Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[otjm]

Ora, I do not disagree.
Love of God is the greatest and most important Commandment. How one worships God (gives to God his due) and sees God’s reflection in EVERY human (treating the least as Christ Himself) is what is necessary for salvation.
I also do not see the practice of traditions as the end all be all….that is giving to tradition the honor that belongs to God alone.
The concern I am trying to raise is the concern that Pope John Paul II addressed in Familiaris Consortio……that scandal of the faithful -leading them into error and confusion will result when traditions (such as Communion for D&R) are changed.

As I have said before, given the regularity with which people move (and divorce is often a significant motivator), it is far more likely that someone who does not have other notoriety - for example, a person well known widely in a community, such as a mayor, or someone else with a public image - could walk into a parish and no one - and I mean no one - would have the faintest clue as to their marital history. Yes, a public figure who divorced and remarried would be a source of scandal; but Bob a plumber or Sally a sales rep would not be known to anyone.

Therefore, no scandal.

Therefore, John Paul’ words need to be examined in somewhat greater detain than a mere surface reading.

Obviously someone in a smaller parish who goes through a divorce and remarries may be known to others in the parish as having gone through a divorce; but how do they know that Bob got a decree of nullity, and Sally didn’t? It doesn’t get published in the bulletin; so how? Someone nosy enough to anoint themselves as liturgical/moral police and go investigate? And if they do not find the correct information (since decrees of nullity are not broadcast) are we going to have the liturgical/moral police spreading rumors?

Scenario: A couple shows up for Mass; no one recognizes them and they say they belong to another parish: who is it that is going to inquire whether they have been married more than once, and if so, did they get a decree of nullity? If they are living as brother and sister, and go to a different parish to go to Mass and Communion, what scandal is there in that? You don’t even know if this is their first marriage or not.

 

[St_Francis]

If you re-read the section of FC quoted above, you will see that giving scandal is a secondary consideration:
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. ***Besides this, *there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Moreover, the giving of scandal can occur on the part of the Church as well as on the part of the couple.

As I have said before, given the regularity with which people move (and divorce is often a significant motivator), it is far more likely that someone who does not have other notoriety - for example, a person well known widely in a community, such as a mayor, or someone else with a public image - could walk into a parish and no one - and I mean no one - would have the faintest clue as to their marital history. Yes, a public figure who divorced and remarried would be a source of scandal; but Bob a plumber or Sally a sales rep would not be known to anyone.

Therefore, no scandal.

Therefore, John Paul’ words need to be examined in somewhat greater detain than a mere surface reading.

Obviously someone in a smaller parish who goes through a divorce and remarries may be known to others in the parish as having gone through a divorce; but how do they know that Bob got a decree of nullity, and Sally didn’t? It doesn’t get published in the bulletin; so how? Someone nosy enough to anoint themselves as liturgical/moral police and go investigate? And if they do not find the correct information (since decrees of nullity are not broadcast) are we going to have the liturgical/moral police spreading rumors?

Scenario: A couple shows up for Mass; no one recognizes them and they say they belong to another parish: who is it that is going to inquire whether they have been married more than once, and if so, did they get a decree of nullity? If they are living as brother and sister, and go to a different parish to go to Mass and Communion, what scandal is there in that? You don’t even know if this is their first marriage or not.

 

[kyrie03]

If you re-read the section of FC quoted above, you will see that giving scandal is a secondary consideration:
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. ***Besides this, *there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Moreover, the giving of scandal can occur on the part of the Church as well as on the part of the couple.

The SCANDAL is that the Most Pure Body and Precious Blood is treated irreverently. Now even those who are objectively living immorally are the primary consideration. The state and condition of their living objectively contradicts the union of love between Christ and his Church - it is sacrilegious for them to partake. To not defend what should be the Church’s primary consideration leads even more souls into error and confusion. This is not my opinion and judgement of anyone……it is what the Church used to teach and insist upon. Please Holy Father, clear up this confusion and confirm your flock in the Truth!

 

[JPUSC]

Archbishop: Pope told me we must avoid speaking ‘plainly’ on Communion for remarried

Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, Italy, said during a presentation on the pope’s recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia that Pope Francis told him at the Synod on the Family that he didn’t want to speak “plainly” about the question of admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion because doing so would make a “terrible mess.”

Forte claimed that the pope told him: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

“Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte reportedly joked.

Forte’s comment was published on the Italian news site Zonalocale.it and translated by OnePeterFive.

…

Pope Francis personally chose Forte to be the special secretary to the synods. Forte is credited with writing the 2014 synod’s controversial mid-term Relatio…

lifesitenews.com/news/italian-archbishop-claims-pope-didnt-want-to-address-communion-question-pla#

 

[otjm]

The SCANDAL is that the Most Pure Body and Precious Blood is treated irreverently. Now even those who are objectively living immorally are the primary consideration. The state and condition of their living objectively contradicts the union of love between Christ and his Church - it is sacrilegious for them to partake. To not defend what should be our primary consideration leads even more souls into error and confusion. (This is not my opinion and judgement of anyone……it is what the Church used to teach and insist upon).

One more time: if they are living as brother and sister, do you still find scandal?

 

[kyrie03]

actually, it appears that the issue is not entirely as you indicate. And the parts which differ have been laid out in this and similar threads. It really helps if one understands all of the issues, not just a few.

This subject has been hashed out thoroughly, no law has changed, no new procedure is in place due to the Exhortation, and continuing to hash out the errors that keep popping up pushes endurance to the limits.

That is wonderful if you aren’t led into error nor confused as to how you should approach the Sacrament. I’m sorry if I am frustrating you.
For me, as for many, the voice of the Shepherd today sounds very different from the voice of the Shepherds in the past.

 

[otjm]

Archbishop: Pope told me we must avoid speaking ‘plainly’ on Communion for remarried

Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, Italy, said during a presentation on the pope’s recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia that Pope Francis told him at the Synod on the Family that he didn’t want to speak “plainly” about the question of admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion because doing so would make a “terrible mess.”

Forte claimed that the pope told him: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

“Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte reportedly joked.

Forte’s comment was published on the Italian news site Zonalocale.it and translated by OnePeterFive.

…

Pope Francis personally chose Forte to be the special secretary to the synods. Forte is credited with writing the 2014 synod’s controversial mid-term Relatio…

lifesitenews.com/news/italian-archbishop-claims-pope-didnt-want-to-address-communion-question-pla#

And that statement can be read either way. Those who choose to read it as the Pope saying that there will be open Communion will so read it; those who choose to read it as there will not be open communion will so read it.

It is a statement out of context, and as such, has the same worth as other statements taken out of context.

And given the furor over the issue which has ensued since the Exhortation was released, it is a prescient statement; but proves nothing other than that there will be (already exists) a furor.

 

[pnewton]

The tradition that is being changed, the doctrine that is being rejected in at least some cases, is the prohibition for the divorced and civilly remarried to partake in Communion.

As it has been stated before, not all believe this to be doctrine. This has never been defined as a doctrine of the Church, though some Church leaders agree with you that this is a doctrine of the Church. In the last synod of the family, an attempt was made to define this, but those that believed this did not have a majority. SO it could well be, and I believe true, that Pope Francis is in agreement with the majority at the synod that this is a practice, not a doctrine.

For one thing, even defining such a doctrine is tricky, as the number possible categories are numerous. For example, I would note that such a person could receive communion, and have been able to for quite a while, if the first marriage was annulled and the second convalidated, this despite that the person was truly a divorced person and was civilly married first. Any “doctrine” to which an exception can so easily be demonstrated, is not a doctrine.

Every rephrasing to correct this doctrine would produce new possible scenarios.

 

[pnewton]

From what I could tell on this thread, some people seemed to think that AL would allow the use of the IFS or similar to allow someone who had divorced and remarried to receive the Eucharist without an annulment and blessing of what would legally be the second marriage.

Yes. This is true, though I would change the “would allow” to something more unlikely, less of a right and more of an occasional possibility. For one thing, even with an annulment, the second marriage is still the second legal marriage. For another thing, the annulment process is not doctrine. It can be fallible, just like a person can commit self-deception, or a priest may be fallible.

Time will tell, but it is my opinion that this is what the Holy Father is envisioning as a possibility. Heck, according to some, this is already happening sometimes. If so, it is wise to put limits on it and give it clearer boundaries.

 

[pnewton]

That is wonderful if you aren’t led into error nor confused as to how you should approach the Sacrament. I’m sorry if I am frustrating you.
For me, as for many, the voice of the Shepherd today sounds very different from the voice of the Shepherds in the past.

But he sounds remarkably like the Good Shepherd, you know, the one who would leave the 99 to go a seek the one lost. Maybe not so great if you are one of the 99, but it is the very definition of what a good shepherd should do, if he is to emulate Jesus. We must not fall into the frustration of the older brother and fail to rejoice in the mercy of God toward others.

 

[otjm]

That is wonderful if you aren’t led into error nor confused as to how you should approach the Sacrament. I’m sorry if I am frustrating you.
For me, as for many, the voice of the Shepherd today sounds very different from the voice of the Shepherds in the past.

He sounds different, because of a number of things, among them the fact that he has for pretty much all his ordained life been in pastoral positions. The last two Popes were from academia, so of course they sounded different.

He has said that he wants to have a conversation: that should mean, to those sitting on the sidelines, that the issue has not been finished. He wants (name removed by moderator)ut from theologians and bishops (and I don’t recall him mentioning priests, but perhaps them too). I do not recall him asking for (name removed by moderator)ut from laity - with the possible exception of lay theologians.

Nothing was changed; no rules were written and no rules were revoked. Nor is this an operating document; operations have not been changed (in spite of the abject fear of some).

Christ said that He would send the Holy Spirit, and I was taught that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church and prevent it from error in matters of Faith and Morals. I still accept that; I am given to wonder at times if some others do.

For what little I know (and I m not ordained, nor am I a theologian) and from what appears to be a possibility is that in limited circumstances, we may (possibly) in the future see a narrow use of what is termed the Internal Forum.

I am not so naive as to not understand that could be abused; for that matter, so could a decree of nullity be rendered wrongly - they are not infallible decisions. Whether that is where the Church might go, or not, I don’t know; but I am willing to sit and watch. Others appear to not be able to, or maybe it is that they don’t want to. I also find that issues about conscience are difficult at best, and some want a simplistic, one statement answers all questions approach. The Church seems to think otherwise. And yes, I know that one needs a correctly formed conscience, but bleating that out rotely has little to do with the path that someone with an incorrectly formed conscience has to walk; yet we have those who seem ready to judge instantly. Last I heard, that was Christ’s duty.

I do know that the Church has a whole lot of people who are divorced and remarried, a much smaller subset of which might come back to the Faith, and The Pope is right that little or nothing (with the possible exception of things like Catholics Can Come Home, or Catholics Returning) has been done except to simply ignore them. And I agree with the Pope that the Church needs to amend that.

I have asked several questions, and you have not responded directly, but the implication I get is that either you do not understand them, or don’t want to deal with them. That is fine, but the questions stand. You seem to be presuming this is some sort of final document - it is not.

It is fairly clear to me that this Pope wants more transparency in discussions than there has been before, and I think there are a number of people who are exceedingly (I can’t think of a term more emphatic which is also polite) uncomfortable with that. Discussion does not mean that prior practice, morals, or doctrine will not remain the same; but even the thought that something might be discussed leads some to immediately cry out that “doctrine is being changed”. Go see my above comment about the Holy Spirit…

 

[JimG]

Ever since the publication of the exhortation, I have seen more interpretations of chapter 8 than of difficult bible passages. It seems to have spawned a new category of exegesis. Some say nothing has changed. Some say “this changes everything.” Some say that doctrine remains unchanged while discipline has changed or might change. Some say only a possible few in extraordinary circumstances of the divorced and remarried might be able to receive communion. Some say that the potential is for a much wider application of disciplinary change. No wonder everyone is confused.

I just read this blog post from Father Z who summarizes Robert Spaemann’s interview about the matter. It is not reassuring.

I see more exegesis about Chapter 8 of the exhortation than I do about the scripture passages where Jesus speaks of divorce. That is not reassuring either.

 

[pnewton]

I just read this blog post from Father Z who summarizes Robert Spaemann’s interview about the matter. It is not reassuring.

I think it is clear that there is more than one camp, that is, school of thought on this subject. Did Amoris Laetitia cause them or just expose them? However, I think belittling each other over disagreements is uncalled for. For example, this ad hominem by Mr. Spaemann, “That we are dealing with a break results without a doubt for every thinking person who knows the relevant texts,” has to by necessity include Pope Francis. I understand that Fr. Zuhlsdorf may appreciate Mr. Spaemann’s opinion, but he engaged in rhetoric one does not expect from a noted theologian. One just does not call those who do not agree you stupid for not thinking like you.

 

[St_Francis]

He sounds different, because of a number of things, among them the fact that he has for pretty much all his ordained life been in pastoral positions. The last two Popes were from academia, so of course they sounded different.

He has said that he wants to have a conversation: that should mean, to those sitting on the sidelines, that the issue has not been finished. He wants (name removed by moderator)ut from theologians and bishops (and I don’t recall him mentioning priests, but perhaps them too). I do not recall him asking for (name removed by moderator)ut from laity - with the possible exception of lay theologians.

Nothing was changed; no rules were written and no rules were revoked. Nor is this an operating document; operations have not been changed (in spite of the abject fear of some).

Christ said that He would send the Holy Spirit, and I was taught that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church and prevent it from error in matters of Faith and Morals. I still accept that; I am given to wonder at times if some others do.

For what little I know (and I m not ordained, nor am I a theologian) and from what appears to be a possibility is that in limited circumstances, we may (possibly) in the future see a narrow use of what is termed the Internal Forum.

I am not so naive as to not understand that could be abused; for that matter, so could a decree of nullity be rendered wrongly - they are not infallible decisions. Whether that is where the Church might go, or not, I don’t know; but I am willing to sit and watch. Others appear to not be able to, or maybe it is that they don’t want to. I also find that issues about conscience are difficult at best, and some want a simplistic, one statement answers all questions approach. The Church seems to think otherwise. And yes, I know that one needs a correctly formed conscience, but bleating that out rotely has little to do with the path that someone with an incorrectly formed conscience has to walk; yet we have those who seem ready to judge instantly. Last I heard, that was Christ’s duty.

I do know that the Church has a whole lot of people who are divorced and remarried, a much smaller subset of which might come back to the Faith, and The Pope is right that little or nothing (with the possible exception of things like Catholics Can Come Home, or Catholics Returning) has been done except to simply ignore them. And I agree with the Pope that the Church needs to amend that.

I have asked several questions, and you have not responded directly, but the implication I get is that either you do not understand them, or don’t want to deal with them. That is fine, but the questions stand. You seem to be presuming this is some sort of final document - it is not.

It is fairly clear to me that this Pope wants more transparency in discussions than there has been before, and I think there are a number of people who are exceedingly (I can’t think of a term more emphatic which is also polite) uncomfortable with that. Discussion does not mean that prior practice, morals, or doctrine will not remain the same; but even the thought that something might be discussed leads some to immediately cry out that “doctrine is being changed”. Go see my above comment about the Holy Spirit…

I have seen and live with the effects–the fallout–from C2and Humanae Vitae. To open this issue of D&R to the international news is to cause scandal then and there. And speculation, and anticipatory action.

Some have criticized those posters who were concerned about how priests would react, and seemed to think that if one did not consider a priest a mind-reader gifted with infallibility, one was being disrespectful. I tried to be very respectful in my presentation; I know a wide range of priests and they all seem to love the Eucharist. My concern was that priests would be *human. *

So I did not bring up the Winnipeg Statement or the signature of the ad in the NYT, the scandal of Fr Charles Curran, nor the meeting of the Baltimore diocese priests the night Humanae Vitae was released. A number of these priests were in open rebellion against HV.

How did that happen? There was an opening. Since the Pill worked with hormones and the women’s cycle, some thought it could be allowed as a sort of rythm method. The question was put to the world’s bishops. Everyone knew what was happening, and priests were telling their parishioners it was alright to use the Pill in anticipation of the final decision.

And then the final decision went against the Pill, causing havoc.

In the 1960s, in my parents’ generation, 4 out of 6 left the Church. Out of the 9 direct grandchildren in my generation, 1 or 2 practice the Faith: I am one and one of my cousins might be a practicing Catholic, all the rest are not practicing at all.

IN the US, in the 1950s, 75% of Catholics attended Mass weekly. Now 75% don’t. In NY, 85%, in Boston, 89%, do not attend Mass weekly. This precipitous decline started in the 1960s.

Let the Pope and theologians discuss these things, fine, if they think there’s something to discuss. Just do it in private, so when it runs out there’s nothing to discuss, there won’t be swathes of people leaving.

 

[kyrie03]

One more time: if they are living as brother and sister, do you still find scandal?

otjm, I don’t intend to diss you.
This isn’t about ME. What I think or how I feel is irrelevant. I am merely attempting to point out that the Church has always judged Communion for the divorced and remarried to be forbidden. Pope John Paul II expressed that if the couple lived in complete continence, lived as brother and sister, they could approach the Sacrament. I am not arguing against that. I am pointing out that what Pope Francis is proposing can be interpreted to directly contradict what his predecessors have clearly taught and explained.

 

[JimG]

Here is yet another exegesis of the exhortation:

Does Amoris Laetitia Retreat from Absolute Moral Norms?

 

[JimG]

I have seen and live with the effects–the fallout–from C2and Humanae Vitae. To open this issue of D&R to the international news is to cause scandal then and there. And speculation, and anticipatory action.

Some have criticized those posters who were concerned about how priests would react, and seemed to think that if one did not consider a priest a mind-reader gifted with infallibility, one was being disrespectful. I tried to be very respectful in my presentation; I know a wide range of priests and they all seem to love the Eucharist. My concern was that priests would be *human. *

So I did not bring up the Winnipeg Statement or the signature of the ad in the NYT, the scandal of Fr Charles Curran, nor the meeting of the Baltimore diocese priests the night Humanae Vitae was released. A number of these priests were in open rebellion against HV.

How did that happen? There was an opening. Since the Pill worked with hormones and the women’s cycle, some thought it could be allowed as a sort of rythm method. The question was put to the world’s bishops. Everyone knew what was happening, and priests were telling their parishioners it was alright to use the Pill in anticipation of the final decision.

And then the final decision went against the Pill, causing havoc.

In the 1960s, in my parents’ generation, 4 out of 6 left the Church. Out of the 9 direct grandchildren in my generation, 1 or 2 practice the Faith: I am one and one of my cousins might be a practicing Catholic, all the rest are not practicing at all.

IN the US, in the 1950s, 75% of Catholics attended Mass weekly. Now 75% don’t. In NY, 85%, in Boston, 89%, do not attend Mass weekly. This precipitous decline started in the 1960s.

Let the Pope and theologians discuss these things, fine, if they think there’s something to discuss. Just do it in private, so when it runs out there’s nothing to discuss, there won’t be swathes of people leaving.

The things you mention in your third paragraph did great damage to the Church and led to several generations of theological dissent which did further damage to the Faith.

 

[St_Francis]

I think it is clear that there is more than one camp, that is, school of thought on this subject. Did Amoris Laetitia cause them or just expose them? However, I think belittling each other over disagreements is uncalled for. For example, this ad hominem by Mr. Spaemann, “That we are dealing with a break results without a doubt for every thinking person who knows the relevant texts,” has to by necessity include Pope Francis. I understand that Fr. Zuhlsdorf may appreciate Mr. Spaemann’s opinion, but he engaged in rhetoric one does not expect from a noted theologian. One just does not call those who do not agree you stupid for not thinking like you.

But I do not think he is saying that those who disagree with him are stupid; I think he’s saying that those who think the IFS should be allowed or shouldn’t be allowed all think that there is a change advocated in LA.

Given what I have seen on this thread, in which a lot of disagreement has been expressed, I would agree with that.

 

[kyrie03]

otjm;13893416]He sounds different, because of a number of things, among them the fact that he has for pretty much all his ordained life been in pastoral positions. The last two Popes were from academia, so of course they sounded different.

He has said that he wants to have a conversation: that should mean, to those sitting on the sidelines, that the issue has not been finished. He wants (name removed by moderator)ut from theologians and bishops (and I don’t recall him mentioning priests, but perhaps them too). I do not recall him asking for (name removed by moderator)ut from laity - with the possible exception of lay theologians.

He sounds different because he seems to be saying something that contradicts what his predecessors taught. Is it wrong for lay people to respectfully point out the apparent contradiction between what the faithful has always believed and what seems to now be allowed? Is it wrong to express the scandal given when others (especially the children of the D&R) witness one receiving the Body and Blood of Christ while living in a new union without an annulment? Does this not harm the belief in indissolubility of marriage?

Nothing was changed; no rules were written and no rules were revoked. Nor is this an operating document; operations have not been changed (in spite of the abject fear of some).

Look again at the statements of Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis…one says complete continence is necessary, the other suggests periodic abstinence.

Christ said that He would send the Holy Spirit, and I was taught that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church and prevent it from error in matters of Faith and Morals. I still accept that; I am given to wonder at times if some others do.

Yes, the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error to the faithful. This doesn’t mean that certain Popes haven’t taught error (Pope John XXII - taught doctrinal error of beatific vision not possible until after Final Judgement. The faithful and some in the hierarchy correctly refused to accept his new teaching. Just before he died, Pope John XXII recanted and signed a statement that he had expressed himself simply as a private theologian, without any binding to the magisterium he held. Good theologians and prelates of the time, moved by their sensus fidei, publically refused their assent to the supreme authority. An important truth of our faith was thus able to be conserved, transmitted and defined. The following Pope, Benedict XII clarified that the Beatific Vision is enjoyed by souls prior to their bodily resurrection). The Church has always taught the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage and the importance that the Eucharist should be received only by those baptized persons free from serious sin (including objective state of living as explained by Pope John Paul II). AL is “fuzzy” enough that it could be interpreted to change these doctrine. pnewton is arguing that it is not doctrine.

For what little I know (and I m not ordained, nor am I a theologian) and from what appears to be a possibility is that in limited circumstances, we may (possibly) in the future see a narrow use of what is termed the Internal Forum.

Just takes a little crack and many souls can be led astray. I am asking for clarity so those souls are not deceived as to how they should act and pass on the truths of indissolubility of marriage and proper reception of the Eucharist to future generations

I am not so naive as to not understand that could be abused; for that matter, so could a decree of nullity be rendered wrongly - they are not infallible decisions. Whether that is where the Church might go, or not, I don’t know; but I am willing to sit and watch. Others appear to not be able to, or maybe it is that they don’t want to. I also find that issues about conscience are difficult at best, and some want a simplistic, one statement answers all questions approach. The Church seems to think otherwise. And yes, I know that one needs a correctly formed conscience, but bleating that out rotely has little to do with the path that someone with an incorrectly formed conscience has to walk; yet we have those who seem ready to judge instantly. Last I heard, that was Christ’s duty.

Christ seems to choose to work through the humble bleating of the lowly (FYI- I am not calling myself humble, just low on totem pole of authority). Again, I am not using my private judgement but pointing out what the Church has always clearly taught.

 

[kyrie03]

otjm: I do know that the Church has a whole lot of people who are divorced and remarried, a much smaller subset of which might come back to the Faith, and The Pope is right that little or nothing (with the possible exception of things like Catholics Can Come Home, or Catholics Returning) has been done except to simply ignore them. And I agree with the Pope that the Church needs to amend that.

Yes, pastorally the Church is entrusted with mission to draw all souls into the fullness of the Truth helping its members to attain the perfection necessary to attain the Heavenly Kingdom. Truth doesn’t change. What the Church taught at the time of the Apostles as necessary for salvation will be the same as the Church is teaching when Christ comes again.

I have asked several questions, and you have not responded directly, but the implication I get is that either you do not understand them, or don’t want to deal with them. That is fine, but the questions stand. You seem to be presuming this is some sort of final document - it is not.

I hope I’ve sufficiently answered your questions. If not, please show me where I am avoiding a response.

It is fairly clear to me that this Pope wants more transparency in discussions than there has been before, and I think there are a number of people who are exceedingly (I can’t think of a term more emphatic which is also polite) uncomfortable with that. Discussion does not mean that prior practice, morals, or doctrine will not remain the same; but even the thought that something might be discussed leads some to immediately cry out that “doctrine is being changed”. Go see my above comment about the Holy Spirit…

Discomfort is due to ambiguity that can be interpreted contrary to what Church has always taught as necessary for our salvation.
“Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth. You are everywhere present and fill all things. Treasury of blessings and Giver of life, come and dwell within us, cleanse us of all stain and save our souls, O Gracious Lord!”