Hmmm…nothing bad in itself, but all this certainly leaves the door open for heretical interpretation…
Pope Francis was conveying reassurance to those who *do *suffer the fear of new things which can cause us to ignore the call of the Holy Spirit and bury our ‘talents’. We need to accept as Catholics, the work of the Holy Spirit through the office of the Pope. It is so foolish to take a stance in opposition to his goals and plans.
I’ve been reading these forums since Pope St. John Paul II was the Pope, and I never saw any conservative Catholic say that everything the Pope says is infallible. It’s simply not Catholic teaching to say that a Pope is infallible 24/7. There are certain times when a Pope is infallible, and the rest of the time it’s possible for him to be wrong. That goes for this Pope or for any of the previous Popes to include St. Peter. And I think Pope Francis is actually a lot like how St. Peter was. In general, Catholics should be in agreement with the Pope. But when we have honest concerns about something he has said I think we should charitably express our concerns. And, of course, if he comes out with a definitive statement in answer to those concerns, such as when Pope St. John Paul II issued the infallible answer to the question about females and ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, we should let the issue rest with his decision.
Only if you take a narrow view of what he was saying.
Gospel used to be said in Latin AND the vernacular. Two (name removed by moderator)uts.
LOL…I knew someone would bring something like this up.
supposedly its for a more pastoral approach. I have more and more confidence doctrine will not change. what the bishops seem open to is the idea of allowing remarried catholics to receive communion based on an assessment of personal culpability or presence of mortal sin on the soul than an assessment of the objective situation which is adultery. in a way that is still within church teaching but dangerous close to heresy. I cant read the mind of the pope but I think the idea for the synod stems for a complaint from bishops that want to bring catholics coming back to the church into the sacraments. it not about homosexuality. that was snuck in carelessly in my opinion by only one person (not the pope) but now is part of the discussion. the issue is divorced and remarried catholics who want to return to sacraments but not gay unions.
We can’t know whether or not a person is in a state of sin. We only know their objective situation about what is happening.
If a person in an irregular situation undergoes public penance (and, if we are using the divorced/remarried example often used, assume the two are living as brother/sister), then it could theoretically suffice to avoid scandal and make reception of Communion possible. Making the annulment process easier (I have no idea how that works, just have heard others say it is complicated) would be another way.
Exactly so. I don’t see the problem as one of denying or allowing communion. There never have been any communion police.
This is my personal speculation, but I doubt that it will finally manifest as elevating some internal authority alone as a resolution. It will have to have some mark of Church regarding the first marriage, but perhaps not the annulment process as we know it.
It shouldn’t be. If you folow the Church and its teachings you will never stay away from the road.
True. IF you follow the Church, but many Catholics do not.
True, but thats were that person will get judged. If i see a person speaking about the Church and its teachings it is my right to say no, no your wrong. Show them evidence. If they still go against it, then its an oh well situation.