labeling and stereotyping is divisive to the body of Christ, not that I believe for a second the assumption that there is some contingent of Catholics who have not forgiven Pope Benedict for doing what a Pope does.
 
Last edited:
You can embellish and add pretend stories to this…but you can’t change the observed facts from Scripture.
I just read back, how this how prodigal son thing got mixed up into this thread, and I have to say that you have drawn more from the story than is there, with all this waiting to forgive stuff.
 
the son sinned.
the son examined.
the son moved…the intellect and the will working now toward the good. (interior reconciliation)
the father saw
the son gave confession (growth happened)
the father forgave.
 
the facts in the text are these

the son sinned.
the son examined.
the son moved…
the father saw
the son gave confession
the father forgave.
 
I agree that Pope Francis doesn’t need our forgiveness, if you are going by strict definitions. However, I don’t think people can get past their uncertainty unless he clarifies his teaching.

If there are good Cardinals who need clarification, then how can we be certain? And the Cardinals that are or were (before they passed away) asking for clarification are Cardinals who are faithful to the Church.

Really amazing Cardinals, might I add! The “Bishop who walks through walls,” Cardinal Joachim Meisner, was the Bishop of Berlin when Germany was divided. He had an amazing story. Cardinal Carlo Caffarra had a long history of defending Church teaching and is one of the most valuable theologians of our time. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller is a fantastic Church historian. His episcopal motto may be one of the coolest I have ever heard…”Ignem in Terram,” which means “Fire Upon the World,” from Luke 12, “I have come to cast fire upon the world and how I long that it were already ablaze.” Cardinal Burke is an expert in Canon Law and passionately loves the Lord, the Church, and Truth. Very loyal sons of the Church.

They voiced questions and are in no way against the Pope or the Church. They want answers. I definitely would say they aren’t asking for forgiveness. Just answers to the questions that cause confusion among the faithful. Until then, no one who feels concern can truly set aside the disquiet the refusal to answer those questions raises within the Church.

I completely agree with posters who have expressed that it can’t be set aside until the questions are answered—until the confusion stops—because frankly if the questions are answered one way, there isn’t any problem at all, but if they are answered another it makes the Holy Father at odds with Church teaching. This isn’t a grudge. It is a big giant question mark that leaves everyone poised in the edge of a vast divide. The Holy Father is already entrenched in one side or the other. To say you are with him when you don’t know where he is puts you at risk for being against the Church or it puts you firmly within the safety of the Church—but you don’t know yet which and it is maddening!

Not forgiveness. Not a grudge. And yet not settled.
 
My use of 1 Cor 29 is simply a reference to the Biblical foundation of the Catholic teaching that one who is a state of mortal sin cannot receive the Eucharist.

1983 Code of Canon Law: Canon 916:
A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
This teaching certainly does apply to all Catholics everywhere. I am not sure why you think this is flawed theology.
 
I think the problem here is “scandal”. Is it a scandal for the pope to phrase things oddly, or make confusing off-the-cuff remarks? When his spoken words confuse the faithful?

I am trying to imagine what someone like Saint Padre Pio would say about HH Francis’ remarks, and his receiving a “couple” of two men while he was in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem here is “scandal”. Is it a scandal for the pope to phrase things oddly, or make confusing off-the-cuff remarks? When his spoken words confuse the faithful?

I am trying to imagine what someone like Saint Padre Pio would say about HH Francis’ remarks, and his receiving a “couple” of two men while he was in the U.S.
If it is scandal, it is scandal that every Pope from year dot has been guilty of. Didn’t St Peter himself cause scandal by refusing to eat with Gentiles or some such?
 
Not forgiveness. Not a grudge. And yet not settled.
🙂 Thank you Teek, that whole post was very well written, I was thinking of what to write until I came across this and thought ‘perfect’.

God Bless You
 
If it is scandal, it is scandal that every Pope from year dot has been guilty of. Didn’t St Peter himself cause scandal by refusing to eat with Gentiles or some such?
Right—there are always examples of scandal, even by Popes. And every act of scandal is WRONG. That doesn’t make current acts of scandal excusable.

St. Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles and this caused scandal, and so he was rebuked by St. Paul.

Yes, the Pope was rebuked by one of the other “Bishops.” And the rebuke was righteous.

There is an excellent explanation of this scandal at the link at the bottom of this post. (I put some quotes here that support what I am saying. I did not quote the whole article for brevity’s sake, but not in an attempt to deceive. Please follow the link for the full context.)

From the article:

But there are three times we must disobey our superiors: 1) When they go against their superiors. 2) When they tell us to sin. 3) When they try to force us to do or believe things which go against the truth, especially dogmas of the Faith.

This is because God comes first. No superior was given his authority to force us to lose our souls. Our Lord says, “If the blind lead the blind, BOTH fall into the pit.” (Mt. 15:14) We are not excused for obeying our leaders into sin or heresy.

But the Pope is Jesus’ representative; he is not Jesus Himself. He makes mistakes. St. Peter made a mistake that scandalized souls, and St. Paul was duty-bound to correct him. How can I say that? The Faith was defined. St. Peter’s actions went against the defined dogma of the Church. In those rare instances, the Faith comes first. It was St. Paul who said that obedience comes from faith, and not the other way around (Rom. 1:5), and it was also he who said that even if an Apostle or an Angel were to preach contrary to the Faith, the Faith comes first (Gal 1:8).

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=428680&language=en

I need to add this as well, from the same article: still we are to respect and love the Holy Father.

Quote from above link (I added the bold):

The Church has never said that the Pope is always beyond reproach or even rebuke. So avoid the divination of the Pope. He is human, as we are. He is only guaranteed infallibility under certain conditions.

On the other hand, he is Christ’s vicar. He is our father of fathers among men, and we should have a great devotion to him. He has no human superior, and he has graces from the Holy Ghost as to the guidance of the Church. But NEVER judge him.

Learn this also from St. Paul. Even if a Pope is to be rebuked, even then, he is to be repected and venerated. When he rebuked him, he called him by th name given him by Christ to signify his authority: Cephas. Cephas is the rock, the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ. If in a particular circumstance, he is to be rebuked, he is still the pastor of our souls before God.

 
Last edited:
St. Peter’s actions went against the defined dogma of the Church.
Teek,not to be a.pain in the neck,ok? Just a brief comment because I am reading the thread.

St Paul addressed Peter as Cephas in that passage,acknowldeging his authority, and it was over a discipline.
And this I learnt with Brother Jay here among many other things he taught us.
 
Last edited:
That was a quote from the link in my post. I tried to show where the quotes began and end by using the text box formatting—but it just made a faint line. I’ll have to figure that out so I can make it more clear.

If the source is incorrect, I am sorry. It was from EWTN questions and answers.

In the link it also said that St. Paul addressed him as Cepheus to acknowledge his authority and stressed that even in the case of scandal the Pope deserves respect and our devotion.

Thanks for pointing that out, because it is especially important in the case of a Pope making any sort of statement that may need correction—the correction issued is never to be against the Pope but out of love for the Pope.

As to whether it was discipline or dogma, the link says the following:

“In Acts ch. 15, the Council of Jerusalem (truly the first Ecumenical Council of the Church) settled the question once and for all. St. Peter defined (Ac.15:7-11) that salvation was for the Gentiles, too, and that the yoke of the Law does not bind Christians.”

Therefore, by refusing to eat with the Gentiles, maybe it was both—he was violating a discipline and that seemed to put him against an established dogma? I’m not entirely clear on all of the precise distinctions here.

I appreciate that you pointed out the difference, though! Thank you! I actually tend to be a huge “pain in the neck” over “small” things like that, so I’m glad you said something.
 
Thank you! I actually tend to be a huge “pain in the neck” over “small” things like that, so I’m glad you said something.
Thanks for that! I do feel I am a pain in the neck often.
But the good thing is to learn and we ve got to make it out together to.improve.
Brother Jay was a walking library! Still.missed…but he is ok thank God. He was very ill.
 
I am trying to imagine what someone like Saint Padre Pio would say about HH Francis’ remarks,
That is an interesting twist on WWJD. What would Padre Pio think? Of well. Both versions are no more than Rorschach tests of a sort, in that there is nothing really there but what we see in it.
 
That is an interesting twist on WWJD. What would Padre Pio think? Of well. Both versions are no more than Rorschach tests of a sort, in that there is nothing really there but what we see in it.
I’m not sure that is exactly fair, as far as comparisons go.

The Saints are put forward by the Church as people who should inspire us, so that we have someone to imitate, and someone to intercede for us. We are supposed to contemplate their lives, their examples, and questions like “How would Padre Pio respond to this?”

You are right in some cases that it is sheer speculation or colored by our own subjective view point so thoroughly that the Saint wouldn’t recognize himself/herself from our eyes. However, they were real people with real experiences to inform us. Unlike the Rorschach tests, which were never real images and so all interpretations are of our own imagining—there was no objective truth to find in a Rorschach image! In contrast, in a lot of cases those Saints faced similar situations to what we face and managed to rise above them, and so there are concrete ways of reacting to real situations that can inform us in our contemplation.

Anyway, I think it is of great value to consider those kinds of questions.
 
Last edited:
True one who is in the state of mortal sin should not receive.

However, the use of 1 Corinthians 29, isn’t appropriate interpretation.

Again, read 1 Corinthians 29 as Paul was writing to the Church at Corinth. Understand what he was addressing to them.

Jim
 
Anyway, I think it is of great value to consider those kinds of questions.
Perhaps if one can truly be honest, and recognize the short-comings. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen WWJD be used for pacifism, or rebellion. But if you are going to ask about what Padre Pio would think, I would rather suggest what he would do, and if there is not evidence of him being at odds with the Pope, then take the question with a grain of salt.
 
The verse is used in the Catechism to describe who will not be able to receive communion. Is the Catechism not using the verse appropriately?
 
Yes, the Church adds the last line, which Paul did not state in 1 Corinthians,

Again, the point made is that the 1 Corinthians 11 is that St Paul is addressing the abuse at Corinth.

Read 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top