Pope Francis 'tells sinner she should be allowed Communion' [Phony news story ?]

  • Thread starter Thread starter anthony022071
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son said:
The Bible said that the person who swears at his friend commits murder, and that the person who remarries commits adultery.

It looks to me like we Catholics take the second part of that teaching very strictly, but pretty much ignore the first part of the teaching. We receive communion ourselves, all the while staring down the speck in our brother or sister’s eyes, never noticing the mote in our own.

I suspect someone might be eating and drinking condemnation upon himself in the Eucharist, but I suspect it might not be the person we tend to think it is. :o
Click to expand...
Nobody is swearing at anyone as far as I can see… :confused::confused:

So are you saying we should not point out the sins of our neighbors for their own benefit? Please re-read the parable in question:

“Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”

Notice that we are indeed called to help remove the speck from our neighbor’s eye, after we’ve looked to ourselves first. So do you have personal knowledge that McCartney has a log in his (or her) eye? If not, then your own presumption is in error. McCartney simply stated the truth:


  1. *]Valid marriages are indissoluble.
    *]Re-marrying while still in a valid marriage (ie, no annulment) is a mortal sin
    *]Receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege

    This is all very basic Catholic teaching. What’s the problem?
 
mgoforth said:
Nobody is swearing at anyone as far as I can see… :confused::confused:

So are you saying we should not point out the sins of our neighbors for their own benefit? Please re-read the parable in question:

“Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”

Notice that we are indeed called to help remove the speck from our neighbor’s eye, after we’ve looked to ourselves first. So do you have personal knowledge that McCartney has a log in his (or her) eye? If not, then your own presumption is in error. **McCartney simply stated the truth:
**

  1. *]Valid marriages are indissoluble.
    *]Re-marrying while still in a valid marriage (ie, no annulment) is a mortal sin
    *]Receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege
    This is all very basic Catholic teaching. What’s the problem?
Click to expand...

  1. 👍
 
An Argentine woman who divorced and then remarried outside the Church claimed that Pope Francis telephoned her and said she was permitted to receive Holy Communion, according to multiple …

“Several telephone calls have taken place in the context of Pope Francis’ personal pastoral relationships,” said Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the press office. “Since they do not in any way form part of the Pope’s public activities, no information or comments are to be expected from the Holy See Press Office.”

“That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion,” he added.

‘Therefore, consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences.”

More…
 
mgoforth said:
So do you have personal knowledge that McCartney has a log in his (or her) eye? If not, then your own presumption is in error.
Click to expand...
The post you are responding to was not directed at McCartney. My concern with McCartney was the suggestion that, if we allow remarried people to receive communion, we might as well allow people to kill each other. That sounded self-righteous to me.

As I consider it more, I think it is simply a theological error, not a moral error, on McCartney’s part.

McCartney, I apologize if I have offended you.
 
mgoforth said:
Nobody is swearing at anyone as far as I can see… :confused::confused:
Click to expand...
Matthew 5 is the basis of Catholic teaching on marriage, and there it says that people who curse at each other in anger are guilty of murder. This comparison is obviously meant to make us think, but it clearly is not meant to make us arrest people who swear in anger and charge them with murder. In the same way, I don’t think it is meant to tell us that we should exclude remarried couples from church or make them feel unwelcome. If they are in fact in a state of mortal sin, then it is on their conscience when they take communion.
So are you saying we should not point out the sins of our neighbors for their own benefit?
Click to expand...
We should do this, yes, but prayerfully, not judgmentally, and only after establishing a real relationship with them.

Hence my own error, in this thread, in relating to McCartney. 😦
 
mgoforth said:
Notice that we are indeed called to help remove the speck from our neighbor’s eye, after we’ve looked to ourselves first. So do you have personal knowledge that McCartney has a log in his (or her) eye? If not, then your own presumption is in error. McCartney simply stated the truth:


  1. *]Valid marriages are indissoluble.
    *]Re-marrying while still in a valid marriage (ie, no annulment) is a mortal sin
    *]Receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege

    This is all very basic Catholic teaching. What’s the problem?
Click to expand...

  1. Thanks for your support. And yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
The post you are responding to was not directed at McCartney. My concern with McCartney was the suggestion that, if we allow remarried people to receive communion, we might as well allow people to kill each other. That sounded self-righteous to me.

As I consider it more, I think it is simply a theological error, not a moral error, on McCartney’s part.

McCartney, I apologize if I have offended you.
Click to expand...
Apology accepted.

May God bless you.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
The post you are responding to was not directed at McCartney. My concern with McCartney was the suggestion that, if we allow remarried people to receive communion, we might as well allow people to kill each other. That sounded self-righteous to me.

As I consider it more, I think it is simply a theological error, not a moral error, on McCartney’s part.

McCartney, I apologize if I have offended you.
Click to expand...
I think we can all understand where you’re coming from on this. Self-righteous judgement is a real problem that does occur within the Church. The solution, IMO, is not to let illicitly remarried people or murders off the hook for their sins, but to find a way to approach them with love so they can repent. We all have to repent, it’s not optional. And sometimes we need help to see our errors.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matthew 18: 15-17

These words of our Lord make it pretty clear that we should always seek to help others understand the need for repentance - first privately and gently, but openly and more forcefully if needed.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10782508/Pope-Francis-tells-sinner-she-should-be-allowed-Communion.html
Click to expand...
The Telegraph? Isn’t that Britain’s version of the National Enquirer?

Try this on for size instead press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/04/24/0292/00645.html#Traduzione in lingua inglese

“That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.”
 
And given the scandalous nature of this story and the fact that there is NO comment or refutation, is the most disturbing of all.
I read Fr. Lonbardi’s statement as a refutation.

“That which has been communicated in relation to this matter…cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.”

It’s a very soft, vague refutation, and I sincerely wish it was stronger, but I do think its a refutation.
 
First thing that jumps to me out of this article : " the Pope called the woman" OK so you are expecting me to believe that the Pope… Let me repeat “the POPE” grabbed a telephone (yes as if the pope has the time to do personal phone calls to individual lay people that he hardly know) and called this woman who he barely know??? I believe that as much as if my neighbor would tell me that Barack Obama grabbed a phone to tell him that the federal reserve is going to pass him million dollar check.

I m sorry but that besides being something written in a secular media that is constantly exaggerating and writing wrong thongs about the pope, makes absolutely no sense. Since when head if states called over the phone regular people to chat? Do you actually really believe that the pope is going to tell someone in a conversation OK go and have communion? I think that Obama calling my neighbor to say that a check from the federal reserve is on its way is more credible than this.
 
marymary1975 said:
First thing that jumps to me out of this article : " the Pope called the woman" OK so you are expecting me to believe that the Pope… Let me repeat “the POPE” grabbed a telephone (yes as if the pope has the time to do personal phone calls to individual lay people that he hardly know) and called this woman who he barely know??? I believe that as much as if my neighbor would tell me that Barack Obama grabbed a phone to tell him that the federal reserve is going to pass him million dollar check.

I m sorry but that besides being something written in a secular media that is constantly exaggerating and writing wrong thongs about the pope, makes absolutely no sense. Since when head if states called over the phone regular people to chat? Do you actually really believe that the pope is going to tell someone in a conversation OK go and have communion? I think that Obama calling my neighbor to say that a check from the federal reserve is on its way is more credible than this.
Click to expand...
The pope does these kinds of things. I think he is trying to be incarnational.

That’s not to say that the article is correct on every particular. But I don’t doubt that the call was made.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
The pope does these kinds of things. I think he is trying to be incarnational.

That’s not to say that the article is correct on every particular. But I don’t doubt that the call was made.
Click to expand...
I just went back and read Abyssinia’s post with the official position of the church. If you noticed it says basically that you can’t do inferences out of the Pope’s personal calls. We don’t know if that woman had a personal relationship for years with the Pope. From reading the article it doesn’t sound as if there was a personal relationship. So what I am getting is because has done through his life calls to people he personally knows you can’t imfere that what the woman says in those news is truth.

Basically this is a gossip and don’t believe gossips.
 
edwest2 said:
The call was made but it’s not what the media claims it to be.

ncregister.com/daily-news/doubts-increase-over-popes-reported-phone-call-on-divorce-remarried-communi/

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Sorry I read the link. And I agree, what she says is absurd. Notice she claims the Pope gave Ber an absolution over the phone. That is possible. I think this is one of these situations (mainly her being Hispanic…as a Hispanic myself it is very common for Hispanics to do that) that one thing was said and a different thing was replicated by her. And I still think, knowing how governments work, every time that you heads of states either “calling” someone or “answering letters” to someone, in reality it is not the head of state. Again Obama for example has one person who reads his mails, answers it for him and places his signature for him. So the Obama’s answer in reality is not him but someone Obama designated for that. Castro was famous for having a double to do these kinds if things. Other heads of states have someone whoake calls on their name, so we don’t know if that was the situation here. Moreover knowing that she exaggerated, do we know if the caller said from pope’s office and what the other person repeated was the pope is calling? Those are very real possibilities we gotta consider.
 
I am wondering why the Vatican is not coming out to clarify that it is NOT okay to receive communion under these circumstances?

What if pope Francis did say this to the women? What would that mean for us Catholics??
 
Sorry, my above post was copied incorrectly, and now it’s too late to edit. I meant to say:

I read Fr. Lonbardi’s statement as a refutation.

“That which has been communicated in relation to this matter…cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion.”

It’s a very soft, vague refutation, and I sincerely wish it was stronger, but I do think its a refutation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top