How to forgive Pope Francis

[stpurl]

One of the more important points of Scriptural study is how often a specific event is not limited to that event only, but gives ‘precedent’ for how future events are to be seen and, if necessary, corrected.

St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is important not simply to the Corinthians of that particular time, but to all Christians, then, now, and future.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Teek,

I have a small window to post here, hopefully I can clarify sufficiently. I like the tone of your posts, you seem to be very objective.

I think it is difficult to generalize or conceptualize these ideas without defining different terms—like what constitutes “groups”. …

I am referring specifically to circles of trust. Circles of trust may not involve bigotry and racism, but they do very naturally involve excluding others. Those who self-label “liberals” and “conservatives” in the church have to be careful about how they feel in terms of including or excluding those of the “outgroup”, because it is our nature to dismiss people from trust who indicate membership in the “outgroup”.

For example, a person who expresses a high value for environmental concerns might be quickly dismissed by someone whose “ingroup” does not care about environmental concerns and have a common grievance against those who are concerned about the environment.

Jesus didn’t come to make understanding and consensus the goal. The love he preached was acceptance. It was the acceptance of others without exclusion, and yet also an invitation with specific criteria.

These criteria do determine whether you are “worthy” for admittance to the Eucharist.

Therefore, it depends on what you mean by “ideological affiliation.” Catholicism is a specific ideological affiliation expressed by the Creed that makes you worthy to recieve the Eucharist.

Keep in mind, though, that every single individual expressing the creed is going to have a slightly different definition of each word. Complete consensus on wording is impossible; the Spirit continues to guide wording as people try to understand the experiences behind variations in vocabulary.

There is always reason for the goal of understanding, and it is attainable; we can have faith that the Gift is there and accessible. However, while people do not completely understand the positions of others, we remain One Body in Christ, through Eucharist.

Is your “specific criteria” a person who professes the creed? That makes sense, of course. But then, we have many different interpretations of the creed itself, even if those are not spoken, and many do not really understand the creed. So you see, unity is found in Eucharist, found in people’s desire to be in communion. Do you agree?

There are ideological and political affiliations that are not consistent with the Catholic faith.

Do all people of a certain political affiliation adhere 100% to the ideology of the affiliation?

Continued…

 

[OneSheep]

In this way, when “one group claims that people of one particular political/ideological affiliation are themselves more worthy of the Eucharist than the other,” they may not be wrong.

Even if they truly want to be in communion, and are open minded about being wrong in position? You see, the Eucharist itself can open minds and heal people, but if the community rejects people, this type of repentance is less likely to occur. We all have some blindness and ignorance to contend with - within ourselves. We can be inclusive of people who are blind without compromising our values, right?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, vincentleo

“Confusion” because multiple interpretations are possible but not all of these interpretations are compatible with each other.

And you are worried about the confusion, correct?

“Conflict” because, as a result of ambiguity, different territories have actually adopted various interpretations that are not compatible with one another.

While I see the confusion, I still fail to see “conflict”. The Church follows the guide of the Spirit until clarification happens. We learn through trial and error, and it can be a bit messy. We have to keep in mind, though, that we are talking about individuals and their desire to be in communion. It is very difficult to make blanket statements without becoming judges. I think Pope Francis is trusting the Bishops to do what reflects the Gospel.

But, if what you mean is, receiving the Eucharist is more important than figuring out doctrinal discrepancies…I must disagree.

Do you agree that schismatic words and actions that are based in differences over doctrine go against the Spirit?

We must have the Sacrament, we must also have doctrine.

Yes, but faith itself is based in relationship(s), not words. We must keep in mind our priorities. Even the most ignorant of doctrine who have faith are included because of Eucharist and will to be part of community.

Is something happening in parishes? Yes: as a result of these things, some who are in a state of mortal sin are, or are being enabled to, receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This is the problem.

I think someone else addressed this. Someone thinking that another person is in a state of mortal sin, judging the other, is already a problem. If a parishioner is inclined to point and judge, this inclination already indicates an alienation. Sure, these problems in parishes are ongoing, but again, it is Eucharist that unites us: a dedication to the values of inclusion and forgiveness.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Good Morning

Just for clarification, if you were the father and your own son had not yet repented, you would not reach out and try to reconcile, correct? Would you tend to hold onto a sense of the son “owing” you something, before you could forgive? If so, this tendency is quite natural, right?

I pray that you do not see my questions as condescending, Edward. Try to give my tone the benefit of the doubt!

Thanks

 

[Edward_H]

I go with the parable that Jesus Himself gave us.

Chasing after someone for a rather superficial hug is not what the sinner or son truly needs. He needs growth, he needs to find the truth in comparison to his own past actions; he needs examination; he needs to wrestle with truth and then make a decision to convert, to amend, to turn toward the truth.

The huggy generation needs to learn these harder and more growth oriented ways. They need to mature, to grow up, and see things as they really are.

They never think about true growth: they just want brief smiles and hugs.

 

[pnewton]

They never think about true growth: they just want brief smiles and hugs.

St. Paul knew the mindset of the Pharisee from the inside. He wrote:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body [a]to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

 

[OneSheep]

Chasing after someone for a rather superficial hug is not what the sinner or son truly needs. He needs growth, he needs to find the truth in comparison to his own past actions; he needs examination; he needs to wrestle with truth and then make a decision to convert, to amend, to turn toward the truth.

I agree that a person gains a lot from suffering the consequences of the choices. What I am looking to clarify, though, is the heart of the Father. You are saying, then that a pre-repentantance hug from you as father would be fake, or “superficial”. It would not be real, not be a hug from a father who already forgives.

In addition, you are seeing such a hug as counterproductive, that the person needs to experience some non-acceptance in order to motivate him to repent.

How does the father feel towards the son, before the son repents? Does he hold something against him? Or does he secretly forgive, but does not show it, in order that the son be motivated to repent?

 

[Spyridon]

@JimR-OCDS

You are limiting the text to its literal sense as interpreted through the scope of historical criticism.

The text also has a spiritual sense, and that is the moral-tropological sense that people should check themselves before receiving Communion or risk eating and drinking condemnation to themselves. This is how the Fathers, how the Church, and how the Catechism all interpret that text spiritually.

 

[Edward_H]

Pahleeze…stop with the simplistic “you’re a Pharisee” innuendo.

Listen more deeply to what St Paul says in 2 Cor 7:

I rejoice now, not because you were saddened, but because you were saddened into repentance; for you were saddened in a godly way, so that you did not suffer loss in anything because of us. For godly sorrow produces a salutary repentance without regret, but worldly sorrow produces death. For behold what earnestness this godly sorrow has produced for you, as well as readiness for a defense, and indignation, and fear, and yearning, and zeal, and punishment.

Growth.

 

[pnewton]

Pahleeze…stop with the simplistic “you’re a Pharisee” innuendo.

I did not put that shoe on you and there was no innuendo. I quoted Scripture, one that applies directly to what you said. Perhaps I was generous in assuming that everyone knew St. Paul was a Pharisee. However, what you call spiritual growth, if it is in dichotomy with love of neighbor, would be a banging gong, nothing and with no profit to the soul. St. Paul says this, not I.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not me, but how the Church uses this particular part of Scripture to prohibit people from receiving Holy Communion, if they’re in a state of mortal sin, unless they get to a priest for Confession.

It makes the verse we pray at Mass, “Lord, I am not worthy for you to enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed” seem empty.

Either Jesus makes us worthy to receive Him, or He doesn’t.

If a person who has repented in his heart and feels the call to receive the Holy Eucharist, he should not hold back. This was told to me by a Catholic Priest who is also a theologian,. The state of mortal sin is more than what we think.

Jim

 

[Edward_H]

The more demanding view is to consider the totality of what Scripture says, integrating it into our daily life, with constancy and cheerfulness.

Not picking what strums our sensibilities.

Often, instead, we have to go against the grain of what suits us.

 

[Spyridon]

I disagree.

There is a prayer in the Eastern Rite which is also prayed by the Priest quietly in the Latin Rite which says “Lord, let not participation be unto condemnation or judgment, but unto the healing of soul and body, amen”. Also we say “holy things are for the holy”.

Communion can be a blessing or a curse. Eating and drinking unworthily is a curse. This is the teaching of the Fathers and of the Church.

 

[stpurl]

Jim, it appears you have an issue with the Church’s practice of sacramental confession, and for that I recommend you speak with a priest. In fact, I recommend you speak with several priests, not simply one who ‘validates’ your opinion. It would be wise for you to find a good priest who does not agree with you here (and there are many who do not agree, far more than the one you found who does) and to prayerfully listen and consider that it might not be “The Church” which has erred here.

 

[Spyridon]

I second the notion of @stpurl

Jim, you’ve expressed these errant views multiple times in the past.

It is perennial Church teaching that Communion cannot be received in a state of sin in a blessed manner. It is sacrilege to do so.

 

[Teek]

I appreciate your attempt at a level-headed understanding of everyone who replies to your original post. I’ll try to reply to your comments. If my answer sounds short, please know it is because there is a lot to reply to, I am not being curt.

Those who self-label “liberals” and “conservatives” in the church have to be careful about how they feel in terms of including or excluding those of the “outgroup”, because it is our nature to dismiss people from trust who indicate membership in the “outgroup”.

For example, a person who expresses a high value for environmental concerns might be quickly dismissed by someone whose “ingroup” does not care about environmental concerns and have a common grievance against those who are concerned about the environment.

I recognize this. People who do that are behaving wrongfully. It always surprises me how vehemently people seem to feel that ascribing to one political group or ideology immediately makes a person a caricature of the negative stereotype of that group or ideology. People rarely seem to attempt to understand or accept that person and what they mean and truly stand for. It’s not about what people say, but what they mean, and who they are.

In the Church, I don’t feel that defending one interpretation of a belief or another makes you a “Liberal” or a “Conservative.” It is either Truth that is consistent with Church teaching throughout time, or not.

Within your definition of group, there are still ideologies and political stances that do, in fact, separate a person from the Church. The inclusivity of the Church is defined by God, not man. The Church interprets this inclusivity infallibly in matters of faith and morals.

Individuals are to use those teachings primarily to steer their own ship, not to play bumper boats with other people. However, it is a part of evangelization to help others steer toward truth. And ALL Christians are called to evangelize. Therefore, there is an essential element of judgement in evangelization: are they doing what we know to be necessary to enter heaven, and could God be calling me to support them in finding their way to truth?

Live and let live is abandonment when a soul is in jeopardy. We are called to reach through the gates of hell and pull our fellow man to safety, before the gate slams shut for eternity.

To do so requires council—right judgement. That way we can do God’s will for the Kingdom of Heaven with our lives. It also requires fortitude, because people aren’t going to like it when you say that there is a right way, and they may not necessarily be following it.

 

[Teek]

Keep in mind, though, that every single individual expressing the creed is going to have a slightly different definition of each word. Complete consensus on wording is impossible; the Spirit continues to guide wording as people try to understand the experiences behind variations in vocabulary.

Yes, the Creed is the formula for our faith, but the Church doesn’t operate in formulas. The meaning must be unpacked for each word and phrase of the Creed in accordance with the fullness of Revelation. This is not done by each believer, but by Holy Mother Church, who protects and preserves the true faith. The Creed expresses the essence of the Church’s most fundamental teaching, but not all of it. There is only one right understanding of the Creed. Most of the Catechism is devoted to unpacking the Creed. It’s outline follows the Creed in the section on what we believe. A person may attempt to come up with their own meaning for the words, but the meaning is erroneous if it does not match what the Church teaches. It is not equally valid.

Is your “specific criteria” a person who professes the creed?

Not mine. The Church’s.

CCC. 185 Whoever says “I believe” says “I pledge myself to what we believe.” Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith.

One faith. One Church. Some Protestant denominations say the Creed. They do not interpret it the same way as the Catholic Church does. Therefore: no. The Creed is not the “specific criteria” alone, but the Creed interpreted authoritatively by the Catholic Church is.

We have many different interpretations of the creed itself, even if those are not spoken, and many do not really understand the creed.

I agree that not all understand. However, one could make the argument that the meaning is accessible with little effort, if one wants to know what one is professing. Those that seek understanding through the Church can find it. Those that don’t do not have an acceptable claim to possession of an equal interpretation.

 

[Teek]

unity is found in Eucharist, found in people’s desire to be in communion. Do you agree?

Perhaps, in a certain sense. Hope is found in people’s desire to be in communion, for certain. But it is more of a potential for unity than it is an achieved unity.

The Eucharist is most certainly the foundation of all true unity in Christ. However, it is not a guarantee of unity, because people receive the benefits of the Eucharist in proportion to their openness to it and preparedness for it. If it were proof of unity, there would be no disagreement on this forum, for example. And oh boy, is there ever disagreement here!

God is limited by nothing whatsoever, but we limit our own ability to receive what is offered by sin, by distraction, by willful misunderstanding, by ignorance, by stubbornness, etc. Can God break through all of these things? Yes, and often He does. And yet, in my own experience, I know that my own attitudes often have limited my ability to allow the grace of the Blessed Sacrament to do its work in me. I have had enough truly amazing spiritual encounters with Christ in the Eucharist (which were ENTIRELY Him breaking through all of the mess I make of things) to recognize that when I don’t, which is most of the time, it is not Him, it is most definitely me, getting in His way.

Do all people of a certain political affiliation adhere 100% to the ideology of the affiliation?

No. Especially not if we are discussing politics. However, it doesn’t take 100% adherence to the ideology of the political affiliation to exclude one from communion with the Church. It takes 100% adherence to one idea of that ideology that is in opposition to Church teaching. Just one.

Even if they truly want to be in communion, and are open minded about being wrong in position?

In my experience, being open minded about being in the wrong position still leaves you in the wrong position. If a person were truly open minded about being in the wrong position, they would see that they were wrong when they heard truth and change. They would not hear truth and stay where they are, claiming to be willing to change.

 

[Teek]

You see, the Eucharist itself can open minds and heal people, but if the community rejects people, this type of repentance is less likely to occur. We all have some blindness and ignorance to contend with - within ourselves.

First, it is not the community rejecting people. It is people rejecting what is required to enter the community. That aside…

There is a remarkable pattern in the Gospel, in which Jesus talks to the person in need of healing and gains their trust, their assent of faith, recognizes their desire to change or their willingness to be led. THEN He heals. Then He accepts them into the community. Likewise, there are times in the Gospels when people approach Him, wanting to believe, and are sent away. They were not willing to follow where He led. He didn’t say, well, follow anyway, maybe you will come around.

That method doesn’t work. It seems as if a gradual, gentle approach is needed, a soft touch that will lure them in. This is not how Jesus did it, it is not how the Apostles did it. It isn’t what we are told to do.

Matthew 10:11-14
11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, and stay with him until you depart.
12 As you enter the house, salute it.
13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.

That tolerant insinuating approach is not the kerygma, which demands a change, NOW, upon hearing the evangelion. It is through the bold proclamation of the word of God that the human heart hears the voice of the Savior and finds what has been sought.

Jesus said the Way is narrow and few will enter. I think when we attempt to broaden the way so that more will follow it, we end up leading people down the wrong path. We do great harm.

Say there was an archery competition at a fair. To qualify for the final round, the competitor must shoot the arrow into the bullseye. People are reluctant to sign up. Some don’t know about the competition at all. People are hired to go out into the crowd and tell them about the competition, and try to get them to sign up. One of these people sees that a lot of people hear the rule, that you can only qualify if you hit the bullseye, and turn away, uninterested. So he begins to tell people, “If you hit the target at all, you qualify.” A lot more people sign up! When it is their turn to try to qualify, they aim for the target because that is what they were told they are shooting for. And they hit what they are aiming for. But it wasn’t enough to qualify.

The truth is what is essential. The full truth.