Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
The difference between Jack’s continually slipping back into his sin and D&R Joe’s situation is that Joe does not have a firm purpose of amendment.
Click to expand...
Unless he does. Maybe he does, but it is difficult. I do not know if you are in any such situation with first hand knowledge, but even if you are, there is no such thing as a standard situation.
So what is the problem? The problem seems to be that some priests and bishops want Joe to be able to commit what is presumed by the Church to be a sin, *and still *be able to receive the Body and Blood of Christ,
Click to expand...
I do not know if anyone wants this. Most priest want there to be no sin, for anyone. What most priests want is for people to be saved. The Body and Blood of Christ, the sacrifice of Calvary, is not and end, a final goal. It is a means to the end of salvation.
And in fact, sometimes the person who wants to receive is the legal spouse of the divorced person relating what has been related to him or her.
Click to expand...
Who else would have a better insight into what a person was thinking than that person? I understand the concern for deception, but there is simply no one who knows more than the couple themselves. Give priests a little credit for being able to discern when someone is blowing smoke.
 
pnewton said:
Unless he does. Maybe he does, but it is difficult. I do not know if you are in any such situation with first hand knowledge, but even if you are, there is no such thing as a standard situation.
Click to expand...
If Joe had a purpose of amendment, then he and his legal wife would be discussing living together as brother and sister, which would be a different situation.
I do not know if anyone wants this.
Click to expand...
Why does anyone advocate for the IFS? What is it a solution for?
Most priest want there to be no sin, for anyone. What most priests want is for people to be saved. The Body and Blood of Christ, the sacrifice of Calvary, is not and end, a final goal. It is a means to the end of salvation.
Click to expand...
OTOH, to partake unworthily is condemnation, no? Which is why the Church has ruled about reception of the Eucharist.
Who else would have a better insight into what a person was thinking than that person?
Click to expand...
Sometimes the person discussing the situation is discussing the thoughts of the other spouse; sometimes the person discussing is relaying what was said by the already-married spouse. And sometimes people consciously or unconsciously shade the truth, even to themselves.
I understand the concern for deception, but there is simply no one who knows more than the couple themselves. Give priests a little credit for being able to discern when someone is blowing smoke.
Click to expand...
Ordination does not give someone the ability to read minds. The point of having a process that involves statements from other people and evidence is to minimize the potential for deception, and the reason to minimize that potential is precisely because people, even priests, can be fooled.
 
pnewton said:
No one said anything about sanctioning adultery. What the Holy Father is speaking of is approaching adultery in these situations as we would any other sin, not pretending it is not a sin. In the Church, other sinners receive communion.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by ‘other sinners’ because the Church teaches one is to be in a state of grace upon reception of Holy Communion… and since most sins are private, they are to refrain themselves from receiving.
With remarriage, as with homosexuality, there is a tendancy for those who are** not** in this situation to forget that they too have sin that they keep doing. It is easier to preach against mercy when one is not in need of that particular mercy.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but not necessarily.
I wonder how many here criticizing the Holy Father’s letter are in one of the situations he speaks of.
Click to expand...
Hmmm… I wonder.
 
St_Francis said:
OTOH, to partake unworthily is condemnation, no? Which is why the Church has ruled about reception of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Church has ruled. Yet Pope Francis outlines the limitation of these rules. The Scripture about receiving unworthily is listed as a consequence of neglecting “let each one examine himself.”
Ordination does not give someone the ability to read minds.
Click to expand...
Did I say that? One does not need supernartural abilities to understand people. A priest is able to even give absolution based on what a penitent says. It doesn’t take the ability to read minds to make extremely important discernment decisions.

Pope Francis seems to have faith in the average priest to stay true to doctrine and still deal with people pastorally. Regardless of what you or I think is, isn’t, should, could, will happen, time will tell how priests and bishops respond to this exhortation.
 
pnewton said:
Then let us put aside that term and deal with the Pope Francis understanding and method of addressing these irregular marriages which meet no single category.
Click to expand...
(I posted this question before, but thought you might have missed it.) I was unable to find any information about this in the document, any determinative criteria. So I really can’t say much about a comment he put in a footnote.

Adding: I have been talking about the IFS in general, and do not want to talk about what Pope Francis wrote because I do not know what he means by this.
 
St_Francis said:
Does it really appear to you that these are the only possibilities to explain why some people value the role and rule of law?
Click to expand...
There is valuing the rule of Law, and then there is pharisee-ism. I am not calling everyone who values the rule of law a Pharisee; but I am saying that Christ Himself tried to move the Pharisees away from that; seems they did not learn.

Someone who has to have morality in black and white is not per se a Pharisee (they were generally, for their time and place, more educated in the Law than someone who simply has not reached a mature level of faith), but that person is still unable to see that there are circumstances where black and white simply falls short.

Further, black-and-white morality tends towards a complacency of faith - “I didn’t commit a mortal sin, therefore I am good to go” attitude. Christ calls us far, farther along in our faith walk than simply not sinning. And yet, many with a black-and-white morality do not get any farther along than “I didn’t sin”.

I value the rule of Law; I also happen to be involved with Catholics Returning Home, and the experience from that is that each of us is on a journey; some are out wandering around with no clue where the path is; some are seeking the path but have not found it; some have found the path, but cannot manage it at all; and many of us have found the path, and wander off it from time to time.

I also value our priests, particularly our newer ones. In 70 years, I have seen a whole lot of priests; some were angry, distant, and took a rather mechanical appearing approach to the Church. Some were loosey goosey. Most of those have died; the rest are now retired.

I have also met many priests who strive to be holy, to be Christ-like, and are doing their very best to pastor those they are responsible for. I don’t find them to be fast and loose with the Law; but I do find them trying to bring people to a better understanding of the Law and their own flaws, and seeking to help those people to overcome those flaws.

I agree with Dr. Peters that this document, while having Magisterial in it, is not meant as a Magisterial pronouncement. Rather, it is a field practice guide for priests.

Any priest who is not aware of the biblical commentary in Paul concerning receiving unworthily already has an issue and does not need this document to have that issue. I have yet to meet a priest like that, currently ministering (and I will leave some of the 60’s - 70’s craziness out of that- but they are retired/dead). Maybe there are scads of them all over the US - but I in all sincerity doubt it. So I sincerely doubt that priests are going to go off half-cocked, ushering in each and every individual in an irregular marriage.
 
otjm said:
So I sincerely doubt that priests are going to go off half-cocked, ushering in each and every individual in an irregular marriage.
Click to expand...
I think Archbishop Cupich has said as much already.
 
otjm said:
There is valuing the rule of Law, and then there is pharisee-ism. I am not calling everyone who values the rule of law a Pharisee; but I am saying that Christ Himself tried to move the Pharisees away from that; seems they did not learn.

Someone who has to have morality in black and white is not per se a Pharisee (they were generally, for their time and place, more educated in the Law than someone who simply has not reached a mature level of faith), but that person is still unable to see that there are circumstances where black and white simply falls short.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, it was the Pharisees who advocated the acceptability of divorce, and Jesus was the overly rigid zealot.
 
The analysis of the panel on EWTN is among the best I’ve seen. Take note, this is EWTN, not some “radical traditionalist” news outlet :rolleyes:

youtube.com/watch?v=E5Avd7bCiV0
Fr. Gerald Murray: This is the effort I think all of us who are concerned want to see happen, which is to tell the pope that flattery would mean we keep our mouths closed and say nothing, but gospel frankness, remember that word he used in the Synod, “parrhesia," the gospel frankness calls upon us to say, “Holy Father either you been poorly advised or you have an incomplete conception of this issue. We know that we can share some information with you.” But the thirteen or so Cardinals who wrote to the Pope at the beginning of the last Synod, I mean that’s the perfect kind of example I think is going to happen.
Click to expand...
Also you know canon 220 - all the faithful have the right to express their opinions about matters in Church life. This is good that this be debated and brought forward in the press. …St. Thomas is used in Chapter eight to justify this new approach (in the Exhortation). I can’t believe that a good group of Thomists won’t be having a response to that
Click to expand...
I don’t want to criticize the pope. I think the pope is a wonderful man. I think he’s a holy man in so many ways. I hope to be a good man and holy myself. I don’t judge, but what I will say is when you do something in public that contradicts what your predecessor did, there has to be an accounting for it and a responsibility to upholding the gospel and I think that’s what many bishops, Cardinals and priests will call for.
Click to expand...
 
fin said:
The analysis of the panel on EWTN is among the best I’ve seen. Take note, this is EWTN, not some “radical traditionalist” news outlet :rolleyes:

youtube.com/watch?v=E5Avd7bCiV0
Click to expand...
Code: 
  I would say he should better contact his Bishop if he has any problem with the Apostolic Exhortation.
Not once have I heard a priest utter a word in public to give advice to a Pope.
  And I do not care if it was JPII , Benedict or Francis.
Have a problemas to come out as one voice,either zip it up or go to your superior.
This is the Church not whatever citizens want to make if it.
What saddens me is how our Church bishops and priests have respected Popes and offered humble submission. Bright,simple,loving servants of God, soothing,accompanying, guiding but giving their opinion of a Pope’s whatever? What is this,the Weather Channel predicting? No…
I must have lived in a bubble. Blessed bubble.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Its not too bad and while it may not be radical traditionalist it is firmly traditionalist all the same and some of the arguments are weak theologically.
Click to expand...
I watched the entire segment, and actually, there were no weak theological arguments made. The two guests made very eloquent statements that were faithful to the teachings of the Church. Can you be specific on what exactly you found to be theologically weak in any of their arguments?
 
irenaeus1 said:
I watched the entire segment, and actually, there were no weak theological arguments made. The two guests made very eloquent statements that were faithful to the teachings of the Church. Can you be specific on what exactly you found to be theologically weak in any of their arguments?
Click to expand...
Do you not find it strange they regard Pope Francis to be sincere yet mistaken on the basics.
Clearly the Cardinals voted for a theological dummy to say nothing of the education of his colleagues Cards Kaisper and Schoborn.

Pentins guests on the other hand are far more theologically educated and pastorally experienced.

Talk about hubris.

Unwillingness to accept that entry to public Communion on the point in question could be a changeable discipline was the elephant in the room never considered.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Unwillingness to accept that entry to public Communion on the point in question could be a changeable discipline was the elephant in the room never considered.
Click to expand...
At the Last Supper, did they tell Judas not to receive Communion?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Do you not find it strange they regard Pope Francis to be sincere yet mistaken on the basics.
Clearly the Cardinals voted for a theological dummy to say nothing of the education of his colleagues Cards Kaisper and Schoborn.

Pentins guests on the other hand are far more theologically educated and pastorally experienced.

Talk about hubris.

Unwillingness to accept that entry to public Communion on the point in question could be a changeable discipline was the elephant in the room never considered.
Click to expand...
Considering that there are bishops and theologians on both sides of the issue, then yes, someone necessarily has to be mistaken, even if sincere. So for example, either Francis, Kasper, Schoborn, Marx, etc. or John Paul II, Benedict, Burke, Sarah, Mueller, etc. They cannot both be correct.
 
Tomdstone said:
At the Last Supper, did they tell Judas not to receive Communion?
Click to expand...
No, but it was said that he was “unclean” and that “it would be better if he had never been born.” Whether he actually received or not is not known, but according to Jesus’ words, he clearly was not properly disposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top