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.
shelby_sun said:
It very much matters. He is how old, 78 ? You cannot change him into what you think the Pope is, has been, or should be. He cannot teach against the teachings of the Church, but that does not been he must believes everyone of them is fully correct according to God. We are not talking about the Commandments, we are talking about the man made laws of the Church which were inspired by God, that doesn’t mean they are perfect. There have been many changes in the Church over the years.
Click to expand...
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18

Official Church teachings are not “man made laws”. Why would Jesus have said this about binding and loosing otherwise? You’ve been seriously mislead on this. The changes you speak of are minor practices, not dogmas of the Faith. Those cannot be changed by anyone.
shelby sun:
Many Jesuits would tell someone to pray and ask God for his guidance. Because I was raise my a mother that did not believe you had to go to a priest to confess one’s sins and was outraged when we had to go at school (family secrets might come out) I have not been to confession 30 years. Not one priest I have told that to has told me I am going to hell, not one. They haven’t even preached to me because they know I know the Churches teaching and they know God knows how sorry I am for my sins on a daily basis. They don’t tell me I am going to be saved either. They just tell me God knows my heart.
Click to expand...
Many priests - Jesuit and otherwise - make mistakes. Martin Luther was once a Catholic priest. It doesn’t guarantee infallibility. They don’t each speak with the authority of the whole Church. That’s reserved for the Pope and Councils.

Shelby, I would urge you to go to confession. God does know your heart, but He did institute the Church for a reason. Just because a priest never told you to go, doesn’t mean you’re getting good information. Confession is a sacrament and absolutely vital for getting to Heaven, unless you’re the ultra-rare person with no mortal sins. Even saints like Therese of Liseux, who possibly didn’t commit mortal sins still went to confession. Blessed John Paul II went every day.
 
When it comes to marriage, the question is this: Do we accept Jesus’ words that what God has joined, no man can divide? His command concerning marriage was pretty firm.

If marriage is indeed indissoluble by man, if it can be ended only by death, then divorce is impossible—except civilly of course, since civil divorce has no bearing on the true status of a marriage. Civil divorce may even be necessary. But if marriage is a permanent union sealed by God, then a remarriage constitutes adultery—those are Jesus words.

The question then gets down to individual cases: Was this particular union a real marriage or was it not? That’s where marriage tribunals come in—to decide that fact. If there was no true marriage from the beginning, then a new marriage is possible. If there was a true marriage from the beginning, it still exists, and is ended only by death.

Can the Church dissolve a true marriage, validly contracted and consummated? The answer has always been no. Will that change? I doubt it.
 
It I find it very hard to believe and also very sad that people are getting so worked up about this. They far more experienced people of the Church that select this man to be our Pope knowing much better than any of us who he was and how he worked. Who are we to judge anything he does if we believe that God and the Holy Spirit are working through him as they have from before he was ordained a priest.

Stop being so ridge and extreme. He did not teach anything that contradicted the teaching of the Church because it was meant to be a private conversation and only he knows what he said. People are acting like he is going to insist we all become Jews. Calm down.

I believe our Pope is being inspired by God in all he does and says and I trust him to lead our Church.
 
shelby_sun said:
It very much matters. He is how old, 78 ? You cannot change him into what you think the Pope is, has been, or should be. He cannot teach against the teachings of the Church, but that does not been he must believes everyone of them is fully correct according to God. We are not talking about the Commandments, we are talking about the man made laws of the Church which were inspired by God, that doesn’t mean they are perfect. There have been many changes in the Church over the years.
Click to expand...
This is where your misunderstanding comes it. These are NOT man made laws. They are Divine in Origin.

The Adulterous Nature of remarriage after Divorce comes from Christ Himself. (Mt 5:27-30)

And the Command (and yes it is a Command) not to receive the Eucharist when one is in grave Sin was from the Inspired writings of St. Paul (1 Cor 11:29)

A Pope can never change those ‘rules’, as the come from God Himself.

A person who is engaged in an adulterous relationship gains no benefit from Holy Communion, but it is rather damaging to the soul.

The only way for those rules to change would be for the Church to desire the divorcees to eat and drink condemnation upon themselves. Since the Church is in the business of caring for souls, not for wishing their damnation, I don’t see the Church, or Pope Francis, changing this anytime soon.
 
It might be worth bringing in the words of that old liberal, Pope Benedict, to clarify both the content and the tone of this discussion. From an Italian newspaper:
“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid,” [Benedict said,] “under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.” A norm, the indissolubility of marriage, that is of “divine law” and “over which the Church has no discretionary authority.”
Click to expand...
But immediately afterward, he adds:
Click to expand...
“However, the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus’ teaching.”
Click to expand...
And, he writes, the ecclesiastical tribunals that should ascertain whether or not a marriage is valid do not always function well. Sometimes the processes “last an excessive amount of time.” In some cases "they conclude with questionable decisions."In still others “mistakes occur.”
Click to expand...
In these cases, therefore – the pope recognizes –, “it seems that the application of ‘epikeia’ in the internal forum is not automatically excluded,” meaning a decision of conscience:
Click to expand...
“Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions”.
Click to expand...
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350098?eng=y

There is absolutely no doubt that Benedict leaves open the possibility that ecclesial law does not – in some individual cases – conform to divine law, in his answer. In these cases, he seems to suggest that the conscience may be followed, even against the ecclesial ruling. Of course, he does not consider this a carte blanche to relativism, as some in this thread seem to be suggesting.

There is also a beautiful, pastorally sensitive discussion by Benedict here:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504311.htm
 
Brendan said:
This is where your misunderstanding comes it. These are NOT man made laws. They are Divine in Origin.

The Adulterous Nature of remarriage after Divorce comes from Christ Himself. (Mt 5:27-30)

And the Command (and yes it is a Command) not to receive the Eucharist when one is in grave Sin was from the Inspired writings of St. Paul (1 Cor 11:29)

A Pope can never change those ‘rules’, as the come from God Himself.

A person who is engaged in an adulterous relationship gains no benefit from Holy Communion, but it is rather damaging to the soul.

The only way for those rules to change would be for the Church to desire the divorcees to eat and drink condemnation upon themselves. Since the Church is in the business of caring for souls, not for wishing their damnation, I don’t see the Church, or Pope Francis, changing this anytime soon.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I have never said the Pope wants to, should, or ever will change this law. Also to be clear, God inspired the men of the Church to make these laws as they interpreted the Bible. There are only a few things in the Church that are seen as being made under infallible situations. This is not one of them.

Again, I am not saying it should ever change. I do not agree with it, but I don’t try to get others to disagree with it, nor do I judge that someone soul is going to hell, ever. That is not my place and I truly think God will have more of a problem with those who seem to spend so much of their time speculating ( you would probably say “teaching”) on who is going to hell and for what.

That was a very protestant mind set when I was growing up.
 
shelby_sun said:
It very much matters. He is how old, 78 ? You cannot change him into what you think the Pope is, has been, or should be.
Click to expand...
As the Holy Father said…he is a son of the Church. Also this…
"It is an absurd dichotomy to love Christ without the Church; to listen to Christ, but not the Church; to be with Christ at the margins of the Church,” he said. “One cannot do this. It is an absurd dichotomy.”
Click to expand...
It would seem to be liberals that want to change him into what they think the Pope is.
 
So I would suggest that, if this report about Francis is accurate, he would be indicating the following:

(1) Church tribunals sometimes make mistakes.
(2) When tribunals make mistakes, they diverge from divine law.
(3) An individual may have an educated conscience about what makes a marriage valid.
(4) If the individual’s conscience tells him that the marriage was not valid, then the individual may act as if the marriage was not valid, even if the church tribunal disagrees.

One should also, of course, consider the importance of submission to the Church. I do not think we need submit to a mistaken judgment of the Church, but we ought to be wary of moving too quickly to reject the Church’s judgment, and we ought to be careful not to make the foolish mistake of substituting our conscience for the Church’s wisdom. But once the Church has properly educated our conscience, our properly educated conscience may speak against the decision of a church tribunal.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
So I would suggest that, if this report about Francis is accurate, he would be indicating the following:

(1) Church tribunals sometimes make mistakes.
(2) When tribunals make mistakes, they diverge from divine law.
(3) An individual may have an educated conscience about what makes a marriage valid.
(4) If the individual’s conscience tells him that the marriage was not valid, then the individual may act as if the marriage was not valid, even if the church tribunal disagrees.

One should also, of course, consider the importance of submission to the Church. I do not think we need submit to a mistaken judgment of the Church, but we ought to be wary of moving too quickly to reject the Church’s judgment, and we ought to be careful not to make the foolish mistake of substituting our conscience for the Church’s wisdom. But once the Church has properly educated our conscience, our properly educated conscience may speak against the decision of a church tribunal.
Click to expand...
I think if and when the Magesterium wants to make that kind of decree, it will do so very clearly and explicitly. Best to wait and see until then.
 
JimG said:
The question then gets down to individual cases: Was this particular union a real marriage or was it not? That’s where marriage tribunals come in—to decide that fact. If there was no true marriage from the beginning, then a new marriage is possible. If there was a true marriage from the beginning, it still exists, and is ended only by death.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim! 🙂

One question: do you agree that a tribunal can be wrong?
 
mgoforth said:
I think if and when the Magesterium wants to make that kind of decree, it will do so very clearly and explicitly. Best to wait and see until then.
Click to expand...
I would say, best not to have Benedict suggesting conscience should play a role here, and then have the bishops denying people communion. Not a very consistent message.

But I agree that more clarity is needed. 👍
 
johnnyc176 said:
As the Holy Father said…he is a son of the Church. Also this…

It would seem to be liberals that want to change him into what they think the Pope is.
Click to expand...
I hate to tell you this but The Jesuits are already very liberal compared to other Catholic orders. It one of the things they happen to be known for, and in the past a reason many other Catholics disliked them. Doesn’t seem that many people dislike this one. No one can take The Jesuit out of this Pope, people need to understand that. That doesn’t mean he wants to revamp the Church.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Hi Jim! 🙂

One question: do you agree that a tribunal can be wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. I even have a particular case in mind—that of my wife’s aunt, who married very young a long time ago and was abandoned by the new husband within a matter of months. When we visited her, I always wondered why she went to Mass every Sunday but never received communion.

One day she explained it to me. Her annulment request had been denied. This was in the days when tribunals had much more black and white rules and little leeway. She had remarried, to a non-Catholic. It was a happy marriage; and she was active and well known in her parish and by her priest.

I told her that she should apply again, or appeal. (It had been decades since the first decision.) But she said no, she accepted the decision at face value and would not appeal.

Some years later, while we were visiting I noticed that she was now going to communion. My wife, having talked to her privately, later explained to me that her husband had become impotent due to age and illness. There was nothing to prevent her from going back to confession and communion, which she did.

Now, I know nothing of the details of the case, but my own opinion, from what little I knew of her prior marriage, was that it was null.

Still, one hesitates to recommend that everyone be allowed to second guess their tribunal decision. That might be chaotic.
 
shelby_sun said:
The Catholic Church. They are very clear on what was brought about under infallible situations.
Click to expand...
Would you mind giving me a reference for that? I’d like to better understand which specific teachings are infallible, and why this one is not.
 
JimG said:
Yes, I do. I even have a particular case in mind—that of my wife’s aunt, who married very young a long time ago and was abandoned by the new husband within a matter of months. When we visited her, I always wondered why she went to Mass every Sunday but never received communion.

One day she explained it to me. Her annulment request had been denied. This was in the days when tribunals had much more black and white rules and little leeway. She had remarried, to a non-Catholic. It was a happy marriage; and she was active and well known in her parish and by her priest.

I told her that she should apply again, or appeal. (It had been decades since the first decision.) But she said no, she accepted the decision at face value and would not appeal.

Some years later, while we were visiting I noticed that she was now going to communion. My wife, having talked to her privately, later explained to me that her husband had become impotent due to age and illness. There was nothing to prevent her from going back to confession and communion, which she did.

Now, I know nothing of the details of the case, but my own opinion, from what little I knew of her prior marriage, was that it was null.

Still, one hesitates to recommend that everyone be allowed to second guess their tribunal decision. That might be chaotic.
Click to expand...
Well, this is where non-Catholics – and the media – might skew the theology, if the Church affirms conscience here, and say that “any remarried person who chooses to can receive communion”. But that’s not what “conscience” means. Conscience is a real faculty within us, not some silly “I’ll do what I choose” sort of monolithic force.

But the fact that the media will skew the teaching doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach it. And my key point here is to try to emphasize that somebody like me, who takes a more liberal tack on this issue, is no less Catholic and no more of a relativist than the staunchest conservative. I just feel like some of the suffering your wife’s aunt experienced was unnecessary – however heroic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top