Pope says he's saddened by 'perfect' Catholics who despise others

[James248]

The Mass is not the place for this.

Christ didn’t give us the Eucharist to send guilt into people’s hearts, but the joy of salvation.

Jim

Regardless of the purpose of the Eucharist, it is perfectly orthodox for priests to refuse the Eucharist to public sinners. Ambrose did that to Theodosius.

 

[shockerfan]

Regardless of the purpose of the Eucharist, it is perfectly orthodox for priests to refuse the Eucharist to public sinners. Ambrose did that to Theodosius.

Ultimately, isn’t it a matter of intent? If the priest is trying to “punish” a sinner, I would think that would be wrong, however, if a priest is trying to keep a person from “eating and drinking judgement upon themselves”, isn’t it an act of mercy?

 

[rmartensjr]

Regardless of the purpose of the Eucharist, it is perfectly orthodox for priests to refuse the Eucharist to public sinners. Ambrose did that to Theodosius.

 

[friardchips]

…, if a priest is trying to keep a person from “eating and drinking judgement upon themselves”, isn’t it an act of mercy?

I would think that this would be an act of mercy if they have some kind of grace whereby they know a certain person is in a state of sin. Not sure I have heard of that kind of situation before, though.

 

[shockerfan]

I would think that this would be an act of mercy if they have some kind of grace whereby they know a certain person is in a state of sin. Not sure I have heard of that kind of situation before, though.

I have heard of situations where people where the priest knew a person was in a same sex union and withheld communion, however, I agree that to not have absolute certainty is an issue

 

[10gr8kids]

I would think that this would be an act of mercy if they have some kind of grace whereby they know a certain person is in a state of sin. Not sure I have heard of that kind of situation before, though.

Well, seeing as there are many who only go to Mass on Christmas and Easter, it wouldn’t be too hard to figure out that there are some in the congregation on those days that may need to be reminded they should not recieve the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin.

 

[friardchips]

I have heard of situations where people where the priest knew a person was in a same sex union and withheld communion, however, I agree that to not have absolute certainty is an issue

Well, seeing as there are many who only go to Mass on Christmas and Easter, it wouldn’t be too hard to figure out that there are some in the congregation on those days that may need to be reminded they should not recieve the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin.

There are more obvious situations than others, in which a priest might be able to reasonably tell if someone were not in a state of grace, but it would nevertheless still be safer to guess, that even in such seemingly obvious situations, the priest cannot assume guilt.

 

[steve_b]

Galatians 2 ring a bell Steve?

OK that’s what I thought but I wanted to make sure

It’s Already been covered #26

Paul actually learned a valuable lesson from Peter…his superior, as Jerome adds.

 

[shockerfan]

There are more obvious situations than others, in which a priest might be able to reasonably tell if someone were not in a state of grace, but it would nevertheless still be safer to guess, that even in such seemingly obvious situations, the priest cannot assume guilt.

I believe the better solution are more homilies on why Catholics not in a state of grace should not receive the Holy Eucharist.

We need better catechesis.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I believe the better solution are more homilies on why Catholics not in a state of grace should not receive the Holy Eucharist.

We need better catechesis.

This is very true, we do need better catechesis.
And with that catechesis comes a better understanding. If you were not catechized properly from the get-go, and are a revert (like I was), being in a “state of grace” can be a very gray area.

I am so blessed that the priest who guided me back to full Communion with the Chruch never made the Eucharist seem like some unattainable prize for only the holiest, but a food for my soul that would help me to heal and strengthen me for my journey.

 

[James248]

OK that’s what I thought but I wanted to make sure

It’s Already been covered #26

Paul actually learned a valuable lesson from Peter…his superior, as Jerome adds.

Paul was in the right when he circumcised Timothy. Timothy was basically Jewish except for the fact that he had a Greek dad and Jewish mom.

 

[friardchips]

I believe the better solution are more homilies on why Catholics not in a state of grace should not receive the Holy Eucharist.

We need better catechesis.

This is very true, we do need better catechesis.
And with that catechesis comes a better understanding. ** If you were not catechized properly from the get-go, and are a revert (like I was), being in a “state of grace” can be a very gray area.
**
I am so blessed that the priest who guided me back to full Communion with the Chruch never made the Eucharist seem like some unattainable prize for only the holiest, but a food for my soul that would help me to heal and strengthen me for my journey.

Very true (in bold). It can seem that way.

 

[steve_b]

Paul was in the right when he circumcised Timothy. Timothy was basically Jewish except for the fact that he had a Greek dad and Jewish mom.

Jerome said
“In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised.”

Not only that, but

Re: circumcision, Paul teaches Galatians 5:2

So given that, why did Paul circumcise his disciple Timothy? Because of the Jews?

Bottom line as Jerome said, Peter taught Paul a valuable lesson that Paul earlier criticized Peter for, but now that lesson is now a central theme used by Paul.

 

[James248]

Jerome said
“In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised.”

Not only that, but

Re: circumcision, Paul teaches Galatians 5:2

So given that, why did Paul circumcise his disciple Timothy? Because of the Jews?

Bottom line as Jerome said, Peter taught Paul a valuable lesson that Paul earlier criticized Peter for, but now that lesson is now a central theme used by Paul.

Paul’s audience in Galatians was Gentiles who were taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation. His thesis was that if a Christian Gentile submits to the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Law, that person has forfeited their salvation.

Timothy’s case was a different case entirely.

Acts 16:1-3
He also came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2 The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

And it’s pretty clear Timothy was raised as a Jew from Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:14-15
14 You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Peter, however, stopped sitting with Gentiles and started eating with Jews simply because he didn’t want to offend James’s people. This action would have severely wounded the unity of the Church at Antioch. Peter’s actions basically confirmed the idea that Gentiles were second class believers in the Kingdom and that salvation was of the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Yes, let’s look at Canon 212. It says Catholics can “make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful”. I’m not disputing that. But notice all the qualifiers before and after. It’s " According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess". Many complaints come from the knowledge gleaned from partisan news stories. It also states first that we manifest those opinions to our pastor, not behind his back. And then, after this, we must not fail to forget to voice our opinions “without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

You are correct. I do not know about anyone else, but I do express this to the Sacred Pastors according to my knowledge and competence . None of this is behind anyone’s back.

Are we being reverent with our criticism? Are we being attentive to the common advantage? Does complaining on an internet message board advance the cause we are seeking to advance through our complaints?

Yes and no.

Yes, there are circumstances and ways we can air our questions and concerns and even complaints. But that doesn’t mean anything goes

.

No

Again, look at the topic of this thread. It is a story about Pope Francis saying it is sad when Catholics think they are “perfect” and use that as an occasion to look with scorn at others.

As I mentioned before much of what the Pope is saying is fine. But, the question of who he is talking about has come up. We know for a fact that he thinks that people like Cardinal Burke and those who support him fall into the category of this speech. The Pope has the reputation of sub-texts.

So why—here of all places—do we need to start a conversation advancing the narrative that Pope Francis doesn’t like traditional Catholics? To what end? What “common advantage” is served? The fruit is bickering and stressful feelings.

Because it is germane to the topic, that is to his speech (see answer above) and why here, because it is part of the “make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful.” The more people who will write the Pope with their concerns, the better. And to write people like Cardinal Burke with their support

This is not disparaging the Pope, nor bashing him. This is the appropriate discussion of deep concerns, based upon documented evidence, of 100s of milllions of Catholics, not to mention numerous Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Religious.

 

[BroIgnatius]

That’s why I mention them specifically. One might be inclined to think they have a legitimate reason to air a grievance against the pope. But do you see them grumbling about Pope Francis to anyone who will listen? No, that’s not how they behave.

There is a legitimate reason. I have never once seen any grumbling from them. They have been humble, charitable, and patient in a very difficult situation. They have been pastors concerned about the mass confusion of the faithful.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Regardless of the purpose of the Eucharist, it is perfectly orthodox for priests to refuse the Eucharist to public sinners. Ambrose did that to Theodosius.

No it’s not.

A priest does not know if a Catholic has been to Confession prior to presenting himself for Communion.

Mass, especially the Christmas Vigil Mass, isn’t the place for a priest to tell assistants to not receive Holy Communion.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, seeing as there are many who only go to Mass on Christmas and Easter, it wouldn’t be too hard to figure out that there are some in the congregation on those days that may need to be reminded they should not recieve the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin.

And the priest knows that the people in the pews don’t go to Mass at other parishes ?

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

OK so you uncircumcised males, line up and get circumcised as St Paul directed, before you receive Holy Communion. Pray that the knife is sharp by the time it’s your turn.

Jim

 

[James248]

**No it’s not.

A priest does not know if a Catholic has been to Confession prior to presenting himself for Communion.**

Mass, especially the Christmas Vigil Mass, isn’t the place for a priest to tell assistants to not receive Holy Communion.

Jim

I repeat: priests can refuse communion to public sinners.

Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law indicates the principal cases in which Communion may be publicly refused. The canon says, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”