Many Catholics would agree with MC's reply but surely people must realise by now that this is not the position of Pope Francis or of previous recent Popes...
Yes, IJoP, they debated because of a question raised by Pharisees who had converted to the Faith: Acts 15: 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." How sad to see that after a clear decision against their position was made (and we faithful Gentiles cry, "Amen!"), that some of these elders apostatized and were warned about by Paul who used the bluntest of language: Phil 3:2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh. Yes, the first heresy occurred as a negative response to the first Council. It has been so from the beginning. So it is important to search out and test what has actually been said. The dangerous temptation, of course, is to form judgments before the facts are known. It is especially so when the claim goes forth that Pope Francis made such a cavalier quote! To prejudge is a very difficult thing to avoid in this digital age. Lord have mercy! Holy Spirit, give us the patience and wisdom to discern aright! Safe in the Barque of Peter!
Then what is/was their position? If a Protestant comes to believe in the Real Presence, I can't imagine why they wouldn't be beating down the doors to enter the Church. If this Lutheran (mistakenly) believes that Lutherans also have the real Presence, he can just receive there. If he doesn't believe that Lutherans have the Real Presence, his path is clear.
seems were still having the jews and gentile debate and bishop against bishop....same as it always was...
This goes right against Catholic teaching. No Pope should be saying this in public or private. It might be what you want the Pope to say, but it is not what the Church teaches. Yes Jesus wants everybody to receive the Eucharist. He also wants everybody to be Catholic and in a state of grace.
I do not know if the Pope made the remark we are all talking about or not. I hope not and will give him the benefit of the doubt until/unless it comes out as proven. I do know that at the synod the issue of Protestant/Orthodox spouses of Catholics being able to receive Holy Communion was brought up and talked about. I don't think it made a big splash, but I addressed it on the closed Synod thread. It was towards the end.
Phil Lawler is a writer and editor of a well respected mainstream Catholic periodical, Catholic World Report. He is not a rad trad nor a reactionary, nor is he simply repeating erroneous reports from the MSM. The following is an excellent summary of where we're at and where it looks we're heading. https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1125 Selective compassion: the dangerous step the Pope might take By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Nov 13, 2015 Sometime soon—we know not when—Pope Francis will issue a document concluding the work of the Synod on the Family. One question looms over all others: Will the Pope endorse the Kasper proposal? Father Raymond de Souza predicts that he will. “He has steadily prepared the Church for just that,” he writes in the Catholic Herald. “It would be foolish to ignore the signs.” Throughout the course of the October discussions, Pope Francis dropped hints of his interest in the Kasper proposal, and as the meeting concluded he issued what appeared to be an angry denunciation of bishops who were not open to new ideas. More telling, Father de Souza writes, is the fact that since the Synod ended, friends of the Pontiff have been predicting that he will give the Kasper proposal his stamp of approval. Eugenio Scalfari of La Repubblica claimed that the Pope had told him as much, and although the Vatican press office quickly reminded us that Scalfari is not reliable, it seems probable that the Holy Father said something to give the Italian journalist that impression. Unlike Scalfari, Father Antonio Spadaro, the editor of Civilta Cattolica, is regarded as quite reliable. In fact the commentaries published in Civilta are reviewed by the Secretariat of State in advance of publication, so that they are perceived as accurate indications of “official” thinking at the Vatican. Father Spadaro has stopped just short of an outright declaration that the Pope will embrace the Kasper proposal, emphasizing a “new openness” to the question of pastoral care for divorced and remarried Catholics. In his analysis, Father Spadaro compares the pastoral work of the Church with the functioning of a GPS system: If one makes a mistake or encounters an unexpected problem, the GPS does not say to go back to the starting point and make the trip all over again, but proposes an alternative route. Analogously, every time we deviate through sin, God does not ask us to go back to the starting point, but reorients us toward himself by tracing a new pathway. In an insightful response that appears in Chiesa, an American theologian, Father Robert Imbelli, remarks that, yes, a GPS recalibrates directions. “But it does not change the destination. Otherwise it would lead those depending on it astray.” Father Imbelli goes on to note the irony in Father Spadaro’s imagery, because for Italians “GPS” are the initials of Giovanni Paolo Secondo-- St. John Paul II, whose teaching in Familiaris Consortio was directly opposed to the intent of the Kasper proposal. The Synod’s final statement quotes Familiaris Consortio, and Pope Francis has cited it as well. But both the Synod document and the Pope’s statements have conspicuously omitted this passage: However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Con't
Con't If Father de Souza’s unhappy prediction is accurate, and the Pope does open a path to Communion for Catholics who are divorced and remarried, informed observers believe that he will avoid a direct contradiction of his predecessor by adopting the “internal forum” solution suggested by the German-speaking bishops in their report to the Synod. The “internal forum” ordinarily refers to the confessional, and the solution offered by the German bishops was for Catholics who are divorced and remarried to meet with their confessors, discuss the circumstances of their failed marriages and new unions, and, after doing appropriate penance, return to Communion. The details of this proposal are vague—perhaps, one is tempted to say, deliberately vague. Under what circumstances would a confessor be authorized to tell penitent divorced/remarried Catholics that they might again receive the Eucharist? Would the decision be left entirely to the individual priest’s discretion? There are other practical problems with the proposal. The “internal forum” solution requires a meeting with a confessor, and anyone familiar with the normal life of the Church today knows that most Catholics rarely, if ever, find their way into a confessional. Yet at the same time, if it is theoretically possible that a divorced/remarried Catholic may have obtained a confessor’s permission to receive the Eucharist, few Catholic priests would dare to question such a person if he presented himself for Communion. So in practice, if the “internal forum” proposal is adopted, a divorced/remarried Catholic may be tempted to receive Communion—at risk to his soul—without taking any steps down a “penitential path,” because no one will question him. In this way, a nightmare scenario could easily develop. The divorced/remarried individual pretends that he has consulted with a confessor. His pastor, probably knowing that this is unlikely, nevertheless pretends that the canonical requirements have been satisfied. Everyone involved is living a lie! These difficulties arise because marriage is not just one more field in which the faithful may or may not live up to their moral obligations. Marriage is a public act. An individual either is, or is not, married. In an annulment case, canon lawyer Ed Peters reminds us, “the tribunal asks a single fundamental question: are the two people before it, who appear to be married, really married?” This is a question of fact, and from the answer to that question there flow some inescapable conclusions. During the Synod there was a great deal of talk about showing compassion for Catholics in irregular marriage, and few people would disagree that the Church should—as Pope Benedict XVI emphasized so strongly—find ways to help people in that situation. But when the question arises as to whether those people are validly married, Peters insists, “Compassion has nothing to do with it.” This is a question of fact. Marriage tribunals are set up to test facts, hearing testimony (if at all possible) from both parties. The “internal forum” proposal would encourage a priest to make a judgment after hearing just one side of what is invariably a complicated story. But could a pastor, theoretically, hear both sides of the story? Could there be some sort of “internal forum,” similar to the confessional, but different in that both partners would be involved? Here we encounter another complication. In most divorce cases, one partner does not want to be involved. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who heads the Institute for Marital Healing, has an important perspective on the matter: Over the past forty years, I have never worked with a Catholic marriage in which both spouses wanted a divorce. In the majority of marriages under stress, one spouse remains happy with the marriage, believes the conflicts can be resolved and is loyal to the sacramental bond. But wait: If one partner wants to work out the problems in the marriage rather than abandoning the marriage, shouldn’t the Church show compassion for that spouse? Shouldn’t pastoral energies be devoted to saving marriages, rather than picking up the pieces afterward? Dr. Fitzgibbons cites the disturbing results of a national survey of divorced men and women, conducted by researchers at the University of Texas, which found “the honest response that only one in three divorced spouses claimed that both they and their ex-spouses worked hard enough to try to save their marriage.” Pastors and confessors might work wonders by using the “internal forum” solution prior to marital breakdowns, helping dueling spouses recognize how they are endangering their marriages, their lives, and their souls—before they abandon a sacred commitment. And haven’t we neglected another important consideration? We have been speaking about the spouses, the partners involved in a marriage (or divorce). But a marriage creates a family, and a family includes children; they too are interested parties in any marriage case. In an excellent article in America magazine (!), several authors—all survivor-victims of the divorce wars—write that the “internal forum” proposal “would dismiss the needs of children in order to satisfy the desires of adults.” The authors of the America essay note that some public statements by Pope Francis “seem to suggest that children are harmed by the current practice of excluding their divorced and remarried parents from receiving Communion.” They continue, in plain language: “This notion is mistaken.”
Seriously - is this the best use of our time, considering "the dangerous step the Pope MIGHT take?" We will all have to stand in judgement before Almighty God and answer for our use of time and talents. All time and intellectual capacity spent guessing what the Holy Father MIGHT do is a huge waste. Instead, why not use those same resources striving to become a Saint?
Thanks Kathy. Agree with you and stand equally guilty for once again joining into this fray. No more. Peace.
There are active and contemplative nuns and there are "active " and "contemplative" laity. Some are called to spend their time defending the Faith, and some are called to a quiet life of prayer and sacrifice. (Some live both, believe it or not.) No one wants to be accused of misusing their time and talents. Phil Lawler certainly is not guilty of anything in assembling this important and informative article. Neither are those who share an exceptional summary of where we stand, such as with this article. We are in perilous times and the Faithful must know the teachings of the Church and be deeply grounded in the Faith so as to discern, and sharing articles like this is essential in that regard. For one to accuse the other of failing to follow God's call when they do not know what the others' call might be, could well be rash judgment. http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/07/greatest-vocation.html
Great...here we go again. Yes...there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, if you have full knowledge of the Catholic Church. I still don't get how you like to cause doubt and confusion. For most of us it means really little...but my complaint with you, is those that read your non-sense, might leave the church.
I've always avoided the EENS debate, but I think you've got this a bit wrong. The teaching is that there is no salvation outside the Church, unless you have invincible ignorance, not "if you have full knowledge of the Catholic Church." I don't cause doubt and confusion. That's being done by the progressives in Rome. They seem to like it, but I hate it. Not a chance. I'm defending the Faith and orthodoxy, which can only be found in the Church. But those who refuse to defend the Faith when progressives in Rome are sowing doubt and confusion, now we should definitely pray for them.
This is such a simplistic take Brian. Intellectual pride and spiritual ignorance can make a long way "defending the faith" and selling many articles. But might not build up anything. San Paul has something to say like this: 14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” I don't think we can forget that concerning the Pope, there is ALWAYS a spiritual dimension that escapes us and involves God. When we choose to ignore this and judge the Pope we are taking on our own risk.
Invincible ignorance of what...the Catholic Church. Full knowledge of the Catholic Church is spiritually sound statement. The difference is some of us understand the quote "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church". You make it arrogant and elitist but it not as cut and dry as you make it to be. All your non-sense is based on what might happen...and what makes it worse, from undisclosed experts. You have a lot in common with Aviso. Tomorrow, I start my new journey. I will try to avoid these confrontations...but you do get under my skin.
The Catholic faith as expressed in Brian's quote, "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" is the faith I was brought up in and which I accepted. As I grew older I did not come to reject it but I did come to understand it. Christianity is not a book of rules but a way of life based on LOVE. Rules are involved in that way of life but God is looking for love, not the following of rules. A large number of Catholics barely know their faith and hardly practice it whereas there are large numbers of non-Catholic Christians who follow Christ in love and faithfulness that greatly surpasses their Catholic brothers. Recent Popes have been leading Catholics to understand their faith more deeply. Sadly, some Catholics have and are resisiting this leadership.
I find a lot of the posts concerning these issues are rather like genralised emotional appeals, rahter like we hear in the Sucular World; something along the line sof , 'My country right or wrong'. I think it best if we engage in discussion of real issues and problems rather than having trumpet calls.
In this report, the Pope's words on sharing the Eucharist are more fully reported: Francis suggests Lutherans might discern taking Catholic communion individually FRANCIS EMBRACES THE CHILD WHO ASKED HIM THE FIRST QUESTION The Pope did so in a moving ecumenical visit to Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran church Sunday afternoon, during which he also called for “reconciled diversity” between the Christian denominations JOSHUA J. MCELWEE ROME Pope Francis has strikingly suggested that Lutherans married to Catholics can personally discern whether to take Communion in the Catholic church, saying it is not his role to give permission to such persons but to encourage them to listen to what God is telling them about their situations. In a moving ecumenical visit to Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran church Sunday afternoon, the pontiff also called for “reconciled diversity” between the Christian denominations and said both must ask forgiveness of each other for historic persecutions. The pope’s words about the issue of communion for Lutherans will likely attract wide attention, as Catholic teaching currently prohibits members of other Christian denominations from taking communion in the church in normal circumstances. Francis spoke about the issue during Sunday’s visit in response to a question from a Lutheran woman who said she is married to a Catholic man and that the current prohibition on Lutherans receiving communion in the Catholic church causes them sadness. “We have lived together for many years, sharing joys and pains,” the woman said. “And therefore it hurts us very much being divided in the faith and not being able to participate together at the Lord’s Supper. What can we do to reach, finally, communion on this point?” The pontiff responded with a wide-ranging reflection on the nature of Christian faith and on Jesus’ words as recorded at the last Supper, when he is said to have told his disciples: “Do this in memory of me.” “I ask myself: Is sharing the Lord’s Supper the end of a path or is it the viaticum for walking together?” said the pontiff, using a Latin term for food or provisions along the journey. “It is true that in a certain sense sharing is to say that there are not differences among us, that we have the same doctrine -- I underline the word, a word difficult to understand -- but I ask myself: Don’t we have the same Baptism?” he continued. “And if we have the same baptism, we must walk together,” he said. “You are a witness of an even profound path because it is a conjugal path, a path truly of family, of human love, and of shared faith. We have the same Baptism.” The pontiff then spoke of a friendship he had with a deceased Episcopal bishop, who every Sunday worshipped with his own faith community and also attended Catholic Mass with his wife and two children, who were Catholic. The pope said that was an example “of a way of participation in the Lord’s Supper.” “I respond to you only with a question,” Francis then told the Lutheran woman. “’What can I do with my husband, so that the Lord’s Supper accompanies me in the paths of my life?’” “It is a problem to which everyone must respond,” said the pontiff. “But a pastor friend told me: ‘We believe that the Lord is present there. He is present. You believe that the Lord is present. And what is the difference?’” “There are explanations, interpretations,” said the pope. “Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always make reference to Baptism.” “‘One faith, one baptism, one Lord,’ Paul tells us,” Francis continued. “From there, grab hold of the consequences.” “I will not ever dare to give permission to do this because it is not my competence,” he said. “One Baptism, one Lord, one faith. Speak with the Lord and go forward. I do not dare to say more.” Francis was speaking Sunday in a lengthy visit to the Lutheran church, which saw him answer questions from one child and two women, pray with the church community, and offer a homily. The pontiff focused his reflection in the homily on a portion of Matthew’s Gospel focused on the criteria Jesus will use in his final judgment. “Which will be the questions that the Lord will ask us that day: ‘Did you go to Mass? Did you make a good catechesis?’” asked the pope. “No, the questions are on the poor, because poverty is at the center of the Gospel.” “‘You, your life, have you used it for yourself or to serve?’” Francis gave an example of one of the questions. “‘To defend yourself from others with walls or to welcome them with love?’” The pontiff then asked rhetorically how Catholics and Lutherans would be judged as communities. “There were ugly times amongst us,” said Francis. “Think of the persecutions -- amongst us! With the same baptism! Think of those burned alive.” “We must ask each other forgiveness for this, for the scandal of division,” he said. “I would like, at the end, when I see the Lord … I would like to ask him that he may be the servant of unity, to help us to walk together,” said the pope. “Today, we prayed together. Let us pray together, work together for the poor, for those in need; loving them together, with true love of brothers.” Francis then imitated a Lutheran who might think differently, saying, ‘But, father, we are different because our dogmatic books say one thing and yours say another.’ “A great one of yours said one time that there is the hour of reconciled diversity,” the pontiff responded. “Let us ask today for this grace, the grace of reconciled diversity in the Lord, the servant of Yahweh, of that God who came among us to serve and not to be served.” Earlier in the visit, Francis responded to a question from a young child who asked what he likes most about being pope. “The thing that I like, sincerely, is to be a priest, to be a pastor,” responded the pontiff. “I don’t like office work. I don’t like that work. I don’t like doing protocol … but I must do it.” “Dialogue with children -- this I like,” he continued. “You are a kid and maybe you might understand me. You [kids] are concrete; you don’t make questions that live in the air.” “That’s why I like being a priest and … what I like most is to be with children, to speak with them, and to learn so much,” he said. “You learn so much. I like to be the pope with the style of a priest.” “I love so much to go to prison, but not to put me in jail!” Francis later joked, speaking of how he likes to visit prisoners. “Why speak with prisoners?” he asked. “Maybe you will understand that which I will say to you -- every time I go to a prison I ask myself: ‘Why them and not me?’ And there I feel the salvation of Jesus Christ, the love of Jesus Christ for me.” “Because it is he who has saved me,” said the pope. “I am not less of a sinner than them, but the Lord has taken me in hand. And this, I feel it.” “Being pope is being bishop, being priest, being pastor,” said Francis. “If a pope doesn’t act like a bishop, if a pope doesn’t act like a priest, doesn’t act like a pastor, he will be a very intelligent person, very important, will have much influence in society, but I think -- I think! -- that in his heart he is not happy.” http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/e...olo/francesco-francisco-francis-lutero-44692/
'Pope Francis has strikingly suggested that Lutherans married to Catholics can personally discern whether to take Communion in the Catholic church, saying it is not his role to give permission to such persons but to encourage them to listen to what God is telling them about their situations.' "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58). 1 Corinthians 11:27-30: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died.” As a Church we have held for 2,000 years that no one who does not share our believe in Transubstantiation, that this is literally the Body and Blood of Christ cannot recieve the Blessed Sacrament: “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God….They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” – Ignatius of Antioch, circa 110 AD. “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” Justin Martyr, circa 151 AD So in the first place what the Pope Francis is saying goes both against Scripture and the Traditions of the Church. In the second place it goes against Church, Canon Law: https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/intercommunion.htm Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) 1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2. 2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid. 3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned. 4. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed. 5. For the cases in parts 2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop nor the conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community. In the third and most worringly of all placePope Francis is establishing a principle of a private subjective morality over an objective norm that is profoundly unCatholic (not to say anti Catholic) What he is sayng is that if, 'I feel', 'I think' , 'I have the opinion' that something is right it trumps over any Church or other Authority. The difficulty of course with this is if you carry this extraordinary point of view throguh, If I think or feel or have the opnion that I want to go to bad with some other man or woman (for instance) may only personal conscience apparnetly being satisfied than its fine to go ahead and do it. But lastly Pope Francis is placing himself above Scripture, about the Tradtional Teachings of the Church. Above Church Law and above very basic standards of our Catholic understanding of Moral Law. MeaNing that we do as we lIke so long as we fell in our hearts it is right. THIS IS THE MOST ABOMINABLE NONSENSE. IT UNDERCUTS ALL THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST 2000 YEARS. In other words this is basic and shameful heresy of the very worse sort imaginable. I am beyond shocked.
