Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

[pnewton]

Here is yet another exegesis of the exhortation:

Does Amoris Laetitia Retreat from Absolute Moral Norms?

Pope Francis kept referring to the marriage ideal toward which we strive. There can be no ideal without absolute norms. In fact, one must be a moral absolutist in order to acknowledge that “all have sinned.”

 

[otjm]

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.

I would agree with you that the Exhortation has caused a multitude of opinions to appear.

Perhaps some thoughts: one thing that is clear from the beginning of the first synod is that Francis wants more transparency in Church decisions, and in decision making. That, in part, if not related to his early and repeated outspokenness to clericalism, is certainly not all that far removed from it.

And not only clericalism, but ultramontanism may be playing in. The Pope, from the best I can garner, desires to start a conversation among and with bishops and theologians concerning how divorced and remarried people are to be reconciled to the Church; he has made it clear that all situations are not identical, and made it abundantly clear that the Church as a whole appears to have simply consigned those in second marriages, no decree of nullity, to the waste heap at worst, and to being ignored at best.

He has not changed any discipline; nor any Canon law code; nor any doctrine. But people who have had 35 years of papacy occupied by academicians who made decisions (the Exhortation is not a decision; it is a reflection) and did so without an open discussion before the decision was rendered, are having an exceedingly hard time. Some are not particularly adept at hiding their disdain for him.

Nothing has removed the need for going through the process of seeking a decree of nullity; he asks what we do with those who for one reason or another are not able to obtain one. So we are talking about a minority of a minority. There are literally tens of ten thousands, if not more, who are in this situation, and the vast majority of them are not knocking down the doors of the Church demanding to be let in.

I suspect that it is possible, that the issue of the use of the Internal Forum is beneath all of this, but only time will tell. And contrary to the protestations of some, it appears that still, the couple may under limited circumstances and if living as brother and sister, be admitted to Communion.

Robert Spaemann is a lay theologian, and certainly, I would expect, be able to put his oar in the water on the matter; but as Don Ruggero pointed out, he may have an opinion but will not be doing any of the heavy lifting in the matter. Ultimately, it will be the bishops weighing in who will have the impact.

If it is the Internal Forum which either is beneath this, or is where the conversation might go, then I would expect that it would be very limited in its use and scope. And that ultimately is within the range of what the Church has to say about conscience. Tribunals are not only not infallible in the decrees they render, but also not infallible in the cases in which they do not render a decree. Life is messy at best; universal rules may be subject to exceptions, and it might be best instead of picking up a stone to cast, that we pew sitters do two things: pray, and watch.

 

[Tomdstone]

Pope Francis kept referring to the marriage ideal toward which we strive. There can be no ideal without absolute norms. In fact, one must be a moral absolutist in order to acknowledge that “all have sinned.”

I don;t think that there always are absolute norms. Take for example, slavery, or take for example torture, or take for example burning at the stake of heretics.
At one time slavery was allowed, now it is taught to be morally wrong.
At the time of the Inquisition, it was taught that it was acceptable to torture (although within certain limits), now it is taught to be morally wrong even within the limits allowed by the Inquisition.
In the local Catholic newspaper appeared an article which said that no Catholic can support the death penalty. But the death penalty was allowed in the past.

 

[otjm]

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.

I lived through the same time and issues, so to an extent you are “preaching to the choir”.

A couple of minor comments:

Mass attendance peaked in about 1956-1957 and started to gradually decline; and according to CARA, the highest rate of attendance of Mass weekly is over 50% and over 50 in age; so there does not appear to have been a “4 out of 6” loss. That is also sustained by the fact that there was a gradual drop in attendance until it has settled out at about 25%.

I see all too many Catholics who seem to be of the opinion that Church matters are and always should be calm, pristine, and orderly; but life, including life within the Church, is chaotic. I have no doubt that Francis, as a priest and then a bishop, has been thoroughly aware of how different areas of the world reacted to HV. The United States was explosive; I don’t know about Europe, but they have been far more jaded far longer than the US, so I would not be surprised if they simply “went about their business”. Argentina is a mix of sophisticated cities and rural areas, and I would not be surprised either there if the cities, being of generally a more Mediterranean background than Germanic may have had a somewhat laid back attitude towards the Pill.

In any event, I suspect he has a much greater world view of that recent history, and it appears to me that he is trying to do something different. Right or wrong, only history will tell.

Yes, some priests may go off the rails. That is nothing new; that goes clear back to Judas, and Martin Luther was not exactly a stellar example, and we can point to Curran. It is also not 33 AD, or the 1500’s of for that matter, 1968 (and we were discussing the Pill in 1964 in Senior Religion in a Jesuit high school, and the priest teaching it tracked quite well with what would come out 4 years later). Chaos is not what I would want to see, but I kind of think the new batches of priests - often called the “John Paul 2” priests, have different fish to fry than attaching to the attitudes and issues of priests of 50 or even 40 years ago. If we cannot in general trust our priests and bishops, then it is time to hang it up. I tried to say it pointedly, and another poster was even more pointed. I trust our priests and bishops, and as far as people following their conscience, that has been an issue since Adam and Eve, and is not going to change; nor is it necessarily going to get worse. I have more concern about unmarried individuals who have left the Church in their late teens to early 20’s, live the lifestyle of serial sexual partners, and then “get married” in the Church because that is the cultural thing you do. Someone in a long term second marriage with no decree of nullity, trying to reconcile with the Church, and all too often in a royal mess, I have more empathy and compassion for - which does not equate with open Communion. That issue is way, way above my pay grade.

 

[Tomdstone]

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#

Is it better to speak clearly on a moral issue, or is it better to speak ambiguously about a moral question?

 

[pnewton]

I don;t think that there always are absolute norms.

In the context of Catholic doctrine, there are absolutes when it comes to marriage and sexual intimacy. If one is wrong on this, he cannot blame the Pope for confusion.

 

[Tomdstone]

In the context of Catholic doctrine, there are absolutes when it comes to marriage and sexual intimacy. If one is wrong on this, he cannot blame the Pope for confusion.

Maybe in some specific cases, but generally, I don’t see the absolute moral norms in the case of slavery, torture or capital punishment.

 

[otjm]

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.

And I don’t think the Pope has proposed what you seem to think he has.

He has asked for a conversation; the Exhortation is both a call to the Church (that is, primarily pastors - Which includes bishops, but not strictly limited to them) to take up a subject and a group which has by and large simply been ignored - if not worse. Who is that group?

According to CARA research, from 1985 through 2010, making a rough estimate of 31,500,000 Catholic marriages in existence, there were about 8,500,000 which ended up in divorce, and about 600,000 that ended up with a decree of nullity. And those seeking a decree have been going down since the peak of about 72,000 in 1990- of which estimates are a little less than half received one. in 2010, about 26,000 sought a decree (and again, estimates are about half received one).

Which is another way of saying that about 85% of Catholics who have divorced have not sought a decree of nullity - and one can guess out of those, how many have remarried. In short, the numbers are enormous.

Note: the above are estimates; in any given year more than half might receive a decree of nullity, and in other years, fewer; the point is we have a whole lot of Catholics estranged from the Church.

You and I perceive the Pope, and the Exhortation differently. I do not perceive him as a wild card; nor do I perceive him as suggesting that doctrine be overthrown. And if, in a comment, he might suggest that, I still boot back to the protection of the Holy Spirit. No pope in 2000 years has changed any doctrines, and it is not going to start now. Doctrines have been nuanced; disciplines have been changed; but the Holy Spirit still protects the Church, no matter what highly intelligent bishop or theologian may propose to the contrary.

Which gets back to what I have been trying to say - you are fretting over a non-issue. As in, it ain’t gonna happen.

And if you are still struggling over the Exhortation, then I would suggest that perhaps it is an area in which you are not that familiar, and that you are misinterpreting.

 

[Tomdstone]

No pope in 2000 years has changed any doctrines, and it is not going to start now.

That is the Roman Catholic position, but the Eastern Orthodox would disagree pointing to the change in the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There have also been changes in the teaching on slavery, torture and capital punishment. The papal legates officially excommunicated Cerularius in 1054 and one of the reasons mentioned for the anathema Maranatha was that he did not include the filioque in the creed, even though the original version of the creed did not have the filioque and it remained so until the 7th century. There is also the question of whether a Jew can be saved. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…"
Now it is taught that a Jew can be saved even if he does not convert before the end of his life.

 

[JimG]

Pope Francis kept referring to the marriage ideal toward which we strive. There can be no ideal without absolute norms. In fact, one must be a moral absolutist in order to acknowledge that “all have sinned.”

Permanence, fidelity, openness to life. These are not ideals. They are what marriage is.

Maybe everyone in my old neighborhood was living in a bubble. It did not seem, then, that such an ideal was impossible of attainment. People at one time seemed to be perfectly capable of vowing permanence and fidelity to each other until death, and meaning it, and keeping it. If men and women are generally no longer capable of making such a commitment, something has changed, and divorce has correspondingly increased.

But do we adjust the requirements set by Jesus for marriage because people are no longer capable of making a commitment? Do we say to him, “that’s a great ideal, but of course most of us cannot do that.”

 

[St_Francis]

I lived through the same time and issues, so to an extent you are “preaching to the choir”.

A couple of minor comments:

Mass attendance peaked in about 1956-1957 and started to gradually decline; and according to CARA, the highest rate of attendance of Mass weekly is over 50% and over 50 in age; so there does not appear to have been a “4 out of 6” loss. That is also sustained by the fact that there was a gradual drop in attendance until it has settled out at about 25%.

I tried to be clear that the 4/6 number referred to my own family. I think we can all agree that no matter what the numbers are, they are considerably lower now than they were in the 1950s.

I see all too many Catholics who seem to be of the opinion that Church matters are and always should be calm, pristine, and orderly; but life, including life within the Church, is chaotic.

There is a difference between the teachings of the Church and “life,” no?

I have no doubt that Francis, as a priest and then a bishop, has been thoroughly aware of how different areas of the world reacted to HV. The United States was explosive; I don’t know about Europe, but they have been far more jaded far longer than the US, so I would not be surprised if they simply “went about their business”. Argentina is a mix of sophisticated cities and rural areas, and I would not be surprised either there if the cities, being of generally a more Mediterranean background than Germanic may have had a somewhat laid back attitude towards the Pill.

In any event, I suspect he has a much greater world view of that recent history, and it appears to me that he is trying to do something different. Right or wrong, only history will tell.

If the exhortation was addressed to bishops and not to laity, then it could have been released to the bishops and not the laity.

Yes, some priests may go off the rails. That is nothing new; that goes clear back to Judas, and Martin Luther was not exactly a stellar example, and we can point to Curran. It is also not 33 AD, or the 1500’s of for that matter, 1968 (and we were discussing the Pill in 1964 in Senior Religion in a Jesuit high school, and the priest teaching it tracked quite well with what would come out 4 years later).

So has some change occurred since AD 33, the 1500s, or 1968? Do you think that a problem that has been shown to exist for 1933 years has since been solved?

… If we cannot in general trust our priests and bishops, then it is time to hang it up. I tried to say it pointedly, and another poster was even more pointed.

All I was saying is that priests are human, and it seems that that indicates I do not trust priests or bishops? We currently do not trust our priests to make certain determinations: that is why we have a Tribunal! It’s not saying anything *bad *about priests and/or bishops to say that they are human, that they cannot all be experts in canon law, and that they are not mind-readers. I really don’t understand, if the Church currently entrusts certain matters to a Tribunal, why others think that I have some sort of animus against priests and bishops!

I trust our priests and bishops, and as far as people following their conscience, that has been an issue since Adam and Eve, and is not going to change; nor is it necessarily going to get worse. I have more concern about unmarried individuals who have left the Church in their late teens to early 20’s, live the lifestyle of serial sexual partners, and then “get married” in the Church because that is the cultural thing you do. Someone in a long term second marriage with no decree of nullity, trying to reconcile with the Church, and all too often in a royal mess, I have more empathy and compassion for - which does not equate with open Communion. That issue is way, way above my pay grade.

I have empathy for people in that situation too. I also see that no one is trusting the priests to do the right thing for a couple who shows up in that situation, since apparently priests must be “exhorted” to be nice to them and to encourage them to change their situation sufficiently so as to be able to receive the sacraments?

 

[St_Francis]

That is the Roman Catholic position, but the Eastern Orthodox would disagree pointing to the change in the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There have also been changes in the teaching on slavery, torture and capital punishment. The papal legates officially excommunicated Cerularius in 1054 and one of the reasons mentioned for the anathema Maranatha was that he did not include the filioque in the creed, even though the original version of the creed did not have the filioque and it remained so until the 7th century. There is also the question of whether a Jew can be saved. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…"
Now it is taught that a Jew can be saved even if he does not convert before the end of his life.

Maybe in some specific cases, but generally, I don’t see the absolute moral norms in the case of slavery, torture or capital punishment.

I don;t think that there always are absolute norms. Take for example, slavery, or take for example torture, or take for example burning at the stake of heretics.
At one time slavery was allowed, now it is taught to be morally wrong.
At the time of the Inquisition, it was taught that it was acceptable to torture (although within certain limits), now it is taught to be morally wrong even within the limits allowed by the Inquisition.
In the local Catholic newspaper appeared an article which said that no Catholic can support the death penalty. But the death penalty was allowed in the past.

Maybe the best thing to do is to search for previous threads about these issues, individually, and start a new thread if you have an unaddressed question about one or more of them.

 

[kyrie03]

And I don’t think the Pope has proposed what you seem to think he has.

 

[otjm]

Is it better to speak clearly on a moral issue, or is it better to speak ambiguously about a moral question?

If one is seeking to begin or continue a conversation, then one does not stop the conversation midpoint.

If the issue is either finding support for, example, the Interior Forum, or clearing that matter up after more discussion, then one may indicate that not all of the parameters of a matter are resolved - and that would, to many, be ambiguous…

 

[otjm]

I tried to be clear that the 4/6 number referred to my own family. I think we can all agree that no matter what the numbers are, they are considerably lower now than they were in the 1950s.

Ah. It wasn’t clear. Sorry; not trying to pick

There is a difference between the teachings of the Church and “life,” no?

Certainly. When broad rules are applied, there are circumstances where, because the rule is broad, there are exceptions. In addition, there are circumstances where the broad rule is fine tuned; and a prime example is the difference between the 1917 Code and the 1983 code in terms of under what grounds a decree of nullity can be made.

If the exhortation was addressed to bishops and not to laity, then it could have been released to the bishops and not the laity.

Likewise the documents of Vatican 2. Obviously the Church has determined to do otherwise. And obviously, laity are involved in work to strengthen marriage - a few examples would be Marriage Encounter and pre-marriage counseling; but us pew sitters are not going to be involved in determining if someone in a divorce and remarriage situation can be a sponsor at baptism (and I seem to recall references specifically to that). And while I work with Catholics Returning Home, I am merely a listener in the program who helps those who have left to start the journey of return.

So has some change occurred since AD 33, the 1500s, or 1968? Do you think that a problem that has been shown to exist for 1933 years has since been solved?

Given the recent changes to the tribunal system, and the indication from Francis that the conversation is not over, no, I don’t think so. Nor do I think doctrine is going to be changed; and I don’t think that when the grounds of nullity were expanded that doctrine changed. In 1982, I could not have told you how the Code could be or should be (or not be)changed; nor can I guess what, if anything, might be changed in terms of discipline on the on-going matters. That is why I sit and watch.

All I was saying is that priests are human, and it seems that that indicates I do not trust priests or bishops? We currently do not trust our priests to make certain determinations: that is why we have a Tribunal! It’s not saying anything *bad *about priests and/or bishops to say that they are human, that they cannot all be experts in canon law, and that they are not mind-readers. I really don’t understand, if the Church currently entrusts certain matters to a Tribunal, why others think that I have some sort of animus against priests and bishops!

My comment was extended beyond the conversation directly between us. I was not directing it to you specifically. I still would like a perfect world, but having entered college in the mid 60’s, I have long ago come to the conclusion I will not see it.

I have had one pastor die of AIDS; one was a flaming alcoholic who was responsible for a car running over both legs of one of my classmates in grade school; one was removed for sexual abuse of boys, so I know very well that an individual priest can go off the rails. I lived through the 70’s and 0’s and saw what you saw; I also see a really different group of men entering seminary and being ordained. I also have seen bishops who are far less bureaucrats and far more shepherds, so hopefully they will be leading their priests.

I have empathy for people in that situation too. I also see that no one is trusting the priests to do the right thing for a couple who shows up in that situation, since apparently priests must be “exhorted” to be nice to them and to encourage them to change their situation sufficiently so as to be able to receive the sacraments?

I see the exhortation more as encouraging (since it was not a command) to be the shepherd “who leaves the 99” as I think Francis is right; we do little or nothing to go seek out those who have quit. We don’t have near enough priests; but if 75% of Catholics have little or nothing to do with the Church, the “99 and 1” is a bit skewed. And divorce and remarriage is only one of the issues that has caused many to leave.

Going back to one of your prior posts mentioning IF, I don’t pretend to be comfortable with it either; but that decision is not up to me. If it is where this conversation (the Exhortation) is going, I hope that it will have strong perimeters put on it. And I am not sure that it will be approved.

 

[kyrie03]

That is the Roman Catholic position, but the Eastern Orthodox would disagree pointing to the change in the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There have also been changes in the teaching on slavery, torture and capital punishment. The papal legates officially excommunicated Cerularius in 1054 and one of the reasons mentioned for the anathema Maranatha was that he did not include the filioque in the creed, even though the original version of the creed did not have the filioque and it remained so until the 7th century. There is also the question of whether a Jew can be saved. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…"
Now it is taught that a Jew can be saved even if he does not convert before the end of his life.

Doctrines that are held by the universal Church (throughout all world in all generations) are free from error and can never change.

Torture, capital punishment, slavery (anything taught by certain members of hierarchy at certain point in time -not universally) are not doctrine nor is belief in them necessary for salvation.

Teachings of the Church regarding the Sacraments, however, is necessary for salvation as Christ instituted them specifically to help men attain heaven. The Church has universally taught and practiced in all places and since Apostolic times on the need for and the proper administration of the Sacraments (such as marriage and the Eucharist that are being discussed in this thread). I hope this helps clarify what is/isn’t doctrine.

The Filioque in the creed needs to be discussed elsewhere.

No salvation outside the Church is still a doctrine of the Church -and also needs to be discussed elsewhere.

 

[otjm]

otjm;13894238:

Enough people, including bishops and priests, can interpret the Exhortation incorrectly. No one disagrees that pastors lovingly and mercifully lead sinners to the fulness of the Christian life; it’s a straw man fallacy to accuse those concerned about misrepresentation of doctrine to be doing otherwise.

Salvation of souls by teaching them ALL things whatsoever Christ has commanded is the reason Christ established a Church with a hierarchical Magisterium. If even 1 pastor reads the ambiguous Exhortation and interprets it incorrectly and so counsels souls, or even 1 person lives in a manner contrary to salvation because of what he/she believes is now Church teaching, it is too many!

To point out the confusing portions of the Exhortation and request the Pope clear up the confusion, is the duty of every Christian concerned about his fellow brothers and sisters knowing and living the fulness of the Truth necessary for eternal salvation.

Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church and promised to preserve Her from teaching error. Individual popes (such as Pope John XXII) were not protected from teaching error and in fact, the sensus fidei

-what the faithful had always believed and practiced - was the cause of the error John XXII not spreading through the Church. I am appealing to that *sensus fedei *to again protect the Church, that the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage again be clearly taught and the practice of receiving Communion only if one is properly disposed (according to the Church’s unambiguous tradition) be upheld.

Sadly, the average person is experiencing much difficulty learning and living according what the Church teaches. Many just assume that the Holy Spirit is guiding every confusing comment that comes from the Pope or bishops without discerning what the Church actually teaches. Theologians or simple laymen who attempt to correct the erroneous thinking are dismissed without examination as to the veracity of their arguments.

In addition to promising the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, Christ asks, if when He returns, will He find any Faith left in the world? He is warning us that the Church will be attacked and Faith will be diminished. Let us all pray and work for the Faith to be known and lived by many that would otherwise be deceived.There are over 2,000 bishops, and how many have spoken up about being confused - one tenth of one percent?

Pope Francis invited people way, way above your or my pay grade to continue a conversation. A few have chosen to do so in and through the media which I kind of doubt was his intent. We now have almost instantaneous communications, and the almost instantaneous commentary seems to show both a lack of long reflection, and in a number of circumstances, a very strong animus against the Pope. That does little to lend charity to the conversation.

I see very strong similarities between the Gospels, and some of the reactions to the Pope. It is so fascinating to watch.

 

[kyrie03]

otjm;13894985:

There are over 2,000 bishops, and how many have spoken up about being confused - one tenth of one percent?

Pope Francis invited people way, way above your or my pay grade to continue a conversation. A few have chosen to do so in and through the media which I kind of doubt was his intent. We now have almost instantaneous communications, and the almost instantaneous commentary seems to show both a lack of long reflection, and in a number of circumstances, a very strong animus against the Pope. That does little to lend charity to the conversation.

I see very strong similarities between the Gospels, and some of the reactions to the Pope. It is so fascinating to watch.

If you don’t find many inside the Church holding a variety of different and contradictory beliefs about what is and isn’t necessary for salvation……….
They aren’t all correct. There is only 1 Truth. Christ says * “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)*

Christ commissioned Peter to teach, sanctify, and rule the faithful. If what Peter teaches regarding faith and morals is confusing to the faithful, he needs to clarify what Christ meant. If what a successor of Peter says sounds different from what all past successors of Peter have said and is leading to even more confusion……it isn’t above yours, mine, or anyone’s pay grade to point it out.

There have been many confusing statements coming from Pope Francis - no doubt made worse by instantaneous communications- as you say. Why doesn’t he correct the misrepresentations for the good of his flock?

The Exhortation is different, Pope Francis had months to reflect upon and compose Amoris Laetitia……and it’s STILL confusing the faithful! I am one of those confused as to what exactly he means. I am re-learning what the Church has always taught. I’m having difficulty reconciling it to what Pope Francis is now suggesting. I see all sorts of misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and confusion within the Church. I have no animosity toward His Holiness. I love and pray for him daily!

 

[kyrie03]

otjm;13894985:

I see very strong similarities between the Gospels, and some of the reactions to the Pope. It is so fascinating to watch.

Curious as to what you mean?

 

[otjm]

otjm;13895137:

If you don’t find many inside the Church holding a variety of different and contradictory beliefs about what is and isn’t necessary for salvation……….
They aren’t all correct. There is only 1 Truth. Christ says * “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)*

Christ commissioned Peter to teach, sanctify, and rule the faithful. If what Peter teaches regarding faith and morals is confusing to the faithful, he needs to clarify what Christ meant. If what a successor of Peter says sounds different from what all past successors of Peter have said and is leading to even more confusion……it isn’t above yours, mine, or anyone’s pay grade to point it out.

There have been many confusing statements coming from Pope Francis - no doubt made worse by instantaneous communications- as you say. Why doesn’t he correct the misrepresentations for the good of his flock?

The Exhortation is different, Pope Francis had months to reflect upon and compose Amoris Laetitia……and it’s STILL confusing the faithful! I am one of those confused as to what exactly he means. I am re-learning what the Church has always taught. I’m having difficulty reconciling it to what Pope Francis is now suggesting. I see all sorts of misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and confusion within the Church. I have no animosity toward His Holiness. I love and pray for him daily!
You use the word “correct”, as if this is a teaching document.

It isn’t. Among other things, it is an invitation to look further at the issue of divorced and remarried couples. I will repeat; no doctrine has been changed; no rule has been revoked; not discipline has been set in place.

as he intends the conversation to continue, at the appropriate time he will fulfill your wishes for greater clarity. That won’t be until the conversation is concluded.

a good portion of people being upset is that they presume that if a document comes forth from the Vatican, it is a teaching document. This one is not. It is a reflection. It is pastoral in nature, not didactic.

there have been comments made by this pope which have been taken out of context by the secular press - which should be the first clue to those who have been getting upset about them. strangely, that seems to pass right over people’s heads without ruffling a hair. And so what we get are knee-jerk reactions. /coupled with thqat have been some rather pointed comments towards people who put law above charity; and Christ spoke repeatedly in the Gospels about that, as well as directly violating some of the Jewish laws - for example, work on the Sabbath. And people have come borderline unglued, demanding that the Pope be more specific.

He didn’t have to be more specific with me - I got the message.

I think part of your confusion stems from an underlying presumption that this is a teaching document. maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see how else I can explain it.

And I strongly suspect that if some of those who are so upset were to sit down with Francis for maybbe 2 minutes and unload their anxiety at him, he would look at them a bit with the look of “Where are you coming from?” and answer them “Well of course not” to their question of divorced and remarried suddenly being admitted to Communion.