How to forgive Pope Francis

[stpurl]

Oh, so an individual priest (who could be mistaken) and decided to give communion is ‘discerning’ and ‘merciful’, but an individual priest or indeed any discerning Catholic’ who is following authentic Catholic teaching which even now has not been in any way, shape, or form dogmatically ‘changed’ and who therefore even ‘states’ that such an action is not only unmerciful but dangerous to the person’s soul, and harmful to the entire body of Christ in its divisiveness. . is being ‘judgmental’ and ‘hateful.’

and that’s the problem, the people who are supposedly being more Christlike than Christ are the ones pushing their faulty judgment and playing the ‘well I’m just MERCIFUL and you’re not’ card.

 

[pnewton]

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.

The Church has the authority to allow an individual make exemptions though. One case in point is Mass attendance a person can decide if their work is more important, taking care of a child, too sick, too far to travel.

 

[Teek]

The Church has the authority to allow an individual make exemptions though. One case in point is Mass attendance a person can decide if their work is more important, taking care of a child, too sick, too far to travel.

No, the Church made exemptions for people who cannot attend Mass because those realities exist. They give us the pass, which is different from us giving ourselves a pass.

That is not about a person who is in an objective state of habitual mortal sin and continues to stay that way. We can most certainly not make an exemption for ourselves for those cases.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton:

The Church has the authority to allow an individual make exemptions though. One case in point is Mass attendance a person can decide if their work is more important, taking care of a child, too sick, too far to travel.

No, the Church made exemptions for people who cannot attend Mass because those realities exist. They give us the pass, which is different from us giving ourselves a pass.

That is not about a person who is in an objective state of habitual mortal sin and continues to stay that way.

That is the very question, isn’t it. We know that one’s objective state does not separate one from God. Let me just say know, as I have been over this a dozen times and do not agree, but I get that this is currently an area of doctrinal discernment in the Church.

We can most certainly not make an exemption for ourselves for those cases.

St. Paul wrote, “But let {l} a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup,” because people were getting sick and dying from receiving communion. I guess we can have different opinions about what the Church should do, and I may agree with you, but we need to not limit what the Church can do, as long as doctrine is not contradicted. The power to bind and loose is great.

 

[Teek]

We know that one’s objective state does not separate one from God.

If one’s “objective state” is mortal sin, one is separated from God.

The quote you used from St. Paul was his response to people who had been giving themselves exceptions and so were eating and drinking judgement on themselves. He therefore admonishes them to examine themselves to be certain they are not about to profane the Lord by receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

St. Paul was telling them to be MORE strict.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

I guess we can have different opinions about what the Church should do, and I may agree with you, but we need to not limit what the Church can do, as long as doctrine is not contradicted. The power to bind and loose is great.

That is why I quoted authoritative Church teaching that legitimizes the claim that those exceptions, in the case of divorce and remarriage, cannot be made at all, by anyone.

 

[pnewton]

If one’s “objective state” is mortal sin, one is separated from God.

Well, I knew I didn’t agree with you when I made that statement. I am hoping that as time goes on the teaching the Pope is bringing to the issue will clarify matters.

 

[Teek]

Well, I knew I didn’t agree with you when I made that statement. I am hoping that as time goes on the teaching the Pope is bringing to the issue will clarify matters.

Me, too (hoping that the Pope’s teaching will clarify matters)!

I love that you can disagree without insult, and accept another’s different opinion by presenting your own strongly, without compromise, while still respecting the other’s right to hold their own view. Thank you for that.

 

[Katherine438]

I don’t agree with everything Pope Francis says, but I never hold it against him … he is the Pope … first and foremost we are to respect him and to realize that what he says and does is always in the best interests of the Church.

 

[Teek]

Sure, these problems in parishes are ongoing, but again, it is Eucharist that unites us: a dedication to the values of inclusion and forgiveness.

Pope St. John Paul II in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia: (bold added for emphasis)

"The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order.” (35)

 

[Teek]

first and foremost we are to respect him and to realize that what he says and does is always in the best interests of the Church.

We are always to respect him. However, there have been popes in the past that said and did deplorable things, things that were not in the best interest of the Church. Saints spoke out against the pope in many cases! And they were later declared Saints for defending the Church’s doctrine, often with their lives.

I am not saying that is what we have going on with the current pope in any way. I am simply asserting that saying we are “to realize that what he says and does is always in the best interests of the Church,” would in many cases be false, and so it can’t be assumed or assured.

But always to respect the pope, yes!

 

[pnewton]

Yesterday I was reflecting on the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God. I think one reason we get wound up about such issues is that we lack the perspective of history, or we do not think to put what is happening today into the big picture of the history of the Church. Yet there was a time when far more weighty issues preoccupied the Church, such as whether Jesus was divine when he was conceived. That is a big one. When we look at what all Church councils before had to consider, the Church was divided over some very serious stuff at one time. Even by Vatican I there as the issue of papal authority to speak infallibly.

My point it, disagreement is not unknown to the Church. If there are parts of this issue of mortal sin, objective versus subjective, that need to be worked through, it is not the first time. In the past we trusted the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, as He does still. I would hope anyone who might be in such an extreme and unique situation (and it should be a rare case), will not act in haste, either penitent or priest.

 

[vincentleo]

I think you are missing some of the background on this question.

The following is from Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris consortio (a. 84, 1981):

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

And, most recently in the news, here is a quote from a statement from three bishops on this very issue:

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

You originally posted this question apparently from a position of ignorance of some of the things going on with the Church today. I am trying to show you that there may be more going on than you realize.

 

[Elf01]

I find it interesting that Familiaris consortio refers to it as a practice, evidence that it could be a discipline.

 

[stpurl]

Or doctrine or dogma. One practices both of those as well.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

8th or 9th depending on how you count the Ten Commandments.

Jim

 

[pnewton]

You mentioned doctrine in your earlier post. As pointed out, St. John Paul referred to this as practice. The bishops of Kazakhstan referred to it as not licit. Now this does not mean it is not doctrine, but the statements really have no direct bearing on doctrine. In fact, Amoris Laetitia specifically directed local bishops to see how best to implement an change. So either delaying any change or determining it detrimental would be one such implementation.

 

[surritter]

OK – it’s just that on a Catholic forum I figure that we’d use the standard Catholic listing of the Commandments

 

[benjamin1973]

Wait. Isn’t it blasphemy to doubt the Pope, the highest church father except Jesus Himself? This seems dangerous-- if the Pope is NOT a representative of the Heavenly Father, then what do you do? Stop being Catholic because God has abandoned the church? Accuse God of allowing a false representative to speak for Him this generation?

If God has a plan, then this Pope must necessarily be a part of it. Maybe God’s plan is that right now, the Christian values that he wants to express through the church should emphasize tolerance rather than intolerance, or openness rather than strict observance? Maybe in God’s plan, keep the church relevant in the digital age is important. Maybe God embodies all human traits, including both conservatism and liberalism, and He has decided that certain values are needed right now?

Seems like as a Catholic, you don’t need to judge God or his representative. Surely, that would be pride leading to blasphemy, no?

 

[pnewton]

Seems like as a Catholic, you don’t need to judge God or his representative. Surely, that would be pride leading to blasphemy, no?

It might be pride, but not blasphemy.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

I agree. So what I am referring to is the question of the mercy of providing Eucharist to those who have run into dead ends on annulments and are in a life-giving civil marriage. Is it merciful to force a person to choose between their spouse and Eucharist? A person who puts Sabbath over man would say yes, because law is the bottom line. A person who puts man over Sabbath would generally say no, because the guide is to “do unto others”, and if the civil marriage gives life, then a merciful priest or Bishop would have the humility to carefully consider bending the rules a little for individuals.

All else is false. Untrue, lies, deception. The person falling into error is deceived. I did not mean they are deceptive. They are deceived

Yes, I did not mean to misconstrue your words. Can you see, though, that even when a person falls into error, they are well-intended, that they are seeking some good?

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

That so many “problems” that occur because of the “confusion” are not ramifications of change, but rather the “problems” begin with those who do not understand the meaning of Church, mercy, relationships, unfolding revelation, etc.

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.

Cool. So they reacted in misunderstanding or otherwise, and their concerns were addressed. Growth!