US bishops try to calm anxiety over pope

[gilliam]

It is good that the US bishops want to show solidarity and a unified front, but it remains a fact that the global episcopate is split on the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried.

No it didn’t. I see no evidence of this. I think you are mistaken.

What the Synod showed was the bishops wanted a less cumbersome and less costly method of the annulment process. That is a completely different thing and does not affect Catholic doctrine at all.

The voting at the Synod demonstrated this, [a division on the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried]

Again, no it did not. There was no vote on giving communion to the divorced and remarried.

as well as very public discussions between various cardinals / bishops.

Only a handful of bishops even discussed such a thing in public and they had many different views.

No, the bishops are not divided on fundamental questions of doctrine…but on this very important issue of pastoral practice, there is controversy within the Church. I don’t think it helps anyone to downplay this fact.

They aren’t divided on providing communion to divorced and remarried either. They don’t want to do it and the Holy Father has shown no desire to do it either.

 

[ProVobis]

No it didn’t. I see no evidence of this. I think you are mistaken.

FWIW, our own CA poll showed almost an even split on the matter of whether the divorced and remarried should be admitted for communion. It’s not inconceivable that the bishops would be split as well. Just sayin…

 

[LongingSoul]

FWIW, our own CA poll showed almost an even split on the matter of whether the divorced and remarried should be admitted for communion. It’s not inconceivable that the bishops would be split as well. Just sayin…

The poll is as dodgy as udders on a bull. The AAPOR would have it turned into fish and chip paper in a heartbeat.

The question ‘would you accept communion for divorced and remarrieds?’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussions and the synod work. If the question had read ‘would you accept communion for divorced and remarrieds as per the parameters of theological work of the Magisterium led by the Pope’ the statistic would be a lot different and would reflect the true work of the synod on this subject. As it stands its nothing more than a (sinister) strawman.

 

[McCall1981]

No it didn’t. I see no evidence of this. I think you are mistaken.

What the Synod showed was the bishops wanted a less cumbersome and less costly method of the annulment process. That is a completely different thing and does not affect Catholic doctrine at all.

Again, no it did not. There was no vote on giving communion to the divorced and remarried.

Only a handful of bishops even discussed such a thing in public and they had many different views.

They aren’t divided on providing communion to divorced and remarried either. They don’t want to do it and the Holy Father has shown no desire to do it either.

Well I like the sound of this

Could you explain a little more of why you feel so sure?

 

[ProVobis]

The poll is as dodgy as udders on a bull.

Perhaps but I seem to recall the bishops’ votes on the paragraphs removed were in the majority but less than 2/3. The anxiety over the next vote on the matter should be understandable.

 

[McCall1981]

Perhaps but I seem to recall the bishops’ votes on the paragraphs removed were in the majority but less than 2/3. The anxiety over the next vote on the matter should be understandable.

Since they only voted on the inclusion of the paragraph, and the paragraph includes both the pro and con of this argument, I think it’s very hard to get a read on what we should make of the vote.

Add to this the fact that we also don’t know what kind of approval rate would be needed for the proposal to actually be enacted. At Vat II, for instance, even the “controversial” documents were refined until they got approval rates in the upper 90’s. In other words, they didn’t want to pass anything that had significant resistance at all.

So the question really is, how much resistance would it take for the Pope to not enact the proposal?

 

[gilliam]

FWIW, our own CA poll showed almost an even split on the matter of whether the divorced and remarried should be admitted for communion. It’s not inconceivable that the bishops would be split as well. Just sayin…

The CA poll really worth that much; we aren’t bishops.

 

[ProVobis]

Since they only voted on the inclusion of the paragraph, and the paragraph includes both the pro and con of this argument, I think it’s very hard to get a read on what we should make of the vote.

That would at least partly explain the anxiety, I would think.

But that said, I take solace with something of Vatican II.

Authoritative. Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope’s writings and addresses that is not “of divine and catholic faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. **As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope. **

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

 

[McCall1981]

That would at least partly explain the anxiety, I would think.

But that said, I take solace with something of Vatican II.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

I added this (Vat II related) after you quoted my post:

"Add to this the fact that we also don’t know what kind of approval rate would be needed for the proposal to actually be enacted. At Vat II, for instance, even the “controversial” documents were refined until they got approval rates in the upper 90’s. In other words, they didn’t want to pass anything that had significant resistance at all.

So the question really is, how much resistance would it take for the Pope to not enact the proposal?"

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I know lots of people that are deeply afraid and anxious, and I am certianly one of them.

This has been far and away the most difficult spiritual experience of my life, the heaviest cross, however you want to put it.

I will pray for you.

Having complete trust in the last 3 popes, I cannot fathom what you are going through spiritually. I don’t understand the anxiety but I pray you work through it successfully.

 

[McCall1981]

I will pray for you.

Having complete trust in the last 3 popes, I cannot fathom what you are going through spiritually. I don’t understand the anxiety but I pray you work through it successfully.

Thank you

 

[ProVobis]

I added this (Vat II related) after you quoted my post:

"Add to this the fact that we also don’t know what kind of approval rate would be needed for the proposal to actually be enacted. At Vat II, for instance, even the “controversial” documents were refined until they got approval rates in the upper 90’s. In other words, they didn’t want to pass anything that had significant resistance at all.

So the question really is, how much resistance would it take for the Pope to not enact the proposal?"

Vatican II was a most remarkable piece of work, spanning two Popes in a period of about three years. It included 16 very productive documents, and, as you noted, each had the overwhelming support of bishops present there. Goes to show what can happen when everyone speaks the same language. Interpretations and translations, however, are a different story.

 

[gilliam]

Since they only voted on the inclusion of the paragraph, and the paragraph includes both the pro and con of this argument, I think it’s very hard to get a read on what we should make of the vote.

If they wanted to endorse the idea of communion for those who divorced and remarried, they would have but there wasn’t a strong enough minority to even place such a paragraph in the document to be voted down. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble here, but such an idea isn’t going anywhere. Instead it looks like there may be an interest in trying to make those who are divorced and remarried better ministered to. That isn’t the same as giving them communion.

Add to this the fact that we also don’t know what kind of approval rate would be needed for the proposal to actually be enacted. At Vat II, for instance, even the “controversial” documents were refined until they got approval rates in the upper 90’s. In other words, they didn’t want to pass anything that had significant resistance at all.

The synod was simply a discussion. They didn’t ‘enact’ anything. They didn’t have the power to ‘enact’ anything. A synod is NOT a council.

So the question really is, how much resistance would it take for the Pope to not enact the proposal?

There is no evidence the Holy Father endorses such an idea.

 

[McCall1981]

I**f they wanted to endorse the idea of communion for those who divorced and remarried, they would have but there wasn’t a strong enough minority to even place such a paragraph in the document to be voted down. ** Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble here, but such an idea isn’t going anywhere. Instead it looks like there may be an interest in trying to make those who are divorced and remarried better ministered to. That isn’t the same as giving them communion.

The synod was simply a discussion. They didn’t ‘enact’ anything. They didn’t have the power to ‘enact’ anything. A synod is NOT a council.

There is no evidence the Holy Father endorses such an idea.

To the bold, very good point.

I know nothing could have been enacted at this Synod. I just mean I think its possible that if the proposal technically got enough votes at the next Synod, but still had a signigicant minority resistance, the Pope might not go through with it due to not having enough of a consensus.

 

[LongingSoul]

Vatican II was a most remarkable piece of work, spanning two Popes in a period of about three years. It included 16 very productive documents, and, as you noted, each had the overwhelming support of bishops present there. Goes to show what can happen when everyone speaks the same language. Interpretations and translations, however, are a different story.

Vatican II happened amidst the same sorts of turmoil as is happening now. It was actually from Vatican II that Mass in the vernacular took precedence for the Eucharist. Leading up to the council there was a real groundswell of desire for a more biblical approach to morality as opposed to a legalistic approach. My mother who is from a deeply Catholic family, said that they didn’t even own a bible when they were young as it was not encouraged to learn scripture that way. The Church had grown somewhat insular and was in danger of errors that were common to the secret fraternities that sought to destroy the Catholic Church.

Vatican II was plagued by all the same sorts of difficulties that we continue to see as the Church journeys through time. Those who want to keep the status quo and the doors closed and those who want the Church to be a slave to secular values. However, there will always be those who travel the straight path of true Catholicism endeavouring to ‘think with the Church’ while being unafraid to walk with the broken and sinners.

 

[gilliam]

To the bold, very good point.

I know nothing could have been enacted at this Synod. I just mean I think its possible that if the proposal technically got enough votes at the next Synod, but still had a signigicant minority resistance, the Pope might not go through with it due to not having enough of a consensus.

The Pope might not go through with it because he didn’t like it. The final result of the next synod will be a series of recommendations, nothing more. There is ample precedence of a pope ignoring the recommendations and even precedence of the pope creating an encyclical stating the opposite of the recommendations.

So everyone relax. There is no split coming into the Roman Catholic Church and those promoting such a thing are doing it for their own reasons (mostly financial.)

 

[PTL]

Obviously there are lots of anxiety out there;otherwise, the US bishops won’t make efforts to calm the anxiety over the Pope. The anxious people want to be faithful to the Gospel and to the Church’s teaching. Their anxiety results from the ambiguity of the Pope’s position. No one can deny there were Popes deviated from the Church’s teaching during the past history. Therefore, when the Pope gave speech against “traditionalists” at the Synod closing, and Cardinal Kasper kept on claiming Pope agrees with his suggestions, the faithful gets anxious.

Raising concern and wanting to be faithful to the the Gospel teaching is commendable. Some may not understand this anxiety, Lack of understanding is one thing, show contempt on people’s anxiety is lack of charity.

I sincerely wish there is nothing to worry about.

 

[ProVobis]

Vatican II happened amidst the same sorts of turmoil as is happening now.

Well, the one big difference as I see it was that today there is much more transparency with the goings on in the Church. Perhaps too much because blogs and the news media practically give out their interpretations before the bishops and priests get the report. OTOH, there weren’t too many in support of Humanae Vitae so perhaps people hadn’t been informed of their real chances of getting an approved ABC.

 

[McCall1981]

Cardinal George is concerned and confused as well:

“He says wonderful things,” Cardinal George said about Francis in an interview on Sunday, “but he doesn’t put them together all the time, so you’re left at times puzzling over what his intention is. What he says is clear enough, but what does he want us to do?”

Cardinal George, who is 77 and being treated for cancer, remains a voting cardinal until age 80 and says he would like to travel to Rome to see Francis: “I’d like to sit down with him and say, Holy Father, first of all, thank you for letting me retire. And could I ask you a few questions about your intentions?”

mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/us/change-urged-by-pope-francis-is-rattling-hierarchy-of-roman-catholic-church.html?_r=2&referrer=

 

[Budeux]

Cardinal George is concerned and confused as well:

“He says wonderful things,” Cardinal George said about Francis in an interview on Sunday, “but he doesn’t put them together all the time, so you’re left at times puzzling over what his intention is. What he says is clear enough, but what does he want us to do?”

Cardinal George, who is 77 and being treated for cancer, remains a voting cardinal until age 80 and says he would like to travel to Rome to see Francis: “I’d like to sit down with him and say, Holy Father, first of all, thank you for letting me retire. And could I ask you a few questions about your intentions?”

mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/us/change-urged-by-pope-francis-is-rattling-hierarchy-of-roman-catholic-church.html?_r=2&referrer=

Greetings…I think the Holy Father is using his Jesuit training and use of inductive reasoning to bring us to a point where we really start to think about our Faith. He has said on occasion that ones Faith needs to be attended to like a garden. We are all guilty of being complacent and righteous. I find his approach
gives me Hope, that we all can grow in this Church and be more charitable to each other.