Pray, study, listen to conscience, pope says about eucharistic sharing

[LongingSoul]

I don’t know if the Holy Father was speaking Ignatian or not. But this convoluted response seems to require a great deal of study and analysis just to figure out what was being said.

A scripture teacher I used to have was a very wise and studious Marist brother theologian who would help us see context in Jesus words and actions of the gospels that would have been understood for those present in the time of Jesus. Listening to the words in the light of those aspects made all the difference. Sometimes when Jesus was speaking, it was to the whole crowd in a general way. Sometimes without the words of the gospel spelling it out, Jesus would be talking only with the disciples or privately to someone in a different capacity.

That’s what makes the difference with Pope Francis too I think. He was responding pastorally to this question, not in a general way even though we are all privy to the words. He’s made it clear that he is more of a pastor than a theologian from the beginning and he’s made it clear that the pastoral response in the context of real life is different from the natural generalised theology that supports the faith. If there was no difference we wouldn’t really need Catholic pastors. It could all be gleaned from the bible alone.

 

[clem456]

It seems to me Papa Francis demonstrates admirable and simple humility here.

He admits he does not have authority to give permission. He doesn’t. he says what he says. It is true.

He admits he is not a theologian like Cardinal Kasper. I detect a note of self-deprecating humor from this quote.

I love this Pope. He is an equal opportunity “offender”, as everyone finds something to take offense in. The Gospel should disturb everyone, if proclaimed in truth and heard in truth, cause it rips us to shreds in conformity to the crucified.

Now if we can just stop thinking he is always talking to someone else. Change and challenge are always for someone else, or so it seems.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

he’s made it clear that the pastoral response in the context of real life is different from the natural generalised theology that supports the faith. If there was no difference we wouldn’t really need Catholic pastors. It could all be gleaned from the bible alone.

That’s the whole trouble. There is no difference (= contradiction) between natural generalised theology that supports the faith and a pastoral response in the context of real life. A ‘pastoral response’ is simply theology carried out on the ground. The two compliment, not contradict, each other. The moment one has a theological problem with a pastoral practice then there is something wrong with the pastoral practice.

Theology says: Communion is the sign - and the supernatural cause - of one’s unity with the Mystical Body of Christ, and that unity must include a full union with the Church, the visible manifestation of that Mystical Body on Earth.

Pastoral practice says: excommunicates and non-catholics are excluded from Communion as you can’t be in full union with the Mystical Body and not be in full union with it at the same time.

And theology is needed to interpret the Bible too. The doctrine of the Trinity is not spelled out anywhere in the New Testament. It was several councils doing theology that clarified that teaching, and the pastoral responses following from it are pretty enormous.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s the whole trouble. There is no difference (= contradiction) between natural generalised theology that supports the faith and a pastoral response in the context of real life. A ‘pastoral response’ is simply theology carried out on the ground. The two compliment, not contradict, each other. The moment one has a theological problem with a pastoral practice then there is something wrong with the pastoral practice.

Theology says: Communion is the sign - and the supernatural cause - of one’s unity with the Mystical Body of Christ, and that unity must include a full union with the Church, the visible manifestation of that Mystical Body on Earth.

Pastoral practice says: excommunicates and non-catholics are excluded from Communion as you can’t be in full union with the Mystical Body and not be in full union with it at the same time.

And theology is needed to interpret the Bible too. The doctrine of the Trinity is not spelled out anywhere in the New Testament. It was several councils doing theology that clarified that teaching, and the pastoral responses following from it are pretty enormous.

Well the Pope is promoting focus on what unites people and what is good in their irregular situations as necessary for going forward with the new Church envisaged by the council of Vatican II. Academics can’t substitute for the power of real relationships to light the way forward and really that’s more close to the way of Jesus example. It was Jesus relationships with people that the teachings of the Church and doctrines are based on… not the other way around. Jesus was very anti that idea that man was made for the ‘doctrines’. ‘Doctrines’ were made for man.

 

[clem456]

Well the Pope is promoting focus on what unites people and what is good in their irregular situations as necessary for going forward with the new Church envisaged by the council of Vatican II. The Pope is promoting focus on what is good.

Let me see if we agree:
Irregularities, per se, are not necessarily good. For every person, failures, weaknesses, and sin are part of being human. But sin is not part of being fully human, it is not necessarily good. What is necessary in “irregular situations” is to accept the situation, and move toward Christ, not to keep the irregular situation “necessary”. What is good is to be conformed to Christ. Acceptance is a virtue, but it is not the same thing as acquiescence or capitulation.
True acceptance gives us motivation *to move *, as we see God’s call in whatever situation we are in. The acceptance of your situation is not static.

Academics can’t substitute for the power of real relationships to light the way forward and really that’s more close to the way of Jesus example. It was Jesus relationships with people that the teachings of the Church and doctrines are based on… not the other way around. Jesus was very anti that idea that man was made for the ‘doctrines’. ‘Doctrines’ were made for man.

“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28“So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Do you agree:
We serve Christ, not the sabbath. But still, there is a Sabbath. It’s a matter of who we are serving by observing it.
Do we serve ourselves by observing it?
If we do not observe it, who are we serving?
You cannot say you serve the Lord of Life, if you know the Sabbath is made for you, and you devalue the observance of it. That would be hypocrisy: “yes I know what you say Lord, and I know you were an observant person, but I claim to know you, and that’s all that matters”. That might be trouble.

If you are a Bhuddist, then it seems to me you are not a hypocrite if you do not observe. You simply do not believe. You observe some other doctrine.
For a Christian:

To whom much is given, much is expected

 

[porthos11]

The Pope may be a Jesuit and but he’s Pope.

Part of the job of being Pope is saying No.

He could simply have answered the woman’s question simply:

1. No.
2. You are always welcome in the Catholic church, and therefore share Communion.

Instead, we get whole paragraphfuls that ultimately say nothing.

Why can he not just Pope up and say “No, you can’t”?

 

[phil19034]

The Pope may be a Jesuit and but he’s Pope.

Part of the job of being Pope is saying No.

He could simply have answered the woman’s question simply:

1. No.
2. You are always welcome in the Catholic church, and therefore share Communion.

Instead, we get whole paragraphfuls that ultimately say nothing.

Why can he not just Pope up and say “No, you can’t”?

I think the answer here is simple:

1. All practicing/orthodox Catholics know the answer is “no” and understand why the answer is no.
2. Many (if not most) Protestants (and this woman) know the Church does not allow inter-communion.
3. However, many (if not most) Protestants and unformed Catholics do NOT understand WHY the Church says “no.”

The Church (especially the Laity) has done a poor job of teaching the “Whys” of the Church. We do a poor job of teaching “why the Church is against Birth Control,” “why the Church doesn’t allow inter-communion,” “why the Church doesn’t allow divorce,” “why the Church doesn’t allow abortion,” “why the Church doesn’t allow female ordinations,” etc.

Almost everyone knows the Church’s stance on these things, but many do NOT understand WHY the Church has her stance. People will not consider the “why” if they will not listen to the Church. The Pope is trying to soften hearts so people will listen.

People have been calling Pope Francis the “Pope of Mercy” … I don’t think so. I think he’s the Pope of the New Evangelization, an apostle to the unchurched.

With this said: does he make mistakes… sure. He’s human. His off the cuff remarks is why people like him. He’s not rehearsed. But that also means that he will say things that don’t always come out the way he intends them, or can be twisted.

God Bless

 

[clem456]

I think the answer here is simple:

1. All practicing/orthodox Catholics know the answer is “no” and understand why the answer is no.
2. Many (if not most) Protestants (and this woman) know the Church does not allow inter-communion.
3. **However, many (if not most) Protestants and unformed Catholics do NOT understand WHY the Church says “no.” **

The Church (especially the Laity) has done a poor job of teaching the “Whys” of the Church. We do a poor job of teaching “why the Church is against Birth Control,” “why the Church doesn’t allow inter-communion,” “why the Church doesn’t allow divorce,” “why the Church doesn’t allow abortion,” “why the Church doesn’t allow female ordinations,” etc.

Almost everyone knows the Church’s stance on these things, but many do NOT understand WHY the Church has her stance. People will not consider the “why” if they will not listen to the Church. The Pope is trying to soften hearts so people will listen.

People have been calling Pope Francis the “Pope of Mercy” … I don’t think so. I think he’s the Pope of the New Evangelization, an apostle to the unchurched.

God Bless

Bingo.
Most of us can’t articulate why these things are not allowed, let alone the good that we are called to. Behind every prohibition is a great good that leads to abundant life.

We just don’t know how to explain that.
But it’s getting better. The new priests are coming out armed withy JP2-type appeals to “the good”.

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t know if the Holy Father was speaking Ignatian or not. But his convoluted response seems to require a great deal of study and analysis just to figure out what was being said.

The pope was answering a ‘live’ question. But I think his answer to the question was clear enough.

“I ask myself, 'Is sharing the Lord’s Supper the aim of the journey or is it ‘viaticum’ [provision] for walking together?”

“A Catholic-Lutheran couple, he said, shares the same baptism and the same faith in Jesus. This baptismal bond grows…” *

“Life is greater than explanations and interpretations. Always refer to your baptism–one faith, one baptism, one Lord as St. Paul tells us–and take the consequences from that…”*

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Well the Pope is promoting focus on what unites people and what is good in their irregular situations as necessary for going forward with the new Church envisaged by the council of Vatican II. The Pope is promoting focus on what is good.

I think that what you’ve written is still very focused on the academics of the situation. Conforming to Christ is more than just about reconciling yourself to doctrine… is what I’m getting from this Pope. It’s about the living experience of Christ in our lives. Pope Francis invokes an aspect of Christ very strongly for me. What would Jesus have said to that Lutheran woman if she asked Him about her sadness at not being able to receive with her husband? You don’t imagine it would have been ‘sadly as a schismatic, you are prevented by law from approaching the Eucharist in our Church’. Jesus wouldn’t have answered in a way that reflected the divisions. That’s earthly stuff. You’d imagine that He’d have reflected the aspects of unity between people sharing the same baptism and said focus on that unity in your contemplation of this question and listen for Gods/My will in that place. The whole disunity thing must be a thorn in His side… something He wants to heal rather than keep reiterating.

Academics can’t substitute for the power of real relationships to light the way forward and really that’s more close to the way of Jesus example. It was Jesus relationships with people that the teachings of the Church and doctrines are based on… not the other way around. Jesus was very anti that idea that man was made for the ‘doctrines’. ‘Doctrines’ were made for man.

Quote:
“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28“So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Do you agree:
We serve Christ, not the sabbath. But still, there is a Sabbath. It’s a matter of who we are serving by observing it.
Do we serve ourselves by observing it?
If we do not observe it, who are we serving?
You cannot say you serve the Lord of Life, if you know the Sabbath is made for you, and you devalue the observance of it. That would be hypocrisy: “yes I know what you say Lord, and I know you were an observant person, but I claim to know you, and that’s all that matters”. That might be trouble.

If you are a Bhuddist, then it seems to me you are not a hypocrite if you do not observe. You simply do not believe. You observe some other doctrine.
For a Christian:

To whom much is given, much is expected

But for instance we changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday along the line so what some would see as an heretical ‘change’… Christ is in charge and that means He can change things without altering the immutable truths.

 

[JimG]

The pope was answering a ‘live’ question. But I think his answer to the question was clear enough.

“I ask myself, 'Is sharing the Lord’s Supper the aim of the journey or is it ‘viaticum’ [provision] for walking together?”

“A Catholic-Lutheran couple, he said, shares the same baptism and the same faith in Jesus. This baptismal bond grows…” *

“Life is greater than explanations and interpretations. Always refer to your baptism–one faith, one baptism, one Lord as St. Paul tells us–and take. the consequences from that…”* Are these quotes intended to convey clarity? I don’t know if the reply was clear enough to satisfy the person being addressed; but it was ambiguous enough to inspire this thread discussing just what he meant to convey.

 

[porthos11]

Bingo.
Most of us can’t articulate why these things are not allowed, let alone the good that we are called to. Behind every prohibition is a great good that leads to abundant life.

We just don’t know how to explain that.
But it’s getting better. The new priests are coming out armed withy JP2-type appeals to “the good”.

Well, he does. Or at least, he’s supposed to.

The Pope is supposed to be a Teacher; it’s part of his office. If he can’t do that and would be intimidated by men like Cardinal Kasper, then maybe he might not be the right man for the office.

This Pope confuses people, and that’s not a good thing. Look at threads like these, people trying to analyze, journalists and media placing a spin, and apologists trying to tell people to “calm down; the Pope is really saying…” Well why do we need all that? He needs to be clear, but from the back-and-forth on these forums and Catholic publications alone, he obviously is not.

Well no. If he needs to say something, then for the sake of the Chair of St. Pete, say something. Even if it’s no.

I don’t say or post much about this Pope, but I will now. I am frankly becoming weary of this pontificate.

 

[phil19034]

Are these quotes intended to convey clarity? I don’t know if the reply was clear enough to satisfy the person being addressed; but it was ambiguous enough to inspire this thread discussing just what he meant to convey.

And perhaps that’s The Holy Spirit’s plan

 

[TMC]

Well, he does. Or at least, he’s supposed to.

The Pope is supposed to be a Teacher; it’s part of his office. If he can’t do that and would be intimidated by men like Cardinal Kasper, then maybe he might not be the right man for the office.

This Pope confuses people, and that’s not a good thing. Look at threads like these, people trying to analyze, journalists and media placing a spin, and apologists trying to tell people to “calm down; the Pope is really saying…” Well why do we need all that? He needs to be clear, but from the back-and-forth on these forums and Catholic publications alone, he obviously is not.

Well no. If he needs to say something, then for the sake of the Chair of St. Pete, say something. Even if it’s no.

I don’t say or post much about this Pope, but I will now. I am frankly becoming weary of this pontificate.

I don’t think that what he says is confusing or unclear. The problem is that some people don’t like what he is saying.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think that what he says is confusing or unclear. The problem is that some people don’t like what he is saying.

Perhaps some might not like what he is saying, if they knew what he was saying. If he had said, “yes, you can go to communion with your husband,” or “no, it would not be right to go to communion if you are not Catholic,” there are those who would disagree either way. But apparently, nobody is quite sure what was meant, so there is nothing with which to agree or disagree.

 

[phil19034]

Well, he does. Or at least, he’s supposed to.

The Pope is supposed to be a Teacher; it’s part of his office. But a good teacher cannot teach the same way to everyone. A good teacher tailors his/her lesson to the student(s) he/she is teaching. Telling this woman “no” without giving her something to ponder and pray over would accomplish nothing. She wouldn’t learn anything new. She knew the answer was “no,” the Pope gave her something to ponder and pray over.

If he can’t do that and would be intimidated by men like Cardinal Kasper, then maybe he might not be the right man for the office. *** I would imagine that this was just a tongue-in-cheek, self-depreciating joke.***

This Pope confuses people, and that’s not a good thing. Look at threads like these, people trying to analyze, journalists and media placing a spin, and apologists trying to tell people to “calm down; the Pope is really saying…” Well why do we need all that? Who is the Pope really confusing? If we, orthodox Catholics listen to the Pope though the eyes and ears of the Church, we will hear what He is really saying. If we assume he’s talking as a Heretic, well then yes, you will be confused. If his “confusion” causes a non-Catholic or a non-practicing Catholic to read the Catechism and come/return to the Church, then where is the harm? If he’s confusing faithful Catholics (whom he isn’t talking to), then they either do not know their faith well enough, they don’t trust The Holy Spirit to protect the Church, or they are listening to the wrong people. We should all know by now not to put stock into the mainstream media regarding anything dealing with the Church or general morality.

He needs to be clear, but from the back-and-forth on these forums and Catholic publications alone, he obviously is not. ***He’s not clear because some people feel that he is a heretic and don’t hear him from within Church teaching. But if you read his words with the ears & eyes of the Church and of the Catechism, he often makes sense. ***

Well no. If he needs to say something, then for the sake of the Chair of St. Pete, say something. Even if it’s no. ***This isn’t a question that hasn’t been answered before. It’s written down in almost every single pew missal in all Churches. It’s in the Catechism. The woman knew the answer was “no.” We all know the answer is “no.” If the Pope simply said “no” to this women, it would be like answering “blue” if someone asked “what colors can the sky be?” We know the sky is blue, but many of us don’t all know why the sky is blue. Also, we don’t all know why the sky appears different colors at sunrise and sunset. So a good answers isn’t simply blue, but it’s explaining why the ski is blue. Also good teachers give homework to allow people to learn for themselves.

This is what the Pope did here. He was, in a gentle manner, explaining why the answer is “no” and giving her homework so she could learn more herself. ***

I pray I’m making some sense.

God Bless!

 

[phil19034]

Perhaps some might not like what he is saying, if they knew what he was saying. If he had said, “yes, you can go to communion with your husband,” or “no, it would not be right to go to communion if you are not Catholic,” there are those who would disagree either way. But apparently, nobody is quite sure what was meant, so there is nothing with which to agree or disagree.

The real problem here isn’t what the Pope said or didn’t say. The real issue is will we allow dissents and heretics to do what they want or will we have the courage to stop them.

If the Pope said flat out said “no” would that stop the dissent? No, they would continue to disagree with the Pope.

We orthodox, devout, formed Catholics know what the Church teaches. If we have dissents in our parishes (lay, ordained, or religious) we have a responsibility to defend the Church and the teachings of the Magisterium. We are ALL called to defend the Faith.

Calling the Pope a heretic or questioning the Pope is NOT how we defend the Faith. It undermines the Faith. In a way, we must all try to become apologists, because only then do we truly understand the teachings of the Church; which are very complex and lofty for a reason. After all, we are all called to perfection, not mediocrity.

May The Lord grant us all wisdom and understanding. Amen

God Bless!

 

[TMC]

Perhaps some might not like what he is saying, if they knew what he was saying. If he had said, “yes, you can go to communion with your husband,” or “no, it would not be right to go to communion if you are not Catholic,” there are those who would disagree either way. But apparently, nobody is quite sure what was meant, so there is nothing with which to agree or disagree.

I am quite certain that he meant what he said: “Talk to the Lord and then go forward.” The meaning is clear - pray on it and then do as you believe you should. What else could that mean?

 

[LongingSoul]

Perhaps some might not like what he is saying, if they knew what he was saying. If he had said, “yes, you can go to communion with your husband,” or “no, it would not be right to go to communion if you are not Catholic,” there are those who would disagree either way. But apparently, nobody is quite sure what was meant, so there is nothing with which to agree or disagree.

But Pope Francis has said over and over he wants synodality in the Church because that is what God wants. From his speech at the opening of the synod in October…

Pope Francis began by recalling that ever since he became Bishop of Rome, “I wanted to give value to the Synod, which constitutes one of the most precious inheritances of the last council gathering.”

Paul VI had established the synod he said, so that** "it should re-propose the image of the ecumenical council and reflect its spirit and method,” but he foresaw then that with the passage of time “it could be greatly perfected.” John Paul II too recognized that the synod “could be improved” by giving it fuller collegial responsibility, and Benedict XVI made revisions to it in the light of new Canon Law.**

Francis told the synod participants that “we must continue on this road” because today’s world demands “the strengthening of synergies in all areas of her (the Church’s) mission.”

“The way of synodality is the way that God wants for the Church of the third millennium,” Francis declared. He explained that what Jesus is asking of the church today “is all contained in the word ‘synod,’” which means “walking together—laity, pastors, the Bishop of Rome.” This is an easy concept, but it’s on that’s difficult to put it into practice, he admitted.

He recalled that the Second Vatican Council had reaffirmed that “the People of God is constituted by all the baptized” and that “the entire people cannot err in believing.” Then, in a statement that has far-reaching implications, Francis declared that “the sense of faith impedes the rigid separation between the Teaching Church and the Learning Church, because the flock possesses its own ‘sense’ to discern the new roads that the Lord reveals to the church….” He revealed that it was this conviction that led him to hold the consultations in churches worldwide before the 2014 and 2015 synods, because it’s not possible to speak about the family without talking to families.

We have to accept that he has a special mission and he isn’t going to let up till he drops.

 

[phil19034]

I am quite certain that he meant what he said: “Talk to the Lord and then go forward.” The meaning is clear - pray on it and then do as you believe you should. What else could that mean?

That’s not what he meant because that would go against the Magisterium of the Church.