Philadelphia Archbishop Chaput welcomes ‘smaller church’ of holier Catholics

[Catholic_farmer]

I respect both the opinion of our Holy Father, as a classic shepherd searching for the lost sheep, and the opinion of Archbishop Chaput, who is speaking to those that cause others to stray. I believe both Church leaders are speaking about different people.

We should always seek to bring the message to others, but call out those who are scattering the sheep. Pope Francis is very gentle with his words, but he does say what is important. He must be the most misquoted Pope we have ever had.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I respect both the opinion of our Holy Father, as a classic shepherd searching for the lost sheep, and the opinion of Archbishop Chaput, who is speaking to those that cause others to stray. I believe both Church leaders are speaking about different people.

We should always seek to bring the message to others, but call out those who are scattering the sheep. Pope Francis is very gentle with his words, but he does say what is important. He must be the most misquoted Pope we have ever had.

I agree with you on all counts here.

 

[7_Sorrows]

They proudly shame themselves day after day. Their utter abandonment of Catholic teachings is public knowledge.How is he shaming them by stating things that are public knowledge? By all accounts these politicians hold their disobedience as a virtue and feel no shame in proclaiming it.

Archbishop Chaput is being a good shepherd by warning his flock about the wolves in the fold. It is a shepherd’s duty to drive the wolves out before they lay waste to the flock.

 

[martindeporres]

If only all our leaders had the courage he does. God Bless you, Archbishop Chaput

 

[patricius79]

I agree with you on all counts here.

I appreciate what you’ve said. I think it’s wrong that parishes are not confronting their major problems like not going to confession, contraception,

And–perhaps most fundamentally–not embracing the Church’s Magisterial authority from Christ (which I think is a most basic requirement for being a faithful Catholic)

Chaput not only is criticizing public figures, but all Catholics who do not assent to Church teaching and are not spiritually fighting for these truths. He says some things which seem so different from what most churchgoing Catholics have come to believe:

Chaput writes:

*For Benedict, laypeople and priests don’t need to publicly renounce their baptism to be apostates. They simply need to be silent when their Catholic faith demands that they speak out; to be cowards when Jesus asks them to have courage; to “stand away” from the truth when they need to work for it and fight for it.
…

If by “inclusive” we mean patiently and sensitively inviting all people to a relationship with Jesus Christ, then yes, we do very much need to be inclusive. But if “inclusive” means including people who do not believe what the Catholic faith teaches and will not reform their lives according to what the Church holds to be true, then inclusion is a form of lying. And it’s not just lying but an act of betrayal and violence against the rights of those who do believe and do seek to live according to God’s Word. Inclusion requires conversion and a change of life; or at least the sincere desire to change. *
archphila.org/archbishop-chaputs-address-at-the-university-of-notre-dame-2016-bishops-symposium-reclaiming-the-church-for-the-catholic-imagination/

I tend to agree with Benedict’s idea of apostasy, though it’s not exactly what the Catechism says, and it seems to mean that most churchgoing Catholics are in some sense apostates, doesn’t it, given their dissent from Church teachings and lack of zeal? And even priests, given their silence about the terrible contraception crisis, for example? Or am I misinterpreting?

Personally–perhaps in my ignorance–I also feel a tension between Pope Francis’s teaching and that of Archbishop Chaput.

And I think most American priests would not preach what Chaput is saying, and that most churchgoing Catholics would think what Chaput is saying is terrible.

Of course, I don’t want anyone to feel rejected. But with the help of the Mother of Mercy, we most humbly confront our failures to embrace the Magisterium and to live it out. If we aren’t willing to do that, how can we claim to be faithful Catholics?

I don’t think it’s about not including people because they are sinners, as some suggested. We’re all great sinners. The issue is whether one is choosing to accept the Church’s authority and is trying to live it out.

For example, someone might sometimes willfully disagree with the Church, or fall into serious sin, but then go to Confession. That’s very different from someone who does the same thing but see no need to repent.

I also agree that if Catholics do insist on fidelity to Church teaching, parishes will become more vibrant and missionary, as I think Chaput also says.

May Mother Mary help us sort all this out!

 

[kozlosap]

I have much admiration for Archbishop Chaput. I think he should be made a Cardinal.

I think that Papa Francis was quite deliberate when appointing new Cardinals last month. His dealings with Archbishop Chaput during Papa’s visit to Philly most likely was a major factor as to why there is no Cardinal in Philly when traditionally, there is.

 

[Usige]

I think that Papa Francis was quite deliberate when appointing new Cardinals last month. His dealings with Archbishop Chaput during Papa’s visit to Philly most likely was a major factor as to why there is no Cardinal in Philly when traditionally, there is.

Okay and what did the Archbishop do wrong in your opinion? My understanding was that is partially because Justin Cardinal Rigalli is still among the living.

Regardless if Archbishop Chaput is elevated as a cardinal, he is still a great shepherd of the Church. He has always been humble but firmly supported Church teaching on the several occasions I met him when he lead the Church in Denver. If his worst trait is that he defends Church teaching, then I wish all bishops had such a “bad” trait.

When he is called home, I doubt Christ will care if he wore the red so much as asking how he took care of His sheep. A good shepherd doesn’t simply turn a blind eye to the sick lambs nor do they turn their back on the wolves in the fold.

 

[Thomas_White]

Archbishop Chaput is certainly right. “Inclusion at the expense of traditional orthodoxy” does not serve the teachings of the Church. I also agree that it might be better if certain prominent Catholics had the courage of their convictions even if it meant leaving the Church.

 

[patricius79]

When he is called home, I doubt Christ will care if he wore the red so much as asking how he took care of His sheep. A good shepherd doesn’t simply turn a blind eye to the sick lambs nor do they turn their back on the wolves in the fold.

I agree. And I agree with Bishop Chaput. I read his whole speech and found it refreshing. But I’m not very smart, or charitable enough. So I want to make sure I’m not partly mistaken or being prideful or malicious.

Archbishop Chaput said that we should not include those who disagree with Church teaching and will not reform their lives according to it. Does Pope Francis agree with that? Does the Catechism or authoritative documents teach that?

Thanks for any help.

Pat

 

[patricius79]

Given human nature, I suspect all we’d end up with is a smaller Church. Since Original Sin, humans have a funny habit of messing up any institution they get involved with, large or small.

But what really frightens me is the notion that we can somehow designate our own selves as holy enough for admission. Or will I have to pass some kind of test?

If we can make our own decision about our supposed holiness, I fear this goes completely against the notion of humility, and that would ensure that this smaller “holier” Church would skid out of control sooner rather than later.

Thus colour me, if you will, of the Pope Francis school. All are welcome into the Church to grow into holiness, it shouldn’t be an exclusive club for those who already think they are holy.

As I hear you, you are saying that there shouldn’t be any standards that we hold ourselves up to before we come to church and receive Holy Communion. According to that logic, arre you saying, then, that non-Catholics and those who’ve sinned mortally (and haven’t confessed) should be encouraged to receive Communion?

I know Karl Keating says that when we receive Communion, we are saying that we agree with everything the Church teaches.

Isn’t it because we know that we deserve hell that we don’t trust ourselves? I think that’s why we submit ourselves to the Magisterium and try to live out the faith, and confess our sins, especially the sin of pride. I think the Church says that if we know we’re in mortal sin, we must not receive Communion.

It’s in Mary that we hope for holiness, not in ourselves.

 

[Paganus]

(RNS) In a stark prognosis for contemporary Catholicism, a leader of the conservative wing of the U.S. hierarchy has said that “a smaller, lighter church” of fewer but holier believers is preferable to one that promotes inclusion at the expense of traditional orthodoxy.

In a speech delivered Wednesday (Oct. 19) at the University of Notre Dame, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput also suggested that many prominent Catholics are so weak in their faith that they ought to leave the church.

Chaput singled out Democrats such as Vice President Joe Biden and vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine for special criticism, linking them to the concept of a “silent apostasy” coined by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and saying Catholics who do not champion the truth of church teaching are “cowards.”religionnews.com/2016/10/20/philadelphia-archbishop-chaput-welcomes-smaller-church-of-holier-catholics/

I appreciate the sentiment. Sometimes people need to realize that they are outside the cathedral before they will accept an offer of re-entry. There are a few prominent individuals who, if the news accounts are to be believed, might only be encouraged to holiness by a bell, book, and candle.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think the Church says that if we know we’re in mortal sin, we must not receive Communion.

Absolutely it does. In the many discussions of this issue I have seen, I am not aware of any Cardinal or Bishop who has said otherwise.

 

[Brendan]

I think that Papa Francis was quite deliberate when appointing new Cardinals last month. His dealings with Archbishop Chaput during Papa’s visit to Philly most likely was a major factor as to why there is no Cardinal in Philly when traditionally, there is.

Doubtful. An Archbishop has traditionally not been appointed to the College when the Cardinal Archbishop emeritus is still alive and living within the Archdiocese.

It would be an extraordinary step for any Pope to appoint +Chaput as a Cardinal while Cardinal Rigali is still alive.

The same holds true for +Gomez in L.A. He will not be given the Red Hat while Cardinal +Mahony is still alive.

 

[OraLabora]

As I hear you, you are saying that there shouldn’t be any standards that we hold ourselves up to before we come to church and receive Holy Communion. According to that logic, arre you saying, then, that non-Catholics and those who’ve sinned mortally (and haven’t confessed) should be encouraged to receive Communion?

I know Karl Keating says that when we receive Communion, we are saying that we agree with everything the Church teaches.

Isn’t it because we know that we deserve hell that we don’t trust ourselves? I think that’s why we submit ourselves to the Magisterium and try to live out the faith, and confess our sins, especially the sin of pride. I think the Church says that if we know we’re in mortal sin, we must not receive Communion.

It’s in Mary that we hope for holiness, not in ourselves.

You completely misread me. I’m not seeking to bypass holiness. I’m hoping to help people grow into it. It’s what the Holy Father is asking: meet people where they are, and accompany them on the journey.

This is fully expressed in the conversatio morum of Benedictine spirituality, a spirituality with us for 1500 years.

It doesn’t require people to be perfect before joining the Church…

 

[Convert_in_99]

I respect both the opinion of our Holy Father, as a classic shepherd searching for the lost sheep, and the opinion of Archbishop Chaput, who is speaking to those that cause others to stray. I believe both Church leaders are speaking about different people.

We should always seek to bring the message to others, but call out those who are scattering the sheep. Pope Francis is very gentle with his words, but he does say what is important. He must be the most misquoted Pope we have ever had.

I agree! Why can they not both be right?

 

[patricius79]

You completely misread me. I’m not seeking to bypass holiness. I’m hoping to help people grow into it. It’s what the Holy Father is asking: meet people where they are, and accompany them on the journey.

This is fully expressed in the conversatio morum of Benedictine spirituality, a spirituality with us for 1500 years.

It doesn’t require people to be perfect before joining the Church…

I agree. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and Our Lady is the nurse, and our Lord the Doctor. And I think that we may be misreading Archbishop Chaput as well. He, also, is saying that we need to accompany one another as we grow in holiness. He’s also saying that this accompaniment does not mean that we include in our Communion those that disagree with the Church and will not reform their lives. He’s not criticizing those that assent–despite all difficulties–to the Word of God given through the Magisterium, and are trying to live it out, failing, confessing with trust, and keep trying.

 

[OraLabora]

I agree. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and Our Lady is the nurse, and our Lord the Doctor. And I think that we may be misreading Archbishop Chaput as well. He, also, is saying that we need to accompany one another as we grow in holiness. He’s also saying that this accompaniment does not mean that we include in our Communion those that disagree with the Church and will not reform their lives. He’s not criticizing those that assent–despite all difficulties–to the Word of God given through the Magisterium, and are trying to live it out, failing, confessing with trust, and keep trying.

Some teachings though, are difficult to assent to, especially in the beginning of our walk. In my own case there are a couple where my (well-formed) conscience disagrees with the Church, and I reverted back 19 years ago. I won’t say here which they are as wouldn’t be wise of me to promote disobedience. But I do struggle with them and put those issues into the hands of God and His mercy, and do my best to not lead others astray by my dissent which I keep private except for my wife.

I hardly think I’m the exception, most Catholics I know struggle with one or another teaching.

In those areas where I have “come around” to a full understanding of the teaching, I doubt I could have without the help of sacramental grace, the medicine per excellence that is administered by the “hospital for sinners”.

 

[patricius79]

Some teachings though, are difficult to assent to, especially in the beginning of our walk. In my own case there are a couple where my (well-formed) conscience disagrees with the Church, and I reverted back 19 years ago. I won’t say here which they are as wouldn’t be wise of me to promote disobedience. But I do struggle with them and put those issues into the hands of God and His mercy, and do my best to not lead others astray by my dissent which I keep private except for my wife.

I hardly think I’m the exception, most Catholics I know struggle with one or another teaching.

In those areas where I have “come around” to a full understanding of the teaching, I doubt I could have without the help of sacramental grace, the medicine per excellence that is administered by the “hospital for sinners”.

thank you for sharing your experience.I respect anyone who is genuinely trying As I understand it, faith is more certain and higher than any other knowledge. As the Catechism says, we don’t assent to it because we understand it with our reason. We assent to it because we trust God. But reason is there too to help us grow in faith. So, as the Catechism says, “a thousand difficulties do not make one doubt”. Struggling a lot with a teaching is not the same as refusing to assent. As I understand it–and others who know more can correct me with evidence if I’m wrong–we shouldn’t receive Communion unless we choose to assent–despite all our temptations to doubt, and however weak our faith may be–to all that the Church teaches.

And I’m not trying to be mean here, and maybe I’m partly confused. I know that I myself deserve hell and was saved by Christ through Mary.

 

[patricius79]

A couple paragraphs from the CCC I was thinking of:

*150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.17

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30km*

 

[FollowChrist34]

religionnews.com/2016/10/20/philadelphia-archbishop-chaput-welcomes-smaller-church-of-holier-catholics/

I agree with this - I think there has always been and will always be a “smaller, holier” Church on earth - call it invisible if you will. It is thin ice indeed to start to identify the specific members of this elite group, yourself or anyone else. God does that.

But the ice is thinner under the feet of those who see their way around the truth of the Gospel to a less focused (‘rigid’ (?)), more inclusive Church. That is how you go to hell. We have the Word of God and doctrine of the Church for a reason. And I agree that, at some point, unpleasant though it may be, Christians have to engage and reflect *Christian *truth in and out of the Church walls. Acquiescence to secular cultural pressure in and out of the Church walls is not a work of mercy, and it benefits no-one, God or man. Your own soul and commitment to Christ are in play under this pressure. Distortion of the Gospel is light years from mercy to the suffering, the repentant, or the unrepentant for that matter - mercy being one of the most beautiful things we have in Christianity. To effectively mix up acquiescence and mercy to me is quite an offense. It should be such to any serious Christian.