How to forgive Pope Francis

[Teek]

So the man’s confusion about the nature of Eucharist was an “objective mortal sin”?

No—in a second marriage without a decree of annulment from the first.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

“Pro-choice” means exactly what it says. It means supporting the right of a woman to do what she will work the basic functions of her body. You may or may not agree with that belief. It doesn’t invite discussion of abortion, until an anti-abortion person brings it up.

 

[pnewton]

Obama is pro-choice. Very different from being pro-abortion.

That is a phrase not everyone agrees with. Grammatically speaking pro-choice is meaningless as “choose” is a transitive verb and requires and object. Obama is only pro-choice when it comes to abortion, not when it comes to slavery or rape, for example.

As a Catholic site, your use of terms will not count for much. If you want to argue for abortion, perhaps you should start your own thread, so we can discuss the parallel of today’s pro-choice for abortion to the pro-choice for slavery argument of the past.

 

[OneSheep]

The problem is that, citing “doctrine and protocol,” individual priests will make particular decisions that conflict with each other. (Another problem is that not all will follow “doctrine and protocol”, but that’s a separate issue.) You know how it goes: scandal follows, if it seems that there are different standards in play for different people, at different parishes.

Good Morning, and Merry Chirstmas!

I’m trying to play this out in my mind, but I can’t seem to make a big problem out of this, but only a small, solvable one. Priests losing parishioners to more lenient pastors will work it out among themselves or go to the Bishop. If there is a huge difference between one diocese and the next, the hierarchy will work it out. I can’t see that there is anyone to find fault with in any of this, and the people who are suffering the most are the ones trapped in difficult annulment situations. The guiding factor is mercy concerning their difficulties.

Notice that Jesus was addressing people who already were able to fully celebrate the Sabbath, not those who (for whatever reason) were unable to do so.

Are you saying then, that Jesus would reject a non-Jew healing people in His name on the Sabbath?

So He was saying “Those of you who are unclean or Samaritans, you may not fully celebrate the Sabbath?” Can you see that this is basically the opposite of His words? That would have man made for the Sabbath! Gorgias, I think you may have been a bit sleepy when you posted that…

 

[OneSheep]

When he heard about AL, he said, “If I had been in one of the diocese that accepted this garbage, I would never have accepted the Eucharist.”

This is a very confusing statement on the part of your friend. It is puzzling that his acceptance of Eucharist is dependent on a doctrine that is about marriage and family. Is he getting the idea that being Christian is primarily about relationship, or is he stuck in his head? Do you see that as the old protestant malaise, people in communities arguing over doctrinal stuff and splitting up over such?

Eucharist trumps doctrine any day of the week, right? Faith is about relationship with God and others.

 

[Gorgias]

Good Morning, and Merry Chirstmas!

Merry Christmas!

I’m trying to play this out in my mind, but I can’t seem to make a big problem out of this, but only a small, solvable one. Priests losing parishioners to more lenient pastors will work it out among themselves

No, this isn’t simply a matter of people moving between parishes. What will happen is that people will lose faith in the reasonableness of Church teaching, or will castigate their pastors (“Fr Tom down the street is a sin-loving such-and-such”; “Fr Joe up the street is a legalistic so-and-so”). The problem won’t be parishioner movement between parishes so much as parishioner movement out of the Catholic Church. If not with their feet, then with their hearts.

If there is a huge difference between one diocese and the next, the hierarchy will work it out.

You’re very optimistic…

the people who are suffering the most are the ones trapped in difficult annulment situations.

“Trapped” into saying “I do” the first time in Church?
“Trapped” into saying “I do” the second time at the JP’s office?
Hmm…

The guiding factor is mercy concerning their difficulties.

True. But sometimes, the definition of ‘mercy’ isn’t “let me give you this thing you’re asking for”. Sometimes, it’s “you’re in a tough spot. Let me walk with you through this difficulty”.

Are you saying then, that Jesus would reject a non-Jew healing people in His name on the Sabbath?

Simon Magus, anyone?

So He was saying “Those of you who are unclean or Samaritans, you may not fully celebrate the Sabbath?” Can you see that this is basically the opposite of His words?

No… it’s pretty much exactly what he said:
“[Jesus said], ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you.’”

The Mosaic Law was what prescribed Sabbath observance, and the scribes and Pharisees taught it to the people. Jesus didn’t have any problems with them teaching it – but He really didn’t like the way they taught it. They taught chapter and verse… but then didn’t help the people to follow it.

That’s what we’re talking about here: teach what the Church teaches, but be there for people when they’re trying to live it out. Not change it, though, mind you.

Gorgias, I think you may have been a bit sleepy when you posted that…

LOL! No… wide awake. Maybe you were sleepy when you read it…

 

[Teek]

This is a very confusing statement on the part of your friend.

His statement makes sense from his perspective related in the story I posted that explained how he came to the moment that he made that statement. He finally came to understand the Eucharist because he had been shown that the Eucharist IS sacred by being told that he could not receive it or be a lector or an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist because of his divorce and remarriage without a decree of annulment for his first marriage.

If his diocese had said that he didn’t really need to straighten out The reality that he was living in objective mortal sin, he would not have had the paradigm shift that opened his eyes to the reality of the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and the sacred nature of the Mass because of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Therefore, if his diocese had accepted the letter from Pope Francis to the Argentinian bishops and changed their policy before my friend was trying to understand the Church, they would not have held him accountable for living in mortal sin and he would not have come face to face with the reality that the Eucharist is something more than just a symbol. We really mean it, we really believe it, and it really is the Lord.

That is why he said if his diocese had accepted AL (or “that garbage” as he called it) he would never have accepted the Eucharist.

It is puzzling that his acceptance of Eucharist is dependent on a doctrine that is about marriage and family. Is he getting the idea that being Christian is primarily about relationship, or is he stuck in his head? Do you see that as the old protestant malaise, people in communities arguing over doctrinal stuff and splitting up over such?

It had nothing to do with any of those things, which is why I told his story. He would not have had to confront the truth that set him free.

Eucharist trumps doctrine any day of the week, right?

No. The Eucharist and doctrine are not opposed in ANY way. They are interrelated and interdependent. The Eucharist AND Doctrine trump fallacy and deception, any day of the week. We know what we know about the Eucharist because the Church teaches it in Docrine. The Doctrine is Truth because of the power and presence of Jesus Christ and the reality of the great “I Am”.

 

[Teek]

The problem won’t be parishioner movement between parishes so much as parishioner movement out of the Catholic Church. If not with their feet, then with their hearts.

We have seen enough of this to know it is true. Watering down truth to make it more palatable is a failed experiment. True faith comes from true…Truth.

True. But sometimes, the definition of ‘mercy’ isn’t “let me give you this thing you’re asking for”. Sometimes, it’s “you’re in a tough spot. Let me walk with you through this difficulty”.

Yes. This is what blows my mind about the whole thing. The minute they are having the conversation with the priest about this they know there is a problem. This is the point at which they can be accompanied to truth and freedom from sin. And now we are proposing that, as they seek full truth, or struggle to understand it, we should lead them further away from what they seek?! A thousand times: NO!!!

That’s what we’re talking about here: teach what the Church teaches, but be there for people when they’re trying to live it out. Not change it, though, mind you.

I could not agree more with all of these things that you have said.

 

[Dymphna82]

Pope Francis is doing the right thing. He sees that self righteousness and vanity have gotten in the way of being loving like Jesus meant us to be. I see so many people spend more time pointing fingers than trying to live by example. Our hardened hearts make it difficult to evangelize.

 

[Teek]

“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” applies. While Jesus was not advocating that people completely disregard the Sabbath, He was saying that exceptions can be made, and need to be made.

Actually, no, not at all. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into contradicting Scripture. Much like when they asked about paying taxes to Caesar, or when they asked who the remarried widow would be with in heaven after having been married to several brothers.

The law allowed them to pluck and eat standing grain (Deut 23:25) but did not allow harvesting grain on the Sabbath (Ex 20:10; Ex 34:21).

The point was that JESUS, like David, had the authority to override Mosaic ritual Law. We, however, do NOT.

It also showed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the promise of a Messiah in the line of David, and then goes further and Jesus calls himself “Lord of the Sabbath. No first century Jew would have missed that Jesus just made a claim to be God. (He also makes a claim to be greater than the Temple. These two claims were why they wanted to put Him to death: he claimed to be God.)

Deuteronomy 23:24-25
24"When you go into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as many as you wish, but you shall not put any in your vessel.
25 When you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.

Exodus 20:10
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates;

Exodus 34:21
21 "Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; in plowing time and in harvest you shall rest.

Mark 2:24-28

24 And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?”
25 And he said to them, " Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:
26 how he entered the house of God, when Abi’athar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?"
27 And he said to them, " The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;
28 so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."

 

[Teek]

“Deception” is not giving people the benefit of the doubt, Teek, but there is plenty of “error”! None of us sees with perfect eyesight, right?

I did not mean that people who are in error are deceptive. I meant that they are deceived. Anything outside of truth is deception. The source of the deception is the battle between good and evil—we do have an enemy who attempts to lead us astray, into error. He wants to deceive us.

That is why it is important not to leave people in error. Truth sets us free. It is the only true freedom.

 

[vincentleo]

And you are worried about the confusion, correct?

I am not personally concerned about the confusion because I know that ultimately the Holy Spirit remains in control of the Church. This does not mean, however, that I am altogether unconcerned about a pope who appears to be proposing something that is contrary to previous Church teaching, which some have reasons for believing is heretical, and which certainly is causing confusion among the faithful on a topic in which mortal sin hangs in the balance.

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.

I suppose that one can be highly ignorant of doctrine and still be Catholic and receive the Eucharist, although I would argue that a minimal understanding of doctrine is still required. But what you have said above is that those who are ignorant of doctrine are included because of Eucharist and because of will to be part of community: these are ambiguous statements…mere desire to be part of community is not the basis for receiving the Eucharist, otherwise anyone - Catholic or not - could partake.

Someone thinking that another person is in a state of mortal sin, judging the other, is already a problem

What is at issue here is the moral teaching of the Church, and the immortal souls of those receiving the Eucharist while not in a state of grace…this issue is not about whether people are judging each other unjustly for receiving communion.

…it is Eucharist that unites us: a dedication to the values of inclusion and forgiveness.

I am not familiar with the way you are using the term Eucharist, and it makes me wonder what background you are coming from. The Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, which we receive as a Sacrament in order to nourish us spiritually, to allow the grace of God to more fully enter our souls and inform our lives so that we can be granted eternal salvation after this life. The Eucharist is a means of forgiveness of all sins except for mortal sins which the recipient is conscious of…and in this case, it is not an insufficiency of the power of God but an obstacle within the person receiving. Regarding unity, it seems to me that the first unity that the Eucharist introduces is unity with Christ, and it is after this that it effects unity with those around us. But again, this does not mean that unity overrides the requirements for receiving the Eucharist (that one be a baptized Catholic in a state of grace), and so the term “inclusion” seems to not be the best word. And this brings us back to the original concern about the idea apparently being proposed by Pope Francis that those in a state of sin may in some cases be able to receive the Eucharist.

Do you not see why there is a problem here?

 

[Teek]

These are good examples. I think there were real opportunities for you to help them
These understand what is really going on:

Sorry. I did not see these replies until today.

These examples were given because a request was made for real examples from a Parish in which AL caused confusion. I did not explain the rest of the conversation, because that was irrelevant.

 

[Teek]

I think I would have challenged him (gently): was this process he underwent – of understanding what we say the Eucharist is – dependent on the means by which people reach it? That is, he came to understand by hitting a brick wall and a ‘no’. Can people not come to understand by means of a process that invites them to slowly accept the teaching?

He wasn’t talking about anyone else. He was discussing how God broke through to him.

 

[Gorgias]

He wasn’t talking about anyone else. He was discussing how God broke through to him.

I know. And he claimed it couldn’t have happened in the context of AL. And I’m suggesting that, perhaps, it could have happened to him in that context.

 

[Teek]

I know. And he claimed it couldn’t have happened in the context of AL. And I’m suggesting that, perhaps, it could have happened to him in that context.

God would have kept calling him.

However, the example was to show confusion based on changes indicated by AL, not to refute my friend’s experience of the Lord getting his attention.

 

[philipl]

I am no big fan of Pope Francis, here is something that IS going to happen. Francis will either retire or die within the next 20 years. We are going to get a Pope from Africa and he is going to be the opposite of Francis. So all you fine catholics that want those who question Francis to stop being so judgmental, just remember your words when we get a African Pope. The next Pope will be from Africa and will be very conservative.

 

[Kathleen18]

Are you being sarcastic about the next Pope being from Africa? Because if not, I think it is very presumptious to assert who The College of Cardinals (guided by THE HOLY SPIRIT) will decide is the next Pope.

 

[Gorgias]

However, the example was to show confusion based on changes indicated by AL, not to refute my friend’s experience of the Lord getting his attention.

Yes, but the “confusion” would have been an opportunity for you to explain what really is going on, and how it really is meant to work. Never waste an opportunity to spread the faith!

 

[Teek]

Yes, but the “confusion” would have been an opportunity for you to explain what really is going on, and how it really is meant to work. Never waste an opportunity to spread the faith!

I see. You think I didn’t do that.

This wasn’t a post for me to brag about my adept responses or to admit to my woeful inadequacies. It wasn’t about the right response to those scenarios at all.

It was responding to the following post:

I scratch my head about this “conflict”, actually. Please help me on this. How does a conflict actually arise? Could you describe a situation in a parish, perhaps? I do not mean to put down your concerns, I need to be informed.

Therefor, I provided the two encounters I have had in which the conflict arising from AL actually occurred in situations in my Parish.

My post was not intended to provide anything more.

Good advice, though.