Pope Francis: "God has bestowed on me a healthy dose of unawareness"

  • Thread starter Thread starter canis73
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

canis73

Guest
Comprehensive interview with Pope Francis to an argentinian newspaper. He speaks about the synod, the G-9, divorced and remarried, card. Burke, and many other things.

lanacion.com.ar/1750280-francisco-dios-me-da-una-sana-dosis-de-inconsciencia (Spanish)
lanacion.com.ar/1750350-pope-francis-god-has-bestowed-on-me-a-healthy-dose-of-unawareness (English)

The synod on the family: “The divorced and remarried seem excommunicated”:
lanacion.com.ar/1750351-the-synod-on-the-family-the-divorced-and-remarried-seem-excommunicated

Backstage of the inerview:
lanacion.com.ar/1750352-humour-anecdotes-and-a-laid-back-pope-on-a-rainy-afternoon-at-the-vatican
 
My Spanish is too rusty for properly translating the first article.
What strikes me in skimming the other two is that our Holy Father does not seem nearly as worried as some of us seem to be about the future of the Church and the world. He just seems to have a positive outlook. Trust is the word that comes to mind.
 
christofirst said:
My Spanish is too rusty for properly translating the first article.
What strikes me in skimming the other two is that our Holy Father does not seem nearly as worried as some of us seem to be about the future of the Church and the world. He just seems to have a positive outlook. Trust is the word that comes to mind.
Click to expand...
I apologize for posting the spanish link. Here´s the one in english. My mistake. Would appreciate if a mod can replace it since my edit time has expired.

lanacion.com.ar/1750350-pope-francis-god-has-bestowed-on-me-a-healthy-dose-of-unawareness
 
canis73 said:
I apologize for posting the spanish link. Here´s the one in english. My mistake. Would appreciate if a mod can replace it since my edit time has expired.

lanacion.com.ar/1750350-pope-francis-god-has-bestowed-on-me-a-healthy-dose-of-unawareness
Click to expand...
Thank you for the English translation. I think this thread is fine as it is, having the Spanish and the English versions together. Very interesting to read Pope Francis’ explanation of the synod process and the Cardinal Burke decision. It all sounds much less conspiratorial and nefarious hearing it from the pope than it does from some commentators.
 
canis73 said:
It certainly does 👍
Click to expand...
It seems to me the pope is not so concerned with implementing his own agenda, whatever that may or may not be, as he is with seeing the Will of God carried out. He seems to do what he thinks is right, which is all any of us can do, and he then trusts in the Hand of Providence to see it through one way or the other. Whether the outcome completely satisfies every Traditionalist or Progressive is not so important, so long as we stay open to the promptings of the Spirit. Of course, I could be wrong, and even if I am right, this attitude of trust might be too unsettling for those who are already certain they have it all figured out.
 
I had a similar feeling. It seems to me as he woukd be the first one to aknowledge he does not have “everything figured out” and that all he can do is trust in God and encourage us all to find our path by being more empathetic towards each other. Quite a jesuit approach, by the way 🙂
 
From the link
  • A conservative sector in the US thinks that you removed the North American cardinal Raymond Leo Burke from the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura because he was the leader of a group that resisted changes of any type in the synod of bishops… Is it true?
  • One day Cardinal Burke asked me what he would be doing as he had still not been confirmed in his position, in the legal sector, but rather had been confirmed “donec alitur provideatur”. And I answered “Give me some time because we are thinking of a legal restructuring of the G9”. I told him nothing had been done about it yet and that it was being considered. After that the issue of the Order of Malta cropped up and we needed a smart American who would know how to get around and I thought of him for that position. I suggested this to him long before the synod. I said to him “This will take place after the synod because I want you to participate in the synod as Dicastery Head”. As the chaplain of Malta he wouldn´t have been able to be present. He thanked me in very good terms and accepted my offer, I even think he liked it. Because he is a man that gets around a lot, he does a lot of travelling and would surely be busy there. It is therefore not true that I removed him because of how he had behaved in the synod.
 
Him and I both :p. I know that constantly worrying about and hating those who either 1. Would mutilate the Church with heresy, or 2. Are currently attacking Christians throughout the world made me very nerve racked.
 
**- What do you think about the solution put forward by the German cardinal Walter Kasper?
  • Kasper´s address to the cardinals last February included five chapters, four of them are a jewel, about the purpose of marriage, open, in depth. The fifth is the question of what do we do with divorcees who have remarried; they are part of our congregation after all. Kasper´s hypothesis is not his own. Let´s look into that. What happened? Some theologians feared such assumptions and that is keeping our heads down. Kasper urged us to seek hypothesis, i.e., he made the first move. And some panicked. And went as far as to say: Communion, never. Only spiritual Communion. And tell me, don´t we need the grace of God to receive spiritual communion? That´s why spiritual communion obtained the fewest votes in the relatio synodi, because nobody was in agreement. Those for it, because there´s not much to it, voted against it; and those who are not for it and would rather go for the other one, because it´s not worth it…**
Still haven’t the slightest clue where the Holy Father stands on this…🤷
 
PJD1987 said:
**- What do you think about the solution put forward by the German cardinal Walter Kasper?
  • Kasper´s address to the cardinals last February included five chapters, four of them are a jewel, about the purpose of marriage, open, in depth. The fifth is the question of what do we do with divorcees who have remarried; they are part of our congregation after all. Kasper´s hypothesis is not his own. Let´s look into that. What happened? Some theologians feared such assumptions and that is keeping our heads down. Kasper urged us to seek hypothesis, i.e., he made the first move. And some panicked. And went as far as to say: Communion, never. Only spiritual Communion. And tell me, don´t we need the grace of God to receive spiritual communion? That´s why spiritual communion obtained the fewest votes in the relatio synodi, because nobody was in agreement. Those for it, because there´s not much to it, voted against it; and those who are not for it and would rather go for the other one, because it´s not worth it…**
Still haven’t the slightest clue where the Holy Father stands on this…🤷
Click to expand...
I agree :confused:

For the record, below is the other answer where he addresses the communion issue:

“Afraid of what?”

"In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration
  • Afraid of following this trail, the road of the synod. I am not afraid because it is the road that God has asked us to follow. More so, the Pope is the ultimate guarantor, the Pope is there to care for the process. We must move forward. In my last address I said something interesting, I pointed out that we had not addressed any part of the doctrine of the Church concerning marriage. In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why cant they be godfathers and godmothers? “No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?”. The testimony of a man and a woman saying “my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on”. Anything more Christian than that? And what if one of the political crooks among us, corrupt people, ate chosen to be somebody´s godfather. If they are properly wedded by the Church, would we accept them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godson? A testimony of corruption? Things need to change, our standards need to change."
 
PJD1987 said:
**- What do you think about the solution put forward by the German cardinal Walter Kasper?
  • Kasper´s address to the cardinals last February included five chapters, four of them are a jewel, about the purpose of marriage, open, in depth. The fifth is the question of what do we do with divorcees who have remarried; they are part of our congregation after all. Kasper´s hypothesis is not his own. Let´s look into that. What happened? Some theologians feared such assumptions and that is keeping our heads down. Kasper urged us to seek hypothesis, i.e., he made the first move. And some panicked. And went as far as to say: Communion, never. Only spiritual Communion. And tell me, don´t we need the grace of God to receive spiritual communion? That´s why spiritual communion obtained the fewest votes in the relatio synodi, because nobody was in agreement. Those for it, because there´s not much to it, voted against it; and those who are not for it and would rather go for the other one, because it´s not worth it…**
Still haven’t the slightest clue where the Holy Father stands on this…🤷
Click to expand...
Crux says:
“In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution,” he said.
Click to expand...
He said the goal must be “integration,” and said the current prohibitions treat the divorced and remarried as excommunicated.
Click to expand...
“Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers?” the pope asked, citing one example. “Things need to change, our standards need to change.”
Click to expand...
cruxnow.com/church/2014/12/07/pope-francis-demotion-of-burke-not-punishment/
 
PJD1987 said:
And went as far as to say: Communion, never. Only spiritual Communion. And tell me, don´t we need the grace of God to receive spiritual communion? That´s why spiritual communion obtained the fewest votes in the relatio synodi, because nobody was in agreement.
Click to expand...
It’s great to hear someone speaking of the value of spiritual communion. It was heavily promoted by the Council of Trent. Perhaps the Pope will speak further on this topic. I sincerely hope he does, regardless of its seeming unpopularity since Vatican II.
 
ProVobis said:
It’s great to hear someone speaking of the value of spiritual communion. It was heavily promoted by the Council of Trent. Perhaps the Pope will speak further on this topic. I sincerely hope he does, regardless of its seeming unpopularity since Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Memaw
 
In response to a question regarding what Bishops had said to media during the Synod…

"However, until I can ask the people involved “have you said this?” I will have brotherly doubts. In general people don´t read about what is going on. Somebody did say to me once, “Of course, of course. Insight is so good for us but we need clearer things”. And I answered, “Look, I wrote an encyclical, true enough, it was a big job, and an Apostolic Exhortation, I´m permanently making statements, giving homilies; that´s teaching. That´s what I think, not what the media say that I think. Check it out, it´s very clear. Evangelii Gaudium is very clear”.

One of the strangest positions the ultra conservatives took during the post Synod discussions, was that the media were faithfully reporting the true facts without bias. That there genuinely was a smoke of Satan wafting around Card. Kaspar and Bishops that voted for a discussion on the topic of divorced/remarried. I wonder if they still love their true and faithful media over the truth as per Pope Francis? It cracked me up when they kept saying that.
 
ProVobis said:
It’s great to hear someone speaking of the value of spiritual communion. It was heavily promoted by the Council of Trent. Perhaps the Pope will speak further on this topic. I sincerely hope he does, regardless of its seeming unpopularity since Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Spiritual communion doesn’t stand as an alternative to real Communion. It is more of a temporary resort. It’s like when astronauts need to eat space food or someone sick having to feed intravenously. It serves a purpose but is not meant as a permanent alternative. I had to resort to spiritual communion for a time when I was younger. I was suffering a severe anxiety disorder as a result of PTSD. I was glad to have been give that option (I’d never heard of it before then)… but there was nothing like the joy of being well enough to actually go and receive again.
 
LongingSoul said:
Spiritual communion doesn’t stand as an alternative to real Communion. It is more of a temporary resort. It’s like when astronauts need to eat space food or someone sick having to feed intravenously. It serves a purpose but is not meant as a permanent alternative.
Click to expand...
That’s not what the Catechism of Trent says at all.
Threefold Manner Of Communicating
Click to expand...
That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.
Click to expand...
Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.
Click to expand...
Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity,’ partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.
Click to expand...
Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those most abundant fruits which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.
Click to expand...
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml
 
LongingSoul said:
In response to a question regarding what Bishops had said to media during the Synod…

"…Look, I wrote an encyclical, true enough, it was a big job, …"
Click to expand...
Just wanted to clarify that the translator missed the point there. Francis didn´t mean to say it was a “big job” even though the expression “a cuatro manos” (with 4 hands), might mean that in a different context. He was referring to Benedict´s co-authorship.
Not really important, but felt compelled to state it, as someone might feel uneasy about him not mentioning it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top