How to forgive Pope Francis

[Peter_M]

We don’t know the next Pope will be from Africa… perhaps it is a good guess, but it is still just a guess.

Forgive Pope Francis? Whatever for? I don’t think he’s done anything that needs forgiving. He’s not been clear, at times, in what he has said, and the media jumps at anything that even smells of Christians conceding to some view they cherished. And we get a kerfuffle of indignation from the hard liners, and fainting spells from more liberal catholics who never thought they would see the day that a Pope said X, or allowed Y, or blessed Z.

Pope Francis is attempting to correct our attitudes, and to encourage us to put aside the interests of greed and consumerism. That doesn’t need forgiving.

 

[Gorgias]

I see. You think I didn’t do that.

This wasn’t a post for me to brag about my adept responses

Since you seemed to be coming from the “Francis’ AL is bad” perspective, and your post said “look at the bad things that proceed from AL” rather than “until I explained to him what AL was really about, this is what his first thought was”… then yeah, that’s the impression I got.

 

[Teek]

Where did I say THAT?

and your post said “look at the bad things that proceed from AL”

At no point did I give any reply to what he said.

 

[philipl]

Nope, not at all, Africa is where the church is growing. So the odds are high the next Pope will be from Africa, I think if not from Africa we may very well see an American Pope and I do mean from the usa. I also think the Benedict has set a new norm, we may very well see Francis retire. Now this is what is called a “discussion”. I have no (name removed by moderator)ut to what happens to any Pope. In my adult life time I have watched 5 men ascend to the papilcy. Granted the news didn’t travel as fast 35 years ago as it does today, but I remember all the talking and discussions about who would become the next pope. So believe it or not its a catholic past time to think about who will be the next Pope. I for one would love to see a Pope from africa.

 

[LRR]

I think there is a difference between “forgiving” and “withdrawing criticism.” This thread seems to be leaning toward ultramontanism. Here’s some thoughts (I hope you won’t dismiss them on the grounds that they come from a site that supports the Extraordinary Form of the Mass).

Can good Catholics criticise the Pope?

I'm reposting this from March 2014, inspired by seeing one of the arguments I address below used on social media somewhere. (By someone who ...

www.lmschairman.org

 

[Teek]

I agree. You know it is bad when you are accused of some attitude that you yourself abhor, and so explain your reasoning to make yourself more clear, and get told no one is buying your doubletalk.

It is not doubletalk to love the faith, to love the Pope, and to be concerned when the Pope appears to contradict the faith. You can do all three at once.

I like this quote from the article, which is from canon law.

“Canon 212 sec. 3, the laity has “the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

 

[OneSheep]

Forgive Pope Francis? Whatever for? I don’t think he’s done anything that needs forgiving.

Yes, this is your experience. I have nothing to forgive Pope Francis either, as I hold nothing against him. I started the thread because others did express that they held something against him, and I hoped that this thread would help people with the process of understanding as a means toward forgiveness.

Pope Francis is attempting to correct our attitudes, and to encourage us to put aside the interests of greed and consumerism. That doesn’t need forgiving.

Those that do take offense to Pope Francis do not ascribe those beneficent motives to him, right? So we accept people and hear from where they are coming from, and then help them to understand and forgive when they truly hold something against him.

 

[Peter_M]

It appears provocative to have a thread titled “How to forgive Pope Francis”. The statement assumes that there is something that needs to be forgiven.

Those that do take offense to Pope Francis do not ascribe those beneficent motives to him, right? So we accept people and hear from where they are coming from, and then help them to understand and forgive when they truly hold something against him.

Indeed, I have read many threads that believe Pope Francis poses a threat to the Church. This seems to be a penchant among those members who in what I would call a narrow interpretation of orthodoxy. “For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life…” would be their motto.

However, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy…”. The narrow way is not to deny communion to the divorced, or to reach out to gay people to meet them in their human struggles. The narrow way, the hard way, is really about mercy.

Many of the Pope’s global political positions run contrary to the American mind set. As many of the posters here are Americans, it goes against the grain for some of them to hear a Pope speak like that. Yet Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI both spoke about these things in very similar ways. But those Popes also had a lot to say about what is important to more conservative Christians, and this is where the attention is placed. With Pope Francis, these elements are less obvious, and he does not emphasize them.

I believe that is mostly due to the media who pick up on any comment the Pope makes about some issue that politically and religiously conservatives find troubling.

 

[OneSheep]

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

So a person healing others in His name on the sabbath would have been against His teaching?

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?“

So, “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath” applies, to David, Jesus, and no one else?

This may seem to be a side issue on this thread, but it is not. Teek, you are quite sincere and well-meaning, but you are perhaps not understanding the expanded spirituality, I think. How do you feel about this quote?:

…the proclamation of the truth, depends on the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it].

http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/...sday_mass_build_bridges,_not_walls/en1-690203

In my experience of the Pope, He is inviting us to move beyond the security of law and doctrine. It is not that written words, traditions, etc. are to be either shunned, avoided, downplayed, etc., not at all! All of these things are foundational. However, the foundation is not the entirety of our faith, nor does it in itself represent the Church. Have you heard about how Christ relates to Church as a marriage? Marriage is not about a document, though the document, the certificate is important. Marriage is primarily about relationship. This is, I think, what Pope Francis is constantly trying to “stretch” us to move beyond the foundation and get into the building itself, the relationship!

 

[OneSheep]

It appears provocative to have a thread titled “How to forgive Pope Francis”.

Not by intent…

The statement assumes that there is something that needs to be forgiven.

That assumption applies only to those who hold something against him. You can read the rationale in the OP.

I am definitely not a “narrow gate” thinker.

 

[pnewton]

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.

And I am no big fan of divination.

 

[philipl]

It doesn’t take any divination to see where the church is growing, and where it is ebbing.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Gorgias,

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 a person’s response is leaving the Church, then their own grasp of what it means to be part of the body is lacking. Also, they have little understanding of how the Spirit is involved in unfolding revelation. As far as the Fr. Tom/Fr. Joe comments, they are simply a matter of ignorance and perhaps unwillingness to understand and forgive.

No… it’s pretty much exactly what he said

Okay, so you have now made “Sabbath made for man, not man for the Sabbath” completely meaningless for anyone but God himself. From the CCC:

2173 The Gospel reports many incidents when Jesus was accused of violating the sabbath law. But Jesus never fails to respect the holiness of this day.98 He gives this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation: "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."99 With compassion, Christ declares the sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing.100 The sabbath is the day of the Lord of mercies and a day to honor God.101 “The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”

The bottom line, Gorgias, is that all law is respected when mercy is our guide, because of the very reason that mercy is our guide. When compassion is our guide, with a compassion grounded in relationship, with God (commandment one) and all others (commandment two), the law itself is essentially obsolete. There is no such thing as a truly compassionate/merciful act that violates law.

One has to look at the purpose of the law in the first place, its purpose is to maintain and develop a practice and value of mercy.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning and Happy New Year!

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

This is not true. When an act of mercy would be compromised by ritual, the statement “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” definitely applies. We share in Christ’s divinity in doing works of mercy.

Anything outside of truth is deception.

This is assuming that all error is deception. However, errors are made in discerning truth, Teek. Errors are very human, and wisdom develops from error. “Deception” assumes a “deceiver”, but you won’t be able to come up with a single example of an error that comes from a “deceiver”. All people intend well.

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.

I think it might be wise to guide your friend in that the Church leadership is guided by the Spirit. Mistakes may occur, but they lead to new wisdom. None of it is “garbage”. Again, his basis of accepting/not accepting Eucharist based on such peripheral issues leave me hoping that he can find a relational source of faith. Faith based primarily on teachings is a recipe for schism, and it negates the centrality of prayer and Christ’s presence in community. While discernment is important, we are called first to Love.

No. The Eucharist and doctrine are not opposed in ANY way.

What I said is the Eucharist trumps doctrine any day of the week. You might want to check the quote from Pope Francis concerning St. Paul’s teachings I put in the other post to you.

Of course Eucharist and doctrine are not opposed, but a Catholic can have his entire faith based on a loving relationship with the Body he belongs to, and know very little doctrine whatsoever. It is Eucharist that will feed him. Doctrine informs us, but it is trumped by Eucharist. There is no basis for schism over Eucharist, all we have to do is share it together as a family, as all part of His beloved.

Relationships.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

You are concerned about Pope Francis putting out something heretical?

mere desire to be part of community is not the basis for receiving the Eucharist, otherwise anyone - Catholic or not - could partake.

Did you know that the Church cannot turn down Baptism for anyone who desires it, regardless of the amount of Catechesis they have had? I mean, we can stall them, but ultimately anyone who so desires can partake… in time.

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.

Well, the issue is that some people think that others are not in a “state of grace” under some strict criteria. This is indeed a matter of judging.

…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

A “state of sin” according to who? Do you see how this again comes down to people judging? When it is merciful to give Eucharist to a divorced person who cannot get an annulment, then mercy trumps all such judging. Jesus tells us not to judge one another. The Church, represented by the Bishops and Priests, have the ability to discern what is merciful for individuals grappling with all the mess.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath, right?

 

[Teek]

Happy New Year to you as well!

When an act of mercy would be compromised by ritual, the statement “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” definitely applies. We share in Christ’s divinity in doing works of mercy.

However, we, individual Catholics, do not possess that same authority. That authority was given by Christ to the apostles, and they passed it on to the Bishops. The Church has the authority. Doing acts of mercy does not make us share in Christ’s divinity. We share in Christ’s divinity by the Power of the Holy Spirit, given to us in the Sacraments. We participate with the Holy Spirit in acts of mercy, in procreation, in stewardship over the earth, etc. These actions do not give us a share in Divine life. Grace does. These actions are our response to Grace.

We do NOT possess the authority to give ourselves exemptions to God’s laws and rituals, even in the name of mercy. That is presumption. The Church does have that authority, but we must be loyal to the Church.

To say that we can disobey God if we decide it was for good because we share in Christ’s divinity is the equivalent of saying that, since we are all baptized priest, prophet, and king, I can consecrate the Eucharist, in certain circumstances. Not in a million years!

Jesus Is GOD. He is the Law. He could redefine whatever He chose, if He chose to. We cannot. Example:

Leviticus 10:1-3

1 Now Na’dab and Abi’hu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer, and put fire in it, and laid incense on it, and offered unholy fire before the LORD, such as he had not commanded them.
2 And fire came forth from the presence of the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD has said, ‘I will show myself holy among those who are near me, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace.

“Anything outside of truth is deception.”

This is assuming that all error is deception. However, errors are made in discerning truth, Teek.

No it is not assuming all error is deception. It is observing that all error is caused by deception. People are misled, by their own passions, by the work of the evil one, by the confusion of a darkened intellect, by concupiscence. Only Truth is Truth. All else is false. Untrue, lies, deception. The person falling into error is deceived. I did not mean they are deceptive. They are deceived.

 

[Teek]

I think it might be wise to guide your friend in that the Church leadership is guided by the Spirit. Mistakes may occur, but they lead to new wisdom. None of it is “garbage”. Again, his basis of accepting/not accepting Eucharist based on such peripheral issues leave me hoping that he can find a relational source of faith. Faith based primarily on teachings is a recipe for schism, and it negates the centrality of prayer and Christ’s presence in community. While discernment is important, we are called first to Love.

Great advice. I appreciate that. But what does it have to do with the conversation?

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.

You said you needed someone to show you a Parish example: I shared two examples of parish friends whose confusion was caused directly by AL. I did not explain how I answered it, what my friends came to understand later, etc. That would have commandeered the thread for another subject entirely.

 

[Teek]

Doctrine informs us, but it is trumped by Eucharist.

Under what circumstances must there be one “rule” that trumps another rule? If they were not opposed, there would be no need for one to abrogate the other. This is done in Islam, not in Catholicism.

a Catholic can have his entire faith based on a loving relationship with the Body he belongs to, and know very little doctrine whatsoever

Of course. As long as the person’s trusting faith is not at odds with doctrine, which is very possible but not guaranteed. I could come to know that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist even if I was never told, never learned about it. But if I, in the same trusting faith, decided that the Eucharist is symbolic, I would be in serious peril of enormous error.

There is no basis for schism over Eucharist, all we have to do is share it together as a family, as all part of His beloved.

The Great Schism of 1054 was perpetuated based on disagreements about the Eucharist.

Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople asserted that the Latin use of unleavened bread was Jewish but not Christian, and denied the validity of the Holy Eucharist in the Western Church. Pope St. Leo IX and Patriarch Michael excommunicated each other (and each other’s churches).

 

[surritter]

You mean the 8th Commandment.

 

[Teek]

A “state of sin” according to who? Do you see how this again comes down to people judging? When it is merciful to give Eucharist to a divorced person who cannot get an annulment, then mercy trumps all such judging.

According to the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, that is incorrect. The following is from the link at the bottom of this post:

In “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world’s bishops on October 14, 1994 said,

1. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality. [/library/curia/cdfdivor.txt]

By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in Reconciliation and Penance, the Church desires such couples to participate in the Church’s life to the extent possible (and this participation in Mass, Eucharistic adoration, devotions and so on is a great spiritual help to them), as they work toward full sacramental participation.

A Unique Case. One final situation is that of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children. Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as “brother and sister” (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments. If scandal can not be avoided, then they must either separate or refrain from the sacraments.

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm