So you believe he meant the opposite of what he actually said, because you think what he said was wrong. Which goes back to my original point. The problem is not that that Pope lacks clarity; its that some Catholics disagree with him.That’s not what he meant because that would go against the Magisterium of the Church.
I don’t know what else to say other than it was perfectly clear to me.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.
The comment about Cardinal Kasper was obviously meant as a joke.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.
Maybe so, but I for one want to know how the Pope actually feels about this. I know Jesus didn’t always speak in straight “yes or no” answers either, but He wasn’t as cryptic as Pope Francis is. I honestly have little to no clue as to how he feels on receiving communion at this point. The guy speaks in riddles at times.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!
See, you even have to explain it somehow, which only proves my point (not saying you’re wrong, but just pointing out the fact that people such as yourself need to clarify what he’s saying).I pray I’m making some sense.
God Bless!
No. I don’t disagree with the Pope. I believe the Holy Spirit will not allow him to teach error. The Pope has said he “is a child of the Church.”So you believe he meant the opposite of what he actually said, because you think what he said was wrong. Which goes back to my original point. The problem is not that that Pope lacks clarity; its that some Catholics disagree with him.
But why does the Pope have to teach on this topic? It is already detailed in the Catechism. The pope wasn’t informing her that the answer was “no.” She already knew that. I’m sure she already knows that the Catechism says too. He was trying to soften her heart.Had he said “no”, that would have been a definite, teaching moment. People will howl, will disagree, call him uncharitable, hard, does not understand, yadda, yadda, but he would have taught the truth with clarity. This, he did not do. Instead, he gave some vague answer that can be spun in any direction.
While I don’t agree the answer was vague, it was a simple question the answer to which cannot “be spun in any direction.”Had he said “no”, that would have been a definite, teaching moment. People will howl, will disagree, call him uncharitable, hard, does not understand, yadda, yadda, but he would have taught the truth with clarity. This, he did not do. Instead, he gave some vague answer that can be spun in any direction.
Okay. On the other hand, he wasn’t talking to a synod. He was just answering a lady’s question.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.
Of course you do. Many times, the only proper way to soften a person’s heart is with a gentle “no.” It is a scourge of western attitudes that “no” has become unacceptable, but part of being Pope is saying “no.” It can be on something as simple as this, to full-blown heresies brought by rival Patriarchs appealing to his authority. Saintly Popes throughout history have saved the Church by saying “no.” As I always say, to remind myself or my bosses when I bring a request for permission or anything else, “No is a perfectly fine answer.”But why does the Pope have to teach on this topic? It is already detailed in the Catechism. The pope wasn’t informing her that the answer was “no.” She already knew that. I’m sure she already knows that the Catechism says too. He was trying to soften her heart.
You don’t soften peoples hearts with “nos.” You soften their hearts by helping them to discover the Truth for themselves.
Excuse me… ,I am unfamiliar with the 50 years dialogue between the Lutheran and Catholic Church.Of course you do. Many times, the only proper way to soften a person’s heart is with a gentle “no.” It is a scourge of western attitudes that “no” has become unacceptable, but part of being Pope is saying “no.” It can be on something as simple as this, to full-blown heresies brought by rival Patriarchs appealing to his authority. Saintly Popes throughout history have saved the Church by saying “no.” As I always say, to remind myself or my bosses when I bring a request for permission or anything else, “No is a perfectly fine answer.”
And we can’t presume she already knows that. If the woman is Lutheran, we can’t assume she has a Catechism or has read it, online or otherwise. She asked the question, and she needed the answer. The correct answer. Which the Pope failed to give.
This is just my complaint. I don’t know.Excuse me… ,I am unfamiliar with the 50 years dialogue between the Lutheran and Catholic Church.
Wouldn t any Lutheran and Catholic in conversation know the stage this dialogue between their Churches is at ?
In other words , wasn t this the lady s a kind request for a shortcut to an answer about full unity they are.working upon ?
I am really not familiar.with the details , it just.sounded to me as if the Pope ,acknowledging that ongoing dialogue left it in the hands of those who are working on it in the Lutheran Catholic context.
Just that.
I found this. But it is very difficult for me. I really could not make out much.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html#Eucharist_
Would this I wrote be possible ?
The full question is indeed enlightening; what can they do to attain (final) communion.I just read this tranlation of the entire conversation. Reading her question and the Pope’s entire response is less confusing.
She did NOT ask if she could receive communion. She asked what Catholics and Lutherans can do to reunite in communion
zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-visit-to-lutheran-community-in-rome?utm_campaign=dailyhtml&utm_content=%5BZE151116%5D%20The%20world%20seen%20from%20Rome&utm_medium=email&utm_source=dispatch&utm_term=Image#sthash.q9xxWRHf.dpuf
" ‘One Baptism, one Lord, one faith,’ " so Paul says to us, and from there take the consequences. I would never dare to give permission to do this because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Speak with the Lord and go ahead."This is just my complaint. I don’t know.
I don’t know what this Pope is saying. At one point he says he does not dare allow “it”. What “it” is I have no idea from the context. Communion for Lutherans? Look at our common baptism and damn the consequences? Something else? Is he disagreeing with his pastor-friend and actually saying he cannot allow communion for Lutherans? How does this square with his last comment?
I cannot read what you’re wondering in his statement, and to be honest, I cannot make head or tail of what he’s saying at all. He’s all over the place when a simple sentence or two will do.
That’s my problem with this Pope’s way of talking. Just get to the point and be clear about it. Don’t end an important answer to an important question with something as useless as “I do not dare say anymore”.
That is not what he meant, as is obvious to most. This is like the thread where the Pope said Catholics should not cling to old forms of worship, and some commented that it meant he wanted to return to the Extraordinary Form. One can hear whatever they want, if they want to badly enough.No. I don’t disagree with the Pope. I believe the Holy Spirit will not allow him to teach error. The Pope has said he “is a child of the Church.”
I simply hear and read everything he says from within the Magisterium of the Church and in context. He was talking to an individual woman who knows what the Church teaches. Who knows what the Lutheran Church teaches. He told her he doesn’t have the Authority to allow her to receive communion. He told her to pray on it.
If the Pope doesn’t have the authority to tell her she can receive communion, then how can she give herself the authority to receive?
The Pope was simply giving her “homework” to ponder what he said, in the context that the answer is “no”
Read the link I posted above. The whole thing wasn’t about receiving communion. It was about the Catholic Church and Lutherns coming into communion with one another… Aka coming into communion and how to share the spirit of The Lord’s Supper when not in communionThat is not what he meant, as is obvious to most. This is like the thread where the Pope said Catholics should not cling to old forms of worship, and some commented that it meant he wanted to return to the Extraordinary Form. One can hear whatever they want, if they want to badly enough.
I will agree that communication is not be his strongest skill… He goes off on tangents and speaks in hyperbole, similar to Christ (but not as brilliantly as Christ). But I also think some of the translators leave a bit to be desired too.The full question is indeed enlightening; what can they do to attain (final) communion.
But I still can’t make head or tail of the Pope’s answer, if anything, I find it even more confusing now, given his last paragraph about his pastor friend, throwing consequences to the wind and not allowing that, and then dare saying no more. If anything, it’s even a less clear answer to the lady’s question.
This is really my issue with the Pope. It’s not that he’s not orthodox; I know he is and I would never dare accuse him of being otherwise. But I find him poor at communicating.
I shouldn’t be so angry. He’s our Pope. God forgive me, and the Lord preserve him, give him life, and make him blessed upon the land, and not give him up to the will of his foes.
“And therefore, it’s quite painful to be divided in the faith and to be unable to take part together in the Lord’s Supper. What can we do on this point to finally attain communion?” --From the link providedI just read this tranlation of the entire conversation. Reading her question and the Pope’s entire response is less confusing.
She did NOT ask if she could receive communion. She asked what Catholics and Lutherans can do to reunite in communion
zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-visit-to-lutheran-community-in-rome?utm_campaign=dailyhtml&utm_content=%5BZE151116%5D%20The%20world%20seen%20from%20Rome&utm_medium=email&utm_source=dispatch&utm_term=Image#sthash.q9xxWRHf.dpuf
Thank you for answering.This is just my complaint. I don’t know.
I don’t know what this Pope is saying. At one point he says he does not dare allow “it”. What “it” is I have no idea from the context. Communion for Lutherans? Look at our common baptism and damn the consequences? Something else? Is he disagreeing with his pastor-friend and actually saying he cannot allow communion for Lutherans? How does this square with his last comment?
I cannot read what you’re wondering in his statement, and to be honest, I cannot make head or tail of what he’s saying at all. He’s all over the place when a simple sentence or two will do.
That’s my problem with this Pope’s way of talking. Just get to the point and be clear about it. Don’t end an important answer to an important question with something as useless as “I do not dare say anymore”.