How to forgive Pope Francis

[OneSheep]

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).

The schism was largely political. If Eucharist had been seen as it truly is, as what brings people together and holds us as One Body, then the ridiculous details would have been tossed aside.

You see what I am saying? if the leadership in 1054 would have realized that there is nothing about the actual material ingredients that trumps the unifying meaning of Eucharist, then the schism could not have happened; schism is anti-Eucharist.

But no, as what happened so often in the Protestant churches, the underlying problems were political, and differences in doctrine or interpretation, etc., that occur among all men, trusted or not, become points of contention to rationalize schism. It is all well-intended, but the Church ends up losing.

Under what circumstances must there be one “rule” that trumps another rule?

Rule 1: Eucharist is tied to community, where Christ’s presence is found in both. As St. Augustine said (paraphrased), “When a person receives Eucharist, it is Christ meeting Himself.” Nothing may compromise the unifying meaning of Eucharist.

Rule 2: Eucharist must be made of unleavened bread.

So, in the case of 1054 (of which I have limited knowledge), where there was a difference between opinions on Rule 2, Rule 1 takes ultimate precedent until all the details get worked out. In time, I am sure that the political problems would have been exposed as the source of discord, and that a Christian approach would not have included schism. Can you think of any Rule #2 that trumps rule #1? I cannot. There is nothing in doctrine that people can have differences over that trumps rule #1.

are in an objectively adulterous union

It is the “objectively” part that turns a loving, merciful God into a cold bureaucracy. I’m partial to a spirituality that says that mercy and consideration of human dignity trumps such legal rubrics.

I hope that you can see that the core of accusing “objectively adulterous” is a judgment, and it is judgment that we are told to avoid in the Gospel itself. I am not saying that we are to “throw out the rulebook”. What I am saying is that exceptions are to be made, that there is a place for human discretion.

The Spirit guides - in mercy.

 

[CountrySteve]

I know some Catholics are bothered by his Holiness, but I like him. We need to engage in more intereligious dialogue ( something he encourages). If we won’t meet people where they’re at, we will never convert them.

 

[OneSheep]

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.’

Are all persons who are divorced and remarried, who are unable to get an annulment, in a “state of sin”? Who has the authority to answer that question?

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Would "to realize that what he says and does is always what he sees as the best interest of the Church " work better for you?

 

[Maximilian75]

unlessthe Pope has shown reason to be doubted- popes have fathered children out of wedlock and other crimes… they are human as well.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

It sounds like you are concerned about a remarried person who cannot get an annulment receiving communion, that we should reject any such reception.

You are right, I don’t know everything about this. For example, are there clauses that allow for one party to get the annulment even though the other party does not agree (and is still alive)? If there were, then a lot of this is moot.

In the mean time, the Spirit continues to guide the Church. The issue of “remarried” people not being able to receive has long been festering, and I am glad something is in motion.

 

[buglady]

Well there certainly is a faction that claims none of the popes after Vatican II are really the popes. These people would criticize any pope, not just Pope Francis. They are literally “more Catholic than the church.” At least they think they are.

 

[stpurl]

Objectively yes, they are, if they were validly married to the prior spouse who is living, and are engaged in sexual relations with the second spouse, and ‘cannot get’ a decree of nullity.

You see, the Church in its wisdom provided for the ‘norm’, that is, the Tribunal and its authority through Christ.

Only in this absolutely crazy era have people assumed that by gadfrey, it doesn’t matter what the criteria are, either they themselves or their spouse want sex and they’re going to get sex and so they will take it upon themselves to judge their ‘worthiness’.

I have not yet heard of current examples where two people are in the above contrived scenario and one decides, "You know, I really cannot say this is a valid marriage, I need to bite the bullet and separate even at the cost of financial insecurity or physical punishment’ or the ‘bullying spouse’ suddenly says, "You know, I cannot say this is valid, even though I want sex I am going to abide by my conscience and stop demanding it’.

Oh no, conscience always seems to be on the side of the ‘demandee’ and truth is supposed to bow before it.

Jesus never said, "Take up your cross and follow Me even on the hard paths, even to death if necessary. . .UNLESS it comes to sex. Then you get to ignore my words on marriage itself and 2000 years of teaching and determine that sin is no longer sin. Drop that cross and get it on. . "

 

[pnewton]

Are all persons who are divorced and remarried, who are unable to get an annulment, in a “state of sin”? Who has the authority to answer that question?

They are in a state of apparent objective sin. I think that is about as far as one can go. The final judgement belongs to God alone.

 

[Teek]

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.

OK. This, I think, is where a major point of disagreement arrives on the scene.

I would say Instead, “A person who puts God over man would say yes, because God’s law is the bottom line. A person who puts man over God 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 pride to carefully consider bending God’s rules a little for individuals.”

If we try to bend God’s laws, we break. They don’t bend.

Is it merciful to force a person to choose between their spouse and Eucharist?

Yes. Is it merciful to force a person to choose between God and man? YES! Emphatically yes! That is the entire point! That is mercy!! God gave us free will so that we can make precisely that very choice! The only way to receive mercy is to choose God. When we encourage people to choose any part of creation over God, we cut them off from mercy.

Eternal mercy. It is not merciful to lead people into temporary happiness at the expense of their eternal soul.

Can you see, though, that even when a person falls into error, they are well-intended, that they are seeking some good?

Yes, I can, admit a possibility for this, though it is not always the case. Everyone has a conscience. It goes quiet when it is ignored or violated. But at first, it speaks loud and clear. Ask any kid who tells a lie for the first time.

 

[Teek]

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.

The problems begin when the changes that are proposed also against what has always and everywhere been taught by the Church.

“That is to say, he who claims that one may enter a new relationship while one’s own lawful wife is still alive is excommunicated because this is an erroneous teaching, a heresy. Whoever does make such a claim [is excommunicated]. And he who simply practices it [adultery] is gravely sinning. And then there is added that whoever is conscious of a grave sin may only go to Communion if he previously has done penance, has confessed his sins, and has been absolved. Thus, if someone thinks he can contradict the defined Dogma of a General Council [Council of Trent], then that is indeed quite vehement. Exactly that is what one calls heresy – and that means exclusion from the Church – because one has left the common foundation of Faith.” Cardinal Walter Brandmuller

 

[Teek]

The Spirit guides - in mercy.

The Spirit guides in Truth.

 

[Teek]

“Under what circumstances must there be one “rule” that trumps another rule?“

Can you think of any Rule #2 that trumps rule #1?

WhatI meant was that there is only one circumstance in which it becomes necessary for one rule to abrogate another—when they are in conflict.

The Eucharist and doctrine cannot be in conflict. One doesn’t trump the other. They are in unity.

Rule 1: Eucharist is tied to community, where Christ’s presence is found in both. As St. Augustine said (paraphrased), “When a person receives Eucharist, it is Christ meeting Himself.” Nothing may compromise the unifying meaning of Eucharist.

The Eucharist is primarily the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church is the Community, which has its source and summit in the Eucharist, but is not the Eucharist.

“Nothing can compromise the unifying meaning of the Eucharist.” This I agree with, but in an entirely different sense:

“The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists,”. (PJPII—follow little arrow for full quote and source)

To admit people to the Eucharist who do not share the same faith, or who have severed themselves from unity by mortal sin, would compromise the unity required for the celebration of the Eucharist. And the meaning of the Eucharist.

 

[Teek]

I hope that you can see that the core of accusing “objectively adulterous” is a judgment, and it is judgment that we are told to avoid in the Gospel itself. I am not saying that we are to “throw out the rulebook”. What I am saying is that exceptions are to be made, that there is a place for human discretion.

Yes. Judgement. Right judgement. Which is also called “Council” which is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit that we were given to employ.

Human discretion does not get to make exceptions to Divine Law. That is what Satan encouraged in the Garden of Eden. Did God REALLY say that? And if He did, did He REALLY mean it?

God requires obedience. Then He will be our God. Then we will be His people. But every time the Israelites disobeyed, He withdrew.

Are all persons who are divorced and remarried, who are unable to get an annulment, in a “state of sin”? Who has the authority to answer that question?

That is very much the wrong question. Who has the authority to answer that question differently than the Lord? God is not bound by the rules He gave us, and can have mercy wherever He chooses. We, however, are bound to what He revealed to us, which is very specific regarding divorce. A decree of nullity means that the marriage was never a covenant in the eyes of God, and so was not joined and so can be cast asunder. If the marriage was valid, which the Church does have the authority to judge, then it is binding and the remarriage is objectively adultery. Objectively mortal sin.

 

[Teek]

Would "to realize that what he says and does is always what he sees as the best interest of the Church " work better for you?

I don’t think we should even be thinking about the Pope’s motives. If what he does and says is consistent with Church teaching, then it is in the best interest of the Church. We can’t really know why things are done. We can know what is done.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Teek. Good conversation!

because God’s law is the bottom line

And what is the purpose of God’s law?

The only way to receive mercy is to choose God

God withholds mercy?

…expense of their eternal soul…

This, again, depends on one’s image of God. Have you thought about ordering Good Goats?

…Cardinal Walter Brandmuller

Again, this demonstrates a rubric from a cold bureaucracy. Every case has plenty of complications and differences. Some people are quick to condemn.

The Spirit guides in Truth.

Yes, and the Truth is that God’s mercy knows no bounds.

compromise the unity required for the celebration of the Eucharist

But Jesus did invite sinners to His table…

But every time the Israelites disobeyed, He withdrew.

Again, this depends on one’s image of God. Did God ever really withdraw, or did they only think He did?

Objectively mortal sin.

“Mortal sin” depends on “full knowledge and full consent”. It can be proven that no one knows what they are doing when they sin, you can see my other thread for that!

 

[Teek]

And what is the purpose of God’s law?

To order all things to good.

God withholds mercy?

No. God does not withhold mercy. God gave us free will and a choice to make. We reject mercy by sin.

Romans 11:22
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

Have you thought about ordering Good Goats?

I understood that it teaches heretical views. (That Jesus visits us in Hell.). It also has a chapter on God pouting for thousands of years. God does not pout.

I have not read it. I have no problem with the God of Justice and Mercy. But thank you for the recommendation.

Again, this demonstrates a rubric from a cold bureaucracy. Every case has plenty of complications and differences. Some people are quick to condemn.

What? Whoa. That was a terrible mischaracterization! The Church is not a collection of rubrics from a cold bureaucracy! Has the Church been wrong in its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage based on the teaching of Jesus Christ for 2000 years? If so, St. John Fisher was no Saint: he was a fool who wasted his life for a lie. No way!

Yes, and the Truth is that God’s mercy knows no bounds.

He is also just. The Truth is also that

He is the one that gave us the rules and requires obedience. Not the Church. God. What does it mean that God, who is mercy and love, asks us to follow rules that seem hard? It means that they are for our good, whether we understand it or not. If I tell my child not to stick a fork in an electric socket, and he decides that I wouldn’t want to deprive him of that experience and I would forgive him for it, and he does it, there are serious consequences. In God’s mercy He gave us the way so that we might navigate all sorts of peril and find our way home to him. That is the Law.

But Jesus did invite sinners to His table…

Yes, and told them to sin no more. It has been the teaching of the Church since St. Paul that people who are actively choosing sin are not admitted to the Eucharist. Who do we think we are to suddenly second guess this?

 

[Teek]

Did God ever really withdraw, or did they only think He did?

He told them that He did, and He is Truth. And they suffered the consequences of this. Do you think that Jesus deceives us when he talks of the fires of Gehenna, and the narrow way that few can enter?

It can be proven that no one knows what they are doing when they sin

That can be disproven quite easily. Have you never done something that you knew to be wrong, but did it anyway? I have. If what you say is true, there would be no Sacrament of Penance. No one would be capable of mortal sin.

I suppose we are going to have to agree that we disagree. The God you describe is unfamiliar to me. The one I describe is alien to you. I trust the Church and the Saints and the Bible to teach me about God. I don’t believe we can safely redefine God to fit a more comfortable image in our time. We have no authority to do that.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Teek!

To order all things to good.

What is the purpose of ordering all things to good?

No. God does not withhold mercy. God gave us free will and a choice to make. We reject mercy by sin.

People want to reject mercy?

I understood that it teaches heretical views. (That Jesus visits us in Hell.). It also has a chapter on God pouting for thousands of years.

This is all false. Their views are not heretical, and I never remember anything about God pouting. That sounds like what they may have been characterizing about a certain view. How do you know that your information source is valid? They address all the main scripture that is contrary. If you read it, read it in terms of expanding your understanding of different approaches to the Gospel, not as a book trying to convince you of something.

Has the Church been wrong in its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage based on the teaching of Jesus Christ for 2000 years?

Of course not, Teek! It is always a matter of whether or not there was a marriage in the first place. In my own view, if there is not a commitment to love spouse and God unconditionally, then it’s not fully a marriage.

In God’s mercy He gave us the way so that we might navigate all sorts of peril and find our way home to him. That is the Law.

Now we are speaking the same language! Yes, so we can find our way home to him. The law itself has the purpose of mercy, it is for mercy, guided by mercy, because He loves us. When the law finds purpose in itself, we get man made for Sabbath.

The purpose of law is wholly and completely mercy and care for the individual. When we get stuck in “bend the rule here, and the whole system falls apart”, the individual is lost in the bureaucracy. And when you think about it, the fear of rule-bending is just that, fear.

Fear is the opposite of faith.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, and told them to sin no more. It has been the teaching of the Church since St. Paul that people who are actively choosing sin are not admitted to the Eucharist. Who do we think we are to suddenly second guess this?

Of course He told them to sin no more, for sin is alienation, it is harmful to the sinner. Jesus ate with sinners to reverse the alienation, to bring them into the fold. As far as “people actively choosing sin”, Teek, we must remember that we are all sinners. Do “people who are actively choosing sin” in the circumstances we are talking about truly think that they are sinning? Do they understand the seriousness of the sin? No, Teek, they are seeing the goodness of their relationship, not an evil.

When we are talking about people trapped in annulment situations, one has to ask “where is the sin?” in many of these cases. When a couple cannot marry in the Church because of bureaucratic limitations, are people so closed-minded to believe that God does not put people together in life-giving relationships in spite of the bureaucracy? Bureaucrats are not perfect, and neither is the system.

Do you think that Jesus deceives us when he talks of the fires of Gehenna, and the narrow way that few can enter?

There is a reality that few enter a life of holiness here on Earth. This reality, however, is not a limitation on God’s forgiveness and mercy. We experience Gehenna right here on Earth, it is the consequence of alienation itself. I’ve had a bit of Gehenna myself lately. I think I am starting to pull out of it.

That can be disproven quite easily. Have you never done something that you knew to be wrong, but did it anyway?

There is more to “knowing what we are doing” than simply knowing that a particular act is wrong according to the Church or others. For example, a psychopath never knows what he is doing when he hurts others, he has not a clue of their value. The people who hung Jesus did not have a clue of His dignity, nor did they know of the dignity of the other two men they hung. Desire for justice blinds people.

… there would be no Sacrament of Penance.

I’m not following your reasoning there.

No one would be capable of mortal sin.

Perhaps not, but that does not change the need for the sacrament of reconciliation. All sin is alienation, and we need the sacrament as a vehicle of return.

The God you describe is unfamiliar to me.

Well, it is good to know the unfamiliar. It helps us to understand people!

The one I describe is alien to you.

Actually, the God you describe is not alien at all. The view you have is foundational, remember? I saw God the way that you do, and it was a life-giving way of seeing Him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you are saying, it is all good. For me, His image was expanded when I encountered Him in prayer and reflection.